I think that you are mistaken to claim that the left alone make such claims. When there was mass immigration of Europeans into North America, South America, etc in the 18th and 19th century the right thought that it was a great idea. They said that Western civilisation would benefit the indigenous population.

It's amusing that you think the causes for the fall of the Roman empire are obvious when the diversity of the causes and the range of opinions on which should be considered primary and which secondary is what makes it so fascinating.

As I wrote before it is widely agreed that excess immigration was definitely not a factor. (I would be interested to know which historian of this period has put forward this idea). The Roman Empire suffered from a constant shortage of labour. In general, this was solved through slavery, but when the shortages occurred in leadership and management this was not a solution. They, therefore, made large numbers of slaves citizens but by then it was too late.

I cannot see why you see my observations about immigration by ‘Europeans’ as absurdist just because these emigrates came in the wake of military conquest. Twas ever thus.

I have read extensively on this subject. In the late 18th century Gibbon does not identify this as a reason for the fall. Over the following 300 years historians have questioned many of his conclusions but I am not aware of any that place immigration at the centre or even the periphery.

Gibbon was not remotely liberal. Although he suggested that Christianity was the primary causation he did not hold that this was a bad thing, just that that was what happened. One of the main criticisms of Gibbon as a historian is that he was far too neutral. This is not fashionable new thinking it's an established interpretation that holds the consensus.

"It was always widely accepted that Rome disintegrated because most people in Roman were no longer Roman".

Widely accepted by whom?

The larger question that your statement raises is who was Roman and who was not. If by Roman you mean Citizens of Roma then yes Citizens were from the earliest times from diverse backgrounds, The Romans ceased to be the majority or even the controlling political force in the Roman Empire in the late 4th century BC.

I love this reason and your paragraph. England wasn’t developed then. It was still developing and those cultures had a hand in the development of the western world. England is now developed and you’re comparing hundreds of men on dinghies to the historical advancements in the western world brought about by countries ahead of us. Brilliant. Not only that but you give us this. ‘’ These invasions generally tend to be good for the invader and poor for the current inhabitants.’’ That applies to now so well done. And I really don’t think we’re struggling with knowledge and ability like we were before the ‘Romans, Dans, Saxons, Angles, Normans’ formed who we are and how we live today, and I don’t think we want or need the Islamic world to.

COYP

If your history is as good as your ability to post correctly, then don't give up your day job.

You keep quoting one source.

To be more specific about the end of Rome. The Goths moved into the empire and ultimately caused its downfall.

Initially there was a good relation with the needy Goths who had been chased out of their homelands, but eventually that trust was lost, and they became a prime factor in Rome's ultimate demise.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (11 Sep 2021 9.02pm)

He’s really not. Just quite easily shown you up.

That's your wishful thinking again.

Read the book review.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Sep 2021 8.32pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)