Mark-Antony's speech (Act III, Scene II), from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", is well-known; at least, the opening lines are:
"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is often interred with their bones;".
The translation by Henry Denison:
"Amici, Cives, Quirites, commodate mihi aliquantis per aures vestras;
adsum ut efferam Caesarem, non ut laudem.
quae male homines fecerint mortuis supersunt;
quae bene simul cum ossibus sepulcro abscondi solent;"
The first line, literally:
"Friends, Citizens, Citizens...".
There is a difference: "Quirites" applies to the Romans in normal circumstances; in times of peace. Whereas "cives" does not appear to have any limitations on its use. Nevertheless, why use both?
Why not just, "Amici, Cives..."? This lacks the rhetorical force of the three-term substantive but the concern is not for the drama, or the history, but for the Latin.
Mark-Antony's speech was given after the assassination of Caesar. The peace of Rome was already dying, in what clearly were no longer "normal circumstances". Isn't this another reason to preclude the use of "Quirites"?
If so, then, "Romani" could be deployed: this was more political than "Quirites", which would fit the burgeoning (civil-war) crisis, wouldn't it? Giving:
"Amici, Romani, Cives...",
which certainly looks better.