The criticism centered on using Gibbon as his primary source.  Gibbon&#x27;s fine to read as literature, or as a source on English thought in the 1700s, but not anything a serious historian would cite on Roman history.  That&#x27;s not a critique of PCisms, it&#x27;s a akin to criticizing a historian for uncritically citing the New Testament as reliable account of the history of Judaea in the 1st C.  It&#x27;s a massively shameful failure on the part of Ferguson as a historian.<p>He then went on to point out that Ferguson black-and-white &quot;us&quot; and &quot;them&quot; was a childish crayon drawing of reality, which is a fair point, and it&#x27;s not PC to point out someone massively simplifying.<p>He followed this up with pointing out that another source Ferguson cited, but butchered, offered observations that cut the legs out from under Ferguson.<p>He didn&#x27;t need to point out the specific details of 5th c. Rome to point out the problems in Ferguson&#x27;s article, Ferguson wasn&#x27;t even writing at a point where one could say he was wrong on the topic.