Love that you’ve found one book review of a book you had no idea existed until you plugged a vague search into google and think you’ve won the argument.

And yes google does take ‘just seconds’. Amazing, isn’t it?

How quickly information is found is not related to how good it is. I am sure that you know this so I wonder why you mention it. Like a premature ejaculation arriving quickly is of no great value.

As I am sure you are aware Peter Heather and the ideas that he presents in his book are ‘fashionable’ but that does not make them mainstream. He has perhaps been taken, as Hrolf says, by the zeitgeist.

I did, because it’s a subject that interests me, read his book about ten years ago and although he is erudite and well informed I was not persuaded. He is a very good historian but on this particular point, he is wrong. His views are supported by other historians but they are a minority.

Actually, the book as opposed to the review places far less emphasis on immigration than the reviewer does. Also, much of what Heather is describing is not immigration but insurrections from people who had been subjugated by the Roman Empire and were now revolting. They had not moved to that location from other areas, they were already there and the Romans had invaded.

One of the things that Gibbon and Heather both agree on is that the Goths did not cause the fall, they just took the opportunity to benefit from it.

By "if my history is as good" you mean, am I well informed about this period I would respond by saying that I am content that I am better informed than you are.

But don't worry as apparently 'just seconds' on Google can get you up to speed.

I suspect a lot more of this comes down to your biases.

You said you had read his book....which does state that unchecked immigration and invasion were a part of its fall. Anyway, once again, let's remind ourselves of what you wrote:

'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.'

So while, even my basic understanding of Roman history knew that other factors were involved...which I stated. In your commentary you went out of your way to deny that successive immigration into Roman societies and its armies over time had any affect on empiric cohesion at all.

Pure denialism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Sep 2021 9.44pm)

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

well its more accurate than calling people a racist or a paedo, or both. eh Dan ?

why not go the whole hog and accuse us of not sorting our garbage for recycling ?

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Errrr....what a load of revisionist nonsense.

Mathematics was well on its way before Islam....and Physics was an unnamed part of the natural sciences within the same study.

Nothing would have stopped its progression, outside of overtly strict religion....which by the way is what happened in Islamic countries.

Edited by Stirlingsays (11 Sep 2021 9.51pm)

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