It's a very common interpretation that the Roman Empire was the fourth kingdom.....but I'm thinking it was actually Zealot-led Israel that was that fourth kingdom. Adam Maarschalk has written a compelling argument in favor of that, here:
"Daniel 2: Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece/Macedonia – Pursuing Truth"
Daniel 2: Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece/Macedonia
I don't mind what people believe when it comes to eschatology, nor do I believe what I believe is necessarily true in every respect. A lot of what you said in your OP does make sense, .. but .. in my mind there are a few sentences staring with "but" in my statement. It also appears to me that Adam Maarshalk has come to a few of his conclusions by conjecture.
BUT I don't want to torpedo your thread, and since I'm not a Preterist, I hope you'll understand that if I bring up my "buts", it's not to torpedo your thread or your views.
So having said that, here goes:
I'm happy with Adam Maarshcalk's view that Revelation 13 & 17's beast is the same as the ten toes in Daniel 2, and the ten kings in Daniel 7 - but notice firstly that Revelation's beast:-
1. Made war with the saints and overcame them (I don't think the word "saints" refers to anyone except believers in Jesus when mentioned in the New Testament?); Rome was also making war against the saints (Christians) in those days.
2. The beast had existed at one time, but did not exist at the time John received the Revelation, and would rise out of the abyss and go to perdition.
3. Those ten kings would make war against the Lamb, and He would overcome them. In the Revelation, that beast and its false prophet would be thrown into the lake of fire.
4. That beast will destroy the harlot city called "Babylon the Great".
Big question about that - because both Paul and the Revelation only make a comparison between two cities: Paul says Jerusalem on earth is in bondage with her children, but the Jerusalem above is free. Revelation makes a thesis-antithesis comparison of two cities: Babylon the Great (the harlot), and the New Jerusalem. The Revelation calls New Jerusalem "the holy city", but Jerusalem on earth it calls "Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified". It was Rome that destroyed Jerusalem.
5. In the Revelation, the beast ""was like a leopard, and its feet like those of a bear, and its mouth like the mouth of a lion." (Rev 13:2). These are the same symbols used for those kingdoms of Babylon, Media-Persia and Greece/Macedonia in Daniel 7.
6. In Daniel 2 the beast is said to have some of the strength of the fourth kingdom, but Daniel says that the iron mixed with clay represents the fact that "they" would mix with the seed of men in this kingdom, and the kingdom would be partly strong and partly brittle - implying that though it still had the strength of the iron, it was weakened through what in our modern English we would call a "multicultural society". There would be no unity in this final kingdom with ten toes/ten kings. Jesus said that nation (ethnos) would rise up against nation (ethnos), and kingdom against kingdom.
If this beast was the Judean Jews of the 1st and 2nd century who warred against Rome, who were the ten kings? Would these Judeans (Jews) who were defeated by Rome be unified, contain the strength of Rome in it, yet be weakened (the clay) through the mixing with the seed of men?
I find a lot of "buts" when I start thinking about it.