In my opinion the author didn't do a very good job of convincing me with his argument. The author made up theories that are not real theories to prove his point. The author himself states that his theories are untrue and only help to add to his theories. Some of the author's theories are just empirical data that the author interprets as he pleases to support his arguments. The author seems to have done a well-documented job, but as mentioned in this regard the research is neither valid nor insufficient to connect his main argument that the very structure of empires promotes decay and that decay in turn facilitates the progressive loss of territories. His writing style is not clear and organized, the structure of writing is imperfect, the reason is that after reading his work I have a confusion about how his interpretative research of imperial data, tracings and parables represents relevant situations of ascent and fall of empires, because one theory is normative and the other theory is descriptive. His arguments in the book were also based on his faith because the writer's theories are imperfect and incomplete. His work could be recommended to specialists in the field of empires, because the author himself is not a specialist in historical events. The specialist may be able to better understand the arguments he is making and the theories he claims he uses. The main question I would like to ask him would be how he can use empirical data to explain such descriptive theories and where is the