I think the distinction that the parent is making is that Rome fell in the West, but the Eastern Roman Empire lived on for quite a long time afterwards.
Bret agrees, and notes this repeatedly in that series.
Where I think he would disagree with the parent is that they seem to be implying that the fall in the West was therefore not a particularly significant event that might deserve explanation, whereas Bret would point out that cities shrank, cows shrank, mail links got bigger (more vulnerable, less material, less effort) while fewer people were armored, and on and on... Things changed for the worse for a huge number of people. That things didn't change the same for another group of people (who, in some contexts, are quite reasonably treated as part of the same larger group of people) is interesting! But it doesn't make the changes in the West unimportant or uninteresting.
Bret agrees, and notes this repeatedly in that series.
Where I think he would disagree with the parent is that they seem to be implying that the fall in the West was therefore not a particularly significant event that might deserve explanation, whereas Bret would point out that cities shrank, cows shrank, mail links got bigger (more vulnerable, less material, less effort) while fewer people were armored, and on and on... Things changed for the worse for a huge number of people. That things didn't change the same for another group of people (who, in some contexts, are quite reasonably treated as part of the same larger group of people) is interesting! But it doesn't make the changes in the West unimportant or uninteresting.