The answer, like every actual historical answer, is "it's complicated." When you read a dozen credible books about events in Rome during the 2nd and 3rd century, when it supposedly "declined" (even though calling something a "decline" is dubious just because it stopped expanding), then come back.
You said “during their rise”, which is very telling! Correct, during the rise of Rome, they had a stable currency.
Whether or not the Denarius was inflationary or not has almost nothing to do with why things happened in the 2,000+ years the "Romans" existed. Stop trying to force bad history.
Not “inflationary”, it was debased, those are two different things. And if I’m wrong, then way did both the Western and Eastern Empires start their decline after they started debasing their currency? You don’t know why Rome fell, yet you dismiss this outright. That’s bad academia
So, if Rome never debased its currency it would still be standing and we would all identify as Populus Romanus? If debasing their currency was the singular event that lead to it's demise, then by not doing so that should be the case. Am I understanding you correctly?
I think there would be a good chance of that, yes. The Empire finally fell in 1453, there wasn’t any natural disasters that caused it.
Welp, that's enough internet for me today bad history bitcoin (probably a bot) guy.
No way it could’ve lasted 25% longer huh? 😆 But seriously, go check out the amount of Silver in the denarius from Caesar to Romulus Augustus.