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!

If he wants to post he can post. You've already said he speaks 'bollocks' have called him an 'idiot' and have told multiple others to mind their own business. By all means hold a view but clearly you have no free pass to break forum rules, nor to dictate who says what and where. You do realise that you're under no obligation to reply to people you want to 'go away' or to stop posting. I suggest you learn to follow your own advice.

Thanks for your support.

It's water off a duck's back.
I am completely aware of what their objectives are, what strategies they will employ and their primary tactics.

Thank God someone has read something.

I agree with you that not much is applicable to contemporary situations. As you will know direct historic parallels is rarely of any great value. Also, I agree that the final fall of the Eastern Roman empire in 1453 was the event of greater significance. And the idea that the Catholic Church is a vestigial extension of the RE, well that is indeed a stretch.

Can you tell me what primary and secondary sources you have looked at?

The revisionism that is led by Peter Heather is not as revolutionary or radical as it at first appears. Essentially he agrees with the majority of the causes put forward by Gibbon but he wishes to downplay the emphasis Gibbon placed on Christianity and focus on internal insurgencies. As I have said before to interpret this as immigration is rather confusing as it was the Romans that were the migrant/invaders. From recollection, (I read it some time ago), Heather writes about the massive storage of labour in the final years of the Roman empire as a contributory factor to the collapse. This suggests that the lack of immigration was as important and an excess.

It's amusing to think that the Roman Empire was brought down by trousers. Perhaps even farcical...

I am sure that there are already academics researching the French ban on burkas.

The fact that the previous assessments proved that many were. It's a cyclical thing. The chance that none are illegal is minute surely.