I'd have to disagree hulmey, if you can be historically accurate, you should try as much as possible. "near enough" shouldn't be good enough, when, with a bit of work, you can actually get it right.
Not that I'm saying anything against this map in general, I think it's looking really nicely, but I'd also suspect qwert is just trying to help out. It seems like he has a lot of information on the time period, and I'd certainly advise listening to it rather than ignoring it just because it would create extra work.
A quick search reveals the roman empire only existed as a single entity from (44 BC – 286 AD), making a 300 AD map rather irrelevant, not to mention inaccurate, as during the years following 286AD there were many splits in the empire, a change of capitals (and constantinople is not even on this map?).
The 117AD year quoted was the year that the empire was at the height of it's power, and the largest land mass, making it in my mind, probably the best target for the map, as it would honestly include all of this territory.
So in closing, keep looking into it, justify your decisions. If you've got valid reasons for them other than "It's my map, I'll do it my way", lets hear them. If they're valid, then fantastic, but don't discard people who are just tryin to help
Or going the other end of the spectrum, to the fall of the roman empire, there's a good map in that 476 AD thread.