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.

I have no problem with being challenged.

In fact, I love it when people are demonstrably wrong but persist in posting out of some desperate desire to save face.

It would be false of me to claim to be a Roman expert. One module I looked at in College was the Holy Roman Empire. Quite an unusual entity, that probably has more relevance to European life today. However, I came across some of the Roman research questions whilst reading sources that weren't entirely about Rome. I came across quite a bit about the topic of what happened to the Roman Army?
Reading into it for my own amusement (bit of personal knowledge so I could at least know some Roman stuff), I came across a microcosm of the initial border and integration argument. The research seemed to indicate that much if the so-called Roman army was indeed 'Barbarian' at that time. It fell apart and later leaders tended to be Barbarian (although often claiming Roman heritage and taking Roman names). However, no one could really pinpoint an exact end to the Roman army or fully explain it. Much research has been done on the subject.
As for primary sources, I edited my friend's PhD and then book on a later Emperor. It's funny as I can't even remember the Emperor's name right now. I have the book on my phone but am not inclined to read it! Obviously, being a PhD he had extensive primary sources and many translations. I had originally read his entire literature review where he had interrogated contemporary sources. You can probably tell, as I say, I am not a Roman scholar but I'm just using my second hand knowledge as it were. I can't really give you exact references without looking. I also don't want to give my friend away - as I think his is the most extensive study of a particular emperor. You could probably find it just from what I've said. I suppose one aspect is that we are likely as much (probably far more likely) Barbarian than Roman, so in this case we're the naughty ones sacking Rome perhaps.
I also studied Early Christianity extensively but ended up an Early Modern Scholar. I've written on it all, some barely known, some not that good but the odd interesting piece.
As for the trousers and the Burkas, it's not really my point but nuance isn't as easy as one might think in posts. Clearly it's a cultural clash - in the Roman case one that seems to have not worked for Roman traditions ultimately. I doubt any would get funding for the theoretical framework I would be interested in. However, it could perhaps be framed as a diversity and gender study? Definite dollar signs there.

If we ignore them, do you think they will go away?

I really can't be bothered to respond to such dimwittery.

Their goal is to disrupt the thread by turning it into a slanging match and get it locked.

And all because they want to rewrite history that they feel threatened by.

He’s posted intelligent and evidenced replies to challenge what you have stated and you’ve thrown your toys out the pram because you don’t like being made to look a dimwit. You’ve also been rude and offensive to him.

You three stooges who follow each other around these boards aggressively backing each other up just don’t like it when you’re held to account by someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

write something intelligent there mate, surprise us all.