CharonY

True, but a big missing piece is archaeology, which wasn't really developed then (beyond graverobbing, perhaps) and Gibbons did fill some gaps with opinions (especially when talking about the eastern Roman Empire as well as how he describe the decline of Rome. IIRC, it was a rather simplified, at times moral argument (which was a big thing in the enlightenment age) and most notably there was little research on societal and economic factors, which, in modern scholarship would be some of the first things to look at when nations decline. But things like sequence of events were accurate and perhaps most importantly, it tried to provide an overview of a whole lot of things. So on the high level it was a success and a monumental work, for sure. I am reminded again of Darwin, who was basically right, but for example had no concept of genetics. And perhaps one issue regarding facts is that in order to translate facts to knowledge, some interpretation and context is necessary, which Gibbon's did, but is now superseded by having found and interpreted new facts. But also keep in mind that I am just engaging in academic quibbles here. I wouldn't tell anyone not to read Gibbon or Darwin, but I find it helpful to keep the age of the books in mind. I mean, that's a given . Edit. Oh god, I really want to have more time reading books for enjoyment (not on a bloody screen. Big heavy hardbound books.. sigh).

So, basically an important book for historians, but in my mind it occupies a bit of a similar space as Charles Darwin's On the origin of species. It is fundamentally accurate but a bit dated. Not a bad read at all, if you keep the historic context in mind (including biases and all), but for learning about the era, there are more modern historians who might want to turn to. One of the things that I found curious was lens through which he characterized the Eastern Roman Empire. A book that I was itching to read for a while but never found the time is: Kaldellis Anthony, The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium, Oxford University Press: New York, 2024. A review that piqued my interest is here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02656914241308038h There was also an interesting book that I skimmed that is a bit like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, but much more historically accurate is Kyle Harper, The Fate of Reome: Climate Disease, and the End of an Empire. It is somewhat and more a pop sci book as it doesn't really go into the nuances of historic debate and kind of just the side that best suits the narrative. But in contrast to Diamond's book it doesn't just go off the academic rails. That being said, I only read a few chapters as I was thinking about adding history of pandemics to lecture. That was early 2020...

So, Baronius' framing is a bit different to others (also in the link) and your previous usage, as you alluded to the fall of Rome. I.e. in this framework the assumption would then be that the output was high before, then dropped during the Dark Ages, before climbing again. The Issue here is that despite the well-known works within the classical Latin literature, the output is not really that high and roughly matches what we see in the time frame of the Dark Ages. The way it was explained to me is that the output is simply a function of time and how likely they survived and importantly, many of the classic Latin work survived, because they were reproduced in the middle ages. I.e. the argument then goes more towards how much survived rather than how much was produced (with monasteries and similar institutions driving maintenance). The issue, of course is that the limitation of classic Latin lit can also not be connected to being just less being produced, but just much less surviving due to time (though not sure how much one can disentangle that). The other part, was, and I only vaguely remember this, as it has been a long while I talked to my historian friend about that, was regarding the way folks described the quality of the writing vs survival. That part was rather complicated and I admit, when he pulled out graphs I might have zoned out a bit.

I think the issue is more of it being a rather powerful narrative, that also happens to be a myth that historians for a long time now try to address, as @exchemist points out. It is like the alpha wolf myth or the belief that evolution is directed towards complexity. The big issue with those intuitive narratives are that they are so powerful that the actual facts become harder to teach, because folks have to unlearn things first. And unlearning is often harder than learning, folks are really resistant to that and sometimes become more entrenched. I think a reason for that is that because in order to overwrite prior assumptions one has to understand the concepts better than the previously held beliefs. This makes it a rather arduous process that one would rather not do under most circumstances. Edit: what makes things complicated related to the "Dark ages" narrative is also that there is some decline due to strife, though not universally so. There is significant cultural continuity but also a (slow) decline in trade and other changes while certain areas (I believe agriculture) saw some technological innovation in the time period. I think a bit issue is that many folks think of history a game-like progression toward something, not dissimilar to how some folks erroneously believe evolution works. But for much of our history things just changed but were not necessarily progressing on any recognizable trajectory.

I don't really think that Musk cares much about car sales. His main goal is increasing evaluation and has rebranded his companies almost on a continuous basis. He has branded Tesla as software and/or robotic or whatever company to get his evaluations up. That being said, and I am not sure how much of that is marketing, there are analysts (and Musk) saying that the end of electric subsidies will actually weaken competition more than Tesla. The battery and solar race is, from what I understand over, as there is no way to compete with the Chinese at this point. Considering how unmoored Tesla evaluation is from actual car sales I don't really think that the policies are hurting it that much, especially as he is able to use the money he gets from the government to prop it up. There was a report of SpaceX buying close to a billion dollars in Cybertrucks and batteries from Tesla, for example. There is also a secondary game that the billionaires are playing and I think it is genuinely ideological. Thiel is a consistent example but Musk too. In that scenario a few million injection (as well as support via social media platforms) is just play money to bend society to their will. Internationally, that is. I would love to see Musk attending the AfD meetings in person and try his Hitler salute there.

I think some of earliest legal and continuous records in Germany were done in Schreinsbuecher starting around the 12th century. Individual land charter documents predate those by at least a few hundred years, but they tend to be spread out between different churches and monastries. There is the Codex Laureshamensis (now kept in Wuerzburg), a 12th century book that documents transcripts from many such localities dating back to the 7th-8th century. So even documentation of history has a history of documentation. That being said, if we consider things like administrative records, there are very old archives that have survived. The Royal Archives of Ebla are probably one of the most famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets There are many papers on this archive. A bit more distributed but perhaps a credit to Chines bureaucracy are gazeteers (difangzhi) originating from early version in the 1st century CE and have evolved to become a highly systematic system of record keeping (though the bulk of surviving records are 13th-14th century onward).

My guess would be on tinted glasses. There is a lot of local history in many places to astonishing detail. However, the vast majority doesn't make it into interesting books. But you could go and find local historians (quite a few of them are e.g. school teachers, and pastors perhaps unsurprisingly) and talk to them. Quite a few of them do publish articles or monographs, but they are often mostly hosted by local academic institutions and/or have a very limited print. They tend to be on the dry side and rarely make a broader circulation. But there is a ton of such documented knowledge out there.

I think the latter is more realistic than the former. I think some wealthy folks running for office claimed that they are less likely to be corruptible as they are already rich. Looking at Trump as just one prominent example, grifters are gonna grift. Not sure, by paying millions, Musk is reaping billions in tax payer money. The ROI looks pretty decent to me.

If you can play the rules to benefit you, then you do. This is just smart business sense. This is why you stop investing in your business after you are sufficiently rich, but invest in politicians instead.

I can pull out my German dialect, which is more to the point and probably not suitable for a public forum.

There are certain conventions folks adhered to after the fall of empires. I am pretty sure that at least partially it can be attributed to the realization that a full-on might makes right attitude, that had been so pervasive in our history, has real potential for total annihilation in the modern world. Thus, there was an incentive to find a win-win for everyone involved and for a short while concepts like liberalism, rule of law and associated concepts seemed to gain popularity until, well, now.

It's Canada Geese, eh?

Also note that in OP it was about immigrants in general. Though quite often the least liked group (e.g. asylum seekers) are picked out to represent the rest. I wonder why it is so.

So impeachment is unlikely going to happen, but even so, asylum would be unnecessary, as he would just be removed from office. The easiest case for prosecution are acts while not in office, but I am not sure whether there is material for criminal prosecution. I think the most critical cases he faced before he got re-elected where conducted during his first presidency and for that it seems he is pretty much well-protected. There is a part in the SCOTUS decision that roughly states that official acts cannot be used as evidence for unofficial/private conduct. The way I understand it, if in a private fundraiser he asks for money in exchange for, say scrapping EPA regulations, the act of scrapping thus regulations cannot be used as evidence for a quid-pro-quo. Sottomayor gave another grave example, if he decided to have someone assassinated, he could officially use US military in his official capacity and be immune. IOW, only when he does something in private and not connect it in any form or shape with his official position can he be prosecuted. But since all his grifts are based on his presidency, I am not sure what would realistically a criminal case that could be prosecuted. There may be civil liabilities that could come back once he leaves office, but given the wealth he accumulated while in office, he may not even notice that. I do think that Epstein is not going to harm him, either, given the lack of criminal prosecution on that end. Maybe some sort of exchange/discussion was planned? Maybe Witkoff and Kushner didn't want to interrupt golfing for that.... More serious question, does the C-17have more defensive capabilities than other jets which could be used for this type of travel?

I mean, the various puddings and pastries in British cuisine with their chopped... things, often surrounded by gelatinous goo... not sure whether it gets much more mysterious than that. At least in shawarma the meat has to have a consistency that makes it stackable.

According to reports Ratcliffe might have delivered warning to Moscow not to attack NATO members, it seems. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/26/cia-russia-nato-moscow-ratcliffe-01051848

This does seem like a policy decision and it is somewhat curious that in your mind it is the fault of the immigrants, who, needless to say, have no power to change policy. Also, it is not a zero-sum game. Typically, asylum seekers are paid for by the government, not by municipalities. Also note that the UK has banned asylum seekers to work while waiting for a decision (usually a 12 month frame). Assuming that asylum seekers intend to live for free is also a stereotypical claim. The overall employment rate of asylum seekers with status is 45-50%, which is lower than the general population >70%. However there are likely barriers (policy, economic or otherwise). In the US, labor participation among asylum seeker was higher than the US average (72% vs 62% in 2025) and in Canada it is likewise pretty close. IOW if the issue is indeed an economic one (which is doubtful, to be honest) then there are likely structural and policy changes to improve that. But I would argue that that asylum seekers actually play a critical role here. If they are all gone and the infrastructure remains crappy, who is left to blame? Having a group to scapegoat is a time-honored tradition to avoid accountability and you wouldn't want to lose that. After all, NHS was fixed by Brexit, right? Maybe ate a shawarma?

I still cannot get over how long it took me to realize where knight came from, especially as a German speaker. To quite some degree you can do that for most countries. And even smaller countries have distinct areas with distinct dialects and even languages. Much of nationalism are fairly recent constructs as those identities are not really that old, all things considered and even within that time period have changed markedly, as Swansont mentioned.

And traces of that can be found in mesh-up in the language as well and the sometimes seemingly random French pronunciation of words.

Whut? The only thing I remember is that folks who destroy books are usually the bad guys.

Officially yes, but the list of spoken languages are way more diverse, of course. The racist part is also apparent from the assumption that British identity is being erased if families are mixed, which of course culturally does not make any sense. Rather it is akin to the explicitly single-drop concept. Some authors (including the one I cited) extend the criticism to the concept of society writ large which assumes some kind of common-sense definition that is a) not aligned with actual societal composition and b) includes ephemeral notions that are part of a usually exclusionary vision of society. This is also reminiscent to what a lot of illiberal and/or fascists systems like to do: envision a reality based on a past that never existed. And of course evidence to the contrary such as those Are promptly ignored.

Yes, but considering that our attention span is getting so short I have little hope for that.

I have also another fear. If only digital copies exist, they can be manipulated en masse. If there are no outside preserved records, historic research as we know it would be at an end. It might take a few tokens, but rewriting history (and literature) would be in reach.

True. Also, when it comes to First Nations or other Indigenous groups the idea of native is much more complicated than white nationalists would like it to be. But that is another topic, of course.

Actually that is a moot point. SCOTUS basically made the presidency unassailable for presidential actions. So much that associated actions cannot even be investigated. There is no reason for him to seek asylum as the corruption is entirely legal. Also, as you know, if there is smoke, the only thing that happens are more tariffs, for some reason.