The argument in the facebook post appears reasoned. He points out that<p>* Ferguson knows very little about the 5th Century, by his own admission<p>* Ferguson cites Edward Gibbon, who is a poor source by modern standards. Gibbon himself felt that he his conclusions were invalid.<p>* Ferguson grossly oversimplifies his other source, because that source tries to say the exact opposite of what Ferguson concludes.<p>I feel like you skimmed the post, found some PC-like arguments, and concluded that its weak.