Deleted member 1487
It seems to my, given my cursory knowledge of the history of the empire, was that once Rome became all conquering hand had to focus holding down a massive empire, it fell apart slowly. While it was still expanding/fighting with equal powers, it was still a vibrant and vital entity. When it became all there was, then it became the power to beat and they went on the defensive.
So what if Rome was not as successful and had to compete against a number of powers? Say if Carthage, Gaul, an independent Egypt (still a trading partner of course), and the Persian empire were all competition for influence throughout the mediterranean. Rome would still have Greece and the Balkans, and perhaps Asia minor, but North Africa, parts of the Middle East and Gaul/Spain were outside their influence. The border in the north was the Alps, keeping them in and their enemies out.
Would such a balance be sustainable and allow for the ancient world to survive for longer?
So what if Rome was not as successful and had to compete against a number of powers? Say if Carthage, Gaul, an independent Egypt (still a trading partner of course), and the Persian empire were all competition for influence throughout the mediterranean. Rome would still have Greece and the Balkans, and perhaps Asia minor, but North Africa, parts of the Middle East and Gaul/Spain were outside their influence. The border in the north was the Alps, keeping them in and their enemies out.
Would such a balance be sustainable and allow for the ancient world to survive for longer?