A smaller Roman Empire, lasts longer?

Just a quick thought, how much longer would the (western) Roman Empire last if it was smaller? If Britainia was not taken. No Illyricum or Dacia and that part of the empire stopped at the Danube. Also only part of Gaul was conquered, a line Bordeux from to Lyon. Your way of thinking please?
 
The Roman Empire saw itself as imperium sine fine - an empire without limits or borders. Even if Julius Caesar had not conquered all of Gaul, Octavian or one of the subsequent emperors would have. The Empire was a tremendous machine with basically the sole purpose of extracting taxes from its subjects, and like any slave society could only make substantial expansion through acquiring more territory. Most of the cultural and technological contributions of the Empire were a coincidental byproduct of this drive for tribute.

An Empire that stops expanding sooner doesn't have the resources to last as long, and takes the inevitable crises harder. You probably have permanent breaks by the military anarchy of the 3rd century, if not earlier.
 
Top