What would be the 'mainstream' view of Roman history if the empire had continued

The view of Roman history we have in 'mainstream' British, American and French media, from some of my observations:<br><br>Barbarian, Semitic empires like Carthage were much more culturally advanced and morally justifiable than Rome.<br><br>The single worst era of Roman history was the high republic, which was deeply imperialist.<br><br>The late republic was 'bad' because it was some kind of natural product of the high republic, and because it had a surge of immigration and because a bunch of people were disenfranchised from the political process due to a corrupt political class, leading to civil strife. The late republic and the high republic were morally equivalent to the US in the 21st century.<br><br>The early principate was 'bad' because they were still the descendants of the late republic and the high republic, and because they were a brutal, oppressive autocracy.<br><br>The later empire was much better, but only because it was more multicultural and led by people from Semitic and African regions, and that's how they brought down the empire: because they were so soft on the borders (I've seen this argument *many* times).<br><br>The fall of the western empire becomes a Gilded Age-esque ' plutocratic' crisis, except that it was about racial conflict. It's not comparable to the US today, because the US isn't as multicultural.<br><br>I think it's very obvious what historical events have influenced these attitudes. But we don't know what the Levant would look like today if the empire had continued to exist in some form.<br><br>The Byzantine empire is the closest example, but that's very different to a continued Roman empire. Even the French Empire was very different, since it was an empire of nation states rather than a continuation of the Roman state.<br><br>What do you think the prevailing view of Roman history would be today if we had a continued Roman state?