A lot of the arguments in this article seem to be based on nothing more than incredulity that a civilization could decline and then have people emulate its achievements 1000 years later. https://twitter.com/oscarcdot/status/1352029942217904128

Ancient Italian cities could lack medieval architecture either because they continued to use ancient buildings or because it sucked so much it was replaced during the renaissance.

Huh, it's almost as if people migrated or something. (There were also roman colonists in Dacia btw)

Greek had been a lingua franca in the Eastern Mediterranean since the days of Alexander, and was still one at the time the Roman Empire was divided.

This is just weird. Constantine being from the east makes him moving the capital there more plausible, not less.

In 5000 AD people will be using similar arguments to "debunk" WWI, claiming it was made up by Holy American Emperor Duterte Bolsonaro IV to justify converting the French to Mormonism.

Also, how the hell did the USA settle the West in just 100 years? Spain/Mexico were closer to it and had a 100 year head start. What happened to the natives? Are we supposed to believe that such a fertile area was populated entirely by primitive hunter gatherers?