I see a lot of praise for Spengler and his work. Some might say things like "he is a great writer and has value but is not taken seriously". What was he wrong about?
It seems generally historians today are quite sceptical of his method, and of "macrohistories" or historical "metanarratives" in general. This is discussed in more depth by u/Bodark43 in this thread and by u/AncientHistory and u/depanneur (thanks also to u/scarlet_sage for having linked this before) here.
I should also "ping" u/AidenMetallist who asked another question about Spengler a few months ago but never got an answer