I have read Heather's book. I think that you will find when you have read it that it does not say what you want it to say.

There will always be different interpretations of history. I think that you know and understand this as it is clear that you are clever and able to access information. I think, however, that you are uncomfortable with ideas that don't fit with your worldview.

And of course, you have no bias whatsoever.

When you compared previous invasions and migrations to Britain with today's mass immigration, I stopped taking you seriously.

Bias suggests that I am unfairly against something.
I think what you mean is that we don't agree.

I care little if you take me seriously, beyond recognising that refusal to take someone seriously is a common position to take when people feel challenged. I understand that you feel uncomfortable not being right. That to be frank is your problem. I expect posting here and having Sterling pat you on the back helps.

early Rome was great because it inducted immigrants and romanized them. Roman citizens were hardworking, motivated and ruthless.

Late Rome was weak because immigrants refused to learn the lingo, worship the same gods and refused to pay their taxes. The newcomers also had a parallel legal system ( Courts ), and allegiance to institutions beyond Rome. They had a dislike for the Roman military and undermined it at every turn. Soon afterwards the currency lost its value and hence the power to fight wars diminished.

Roman citizens were lazy and preferred to pay somebody else to fight on their behalf.

it all sounds just like the UK. 1800 versus today.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

No. He stated something as fact that is in fact false.
And no, I did not launch 'profanities' at him.

Mind your own business.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (12 Sep 2021 11.06am)

This would be amusing if it were not so sad. A three-paragraph (and I am being generous here) synopsis of the Wikipedia page on the Roman Empire does not convince anyone that you know the first thing about the subject. The idea that this banal idiotic simplification of 1000 years of history has any value is absurd. Comparing it to contemporary geopolitical situations is ludicrous.

Wikipedia is a bastion of the lazy.

Let's be clear, I am not your mate.

Just as your naive comparisons between Britain today and the fall of the Roman Empire tells me all I need to know about you.

I can see that being challenged makes you uncomfortable. I shall, therefore, persevere when time allows.

There is no right or wrong here just different understandings of the same facts. You have confessed fact and inference, it’s incredibly common.

The cognitive bias that you display in all your posts would indicate that you are not as clever as you believe yourself to be. There is though amongst the hubris some evidence of self-awareness, therefore, you present a ‘challenge me’ persona in the hope that that will scare people off. The logic being that once others know that you enjoy it they will go away and you can claim you won the argument. Apart from everything else, this is very tiresome. No doubt you will have created this carapace for your own needs and it keeps you warm at night.

And now you are on about truth because you feel that one historian’s interpretation of events better suits your argument than the many others that present counterarguments. Based on what, a book review? Come on that’s very weak, and you know it.

OK you want to be fair and academic: what happened to the Roman Army for example?
What happened to the Roman Citizen?

I've looked at several Primary and Secondary sources on the subject. I will admit it's not my primary subject area - as I'm a historian rather than a Classicist or Roman Scholar.

What my issue with this would be is twofold: firstly, the current revisionism. I'm left in little doubt that it is going on. I don't see how it overrides primary sources, yet still goes on all of the time. It is pointless when just done to please current sensibilities, which I believe is exactly why it was done.

Secondly, I don't think it is fully applicable to the situation today. In some ways The Roman Empire existed well past the events spoken about here. What about Constantinople and the Orthodox Church? These studies are all Western centric, making out Rome was the power base. Frankly, Constantinople was a greater city later and the loss of it, in mediaeval times, was felt throughout the world. Much different to the fall of Rome - where usually all the rich had fled to Ravenna anyway.
An argument could even be made that the Roman Empire still almost exists with The Catholic Church - although I would find that a bit of a stretch.

I liked the primary sources where there were constant laws and edicts banning the wearing of trousers (A Barbarian trait), banning facial hair etc. The reason: all were becoming all too common in Rome. A sign of how now the Romans were failing to integrate the Barbarians - perhaps even taking these traits on themselves in some cases. Of course, the rich stuck to the Togas and shaving. But quite revealing all the same.
An interesting parallel would be to compare that and the ban on burkas, for example. But God forbid any current academic research that.

Edited by ASCPFC (12 Sep 2021 5.06pm)

Red and Blue Army!