>>Of course, there have been some historiographical developments since Gibbon’s day. One thing he failed to consider was the agriculutural revolution that happened in the East, which lead to an explosion in wealth and population in the barbarian East, which could perhaps be likened to the economic rise of China....<<
Maybe.
The Huns were from the East and were certinaly not dependent nor involved in agriculture(farmimg).
They were barbarian raiders and expert horsemen.
The Chinese are not barbarian invaders, but I get the last point and would say at this time it is a bit of a stretch.
The raiding Nomads displaced the vast populations of the East over the border into the Roman Empire and caused the Romans huge problems as a result.
My point about the Chinese is that they are on the rise as a result in changing economic circumstances. American power, like Roman power, is undergoing a period of relative decline compared to new rising superpowers. China probably won’t be ready to challenge American pre-eminance directly for decades I should not think, but the trend is still moving that way gradually....