He throws together everything, calls it "systems collapse", and ends up with something that's untestably complex. It's more a throwing up of hands in defeat than it is a useful explanation.
In contrast, Robert Drews' theory is much simpler, and therefore more testable. Even if it's too simple, that's a good thing! His theory is that there was a realization that infantry, properly organized and even with bronze weapons, beat chariotry, and as this realization spread the existing civilizations became indefensible and collapsed. Only two survived (Egypt and Assyria) because they managed to adapt in time with their own infantry.
(For some reason, Cline ignores this theory, not even mentioning it to refute it. I find this peculiar.)
He throws together everything, calls it "systems collapse", and ends up with something that's untestably complex. It's more a throwing up of hands in defeat than it is a useful explanation.
In contrast, Robert Drews' theory is much simpler, and therefore more testable. Even if it's too simple, that's a good thing! His theory is that there was a realization that infantry, properly organized and even with bronze weapons, beat chariotry, and as this realization spread the existing civilizations became indefensible and collapsed. Only two survived (Egypt and Assyria) because they managed to adapt in time with their own infantry.
(For some reason, Cline ignores this theory, not even mentioning it to refute it. I find this peculiar.)