would the roman empire have lasted longer if diocletian never

No

And considering the Roman Empire lasted for another thousand years, I'd say Diocletian did a pretty good job.

>>1804277
>lasted 1100 more years because of the split
>could it have lasted longer united

it may have been unintentional, but the splitting the Empire was akin to removing a parasite for the Eastern Half, which had the wealth of Egypt, Greece, and the Levant be used to garrison and develop the comparatively rural Gaul, Iberia and Britannia.

The Western Empire's collapse was exacerbated by the loss of the eastern provinces, with only Italia and North Africa being real money-makers in Western possession having to defend the borders at the Rhine and Danube.

While the split doomed the West, it was a godsend for the East, which was now able to use the richest provinces of the Empire to defend itself against Persia, the only real threat in the area until the rise of Islam.

File: 1447032095138.jpg (69KB, 685x842px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 685x842px

>>1804290
>Eastern
>Roman
>Empire

>>1804610
>Butthurt
>Western
>Scholars

>>1804464
>only Italia and North Africa being real money-makers in Western possession
You're kidding, right? Italia was fucked due to agricultural lands degenerating from overuse. Latium was a black hole that sucked in food from the newer, fresher provinces.

>>1804744
It doesn't work that way, my Turko-Greek friend.