Ecclesiastes had his opinion, to be sure.
Could a brilliant emperor of the 100s restored the Republic?
Probably he could have restored a republic, but it would have had to have greater suffrage.
Could a consul of the 100s BC have restored the monarchy? Probably not.
I don't think these things are like a reversible chemical reaction. People definitely prefer republicanism over monarchy, and democracy over republicanism. Once people get a taste for power, it is very difficult to take away power and privilege from a large group of people. But the converse is not true. A particular powerful ruler willing to sacrifice power CAN give it up - nothing stops him but himeslf.
Individual men only very rarely do that, but some do. George Washington comes to mind (Buonaparte's sneering astonishment "They want me to be Washington" is more typical). On the other hand, bodies of men don't just give up their liberties.
In some epochs they do prefer republican system. Especially when their is a large, affluent and independent (family farming, small business) middle class. (democracy undermines republicanism and does not last long)
When people are less secure and when there is a significant stratification of wealth they might like king more.
Republic requires certain discipline, coldness and formality (rule of law) and distance between people.
Monarchy is more personal and family like. I would think that monarchy is more fitting to the human nature and emotions and that is why in most of the places and times the monarchies prevailed.
(BTW, When people unite around the leader like GWB and get offended when he is criticized or denied loyalty it is a monarchical sentiment.)