There is no question about the superabundance of eager prophecy popularizers in our day who jump at the "obvious" opportunity to make Revelation relevant today by choosing the second option. The difficulty with this view, even if one is not struck with the artificiality of the counting technique, is that martyrdoms can be definitely placed with the reign of Vespasian,  and the relative calm of his reign (which is out of line with the tumultuous picture in Revelation) was not marked by his pressing of claims to deity or by his persecuting of the church - both of which characterize the beast in Revelation 13. At any rate, even though I do not favor the preceding two specific interpretations of the internal evidence in Revelation, the suggestions of Galba's or Vespasian's reigns for the date of Revelation would fall within that general period which we will call "the early date" for the Book's composition.
But the question is one of historical warrant and fact, not popular imagination. The disease of exegetical diplopia alone can account for such needless duplication in the face of such simple, clear-cut internal evidence given by the writer to help date and identify the prophecy and its subjects. It is quite evident from this example that one's understanding of the historical setting of Revelation - in particular, the date of its composition - will affect in one way or another the interpretation of the book (in contrast to liberal critics) have differed greatly. Revelation is the interpretation of a symbol (and thus not dating for Revelation would together recognize that by no stretch of the imagination could Domitian be reckoned the sixth emperor of Rome, without resorting to artificial and arbitrary starting points and methods of counting (dictated by a preconceived end point).
Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view.
Revelation was written when Christians were entering a time of persecution.
The work reflects a lot of apocalyptic reading behind it c.If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. The correct date for the writing of Revelation lies somewhere between the extremes of Claudius and Trajan.If, however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions. An interpreter who is committed to the unerring authority of God's word and to the reality of predictive prophecy must ask whether John was speaking in Revelation of the ancient city of Jerusalem, the Herodian temple, and the Roman Empire of the Caesars, 70 A. Throughout the history of the church only two general views regarding the date of Revelation have been credible and consistently forwarded.The interpretations based on the acceptance of the late date as correct usually place the events recorded in the book of Revelation in the still future and thus they consider the prophecies in Revelation as unfulfilled.Rather important for the acceptance of the late date (approx.