Ihave a lot assignment for this break

The historical context is that Rome destroyed itself.

Explanation:

From this document we can see that the author seems to think that no other group of people, especially not culturally inferior one, was able to take down Rome, but instead it was Rome itself that was the cause of this collapse. This standpoint is as controversial as the other one, as both have pros and cons when it comes to their stances.

Most probably, the cause for the fall of the Roman Empire were both, not just one of this causes. In the same time while the Roman Empire started to face internal difficulties it was not given time to recover but instead it was further damaged by the barbaric hordes of the Avars, Huns, Vandlas, Goths and others.

What the author states though that Rome could not have been defeated by any other people that are culturally, economically, and politically inferior to them is probably not on spot. A good example for this are the Huns who managed to defeat the Roman Legions and entered the lowlands of northern Italy. From still unknown reasons they stopped and returned back though the chances were that they will mange to invade Italy and conquer Rome, but it seemed like they didn't wanted too deal with it.