Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[RedRalphWiggum]

I have a sudden urge to find out more about the collapse of the Roman Empire. Is Gibbon's book worth a read, considering my moderate intelligence and limited comprehension skills? It seems like it may be aimed at a much more scholarly audience than me.

If not, any other recommendation on same subject?

 

[Amallric]

Id' say avoid it. It's a very important book but you have to replace what Gibbon says in the context. If you just want a book about the end of the Roman empire you should try Framing the Early Middle Ages by Chris Wickam. It's thick, but not as much as Gibbon anyways.

 

[soda7777777]

Id' say avoid it. It's a very important book but you have to replace what Gibbon says in the context. If you just want a book about the end of the Roman empire you should try Framing the Early Middle Ages by Chris Wickam. It's thick, but not as much as Gibbon anyways.

Gibbon's analysis has also been called into question with modern archaeology and such...

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I have a sudden urge to find out more about the collapse of the Roman Empire. Is Gibbon's book worth a read, considering my moderate intelligence and limited comprehension skills? It seems like it may be aimed at a much more scholarly audience than me.

Scholarly? I knew an old farmer from Australia who only read one book in his life. And that was Gibbon. All the volumes. From beginning to end.

It's just one of those things you need to do.

 

[Hibernian]

RRW, you might want to take a look at this Yale lecture course up on YouTube: The Early Middle Ages, 284--1000 with Paul Freedman. Although it is mostly about what happened after the fall of Rome (which is a somewhat neglected area I think). He only specifically deals with the fall of the Roman empire a bit in the first few lectures though.

[video=youtube;ZC8JcWVRFp8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8JcWVRFp8&index=1&list=PL77A337915A76F660[/video]

 

[Henry IX]

Those lectures are good.

Gibbon's text is largely superseded by more modern and readable texts. Gibbon's original must be read if your are interested in how the Roman empire has been understood in the past, but is considered to be incorrect in large sections by modern historians. I would not recomend it as a primer on the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire.

 

[joak]

Gibbon's text is largely superseded by more modern and readable texts.

More readable? Admittedly to date I've only picked up an abridged version (it stopped at 408 or so) but Gibbon's writing is just a joy. Clear descriptions with sly humor, wit, sarcasm and nice turns of phrase.

These days serious historians are required to discuss sources and uncertainties, which makes for better history in many ways but it's rare to find something so enjoyable on its own turns.

 

[Jorlaan]

The Fall of the West by Adrian Goldsworthy was a pretty decent book I thought. I found it a little dry but it has a ton of what I think is decent information.

 

[Calad]

Gibbons book is a classic, so if you have time and intrest you can read it. However it is a bit outdated but so will our books be as well!

 

[Sarmatia1871]

It's great if you want to learn about 18th century ideas of history and civilization written in a florid literary style.

If you actually want to know about Roman history, find something more recent...

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Cheers everyone (especially Hibernian). Any specific recommendations?

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

If you actually want to know about Roman history, find something more recent...

I think the Rome he wants is ancient, not recent.

There aren't really any new facts since. Gibbon did his homework. Quite meticulously. His language and interpretation may not be sexy anymore, but he's got all his facts right. You won't find anything actually wrong or mistaken. You can certainly learn from it.

But it certainly won't do if you want to learn about 21st. century ideas about history and civilization written in a dull academic style.

 

[Kovax]

On the contrary, a lot of Gibbon's work was brought into question in the early 20th Century by several writers (Hans Delbruck's "History of Warfare", for instance), and later writers have since delved into several of the issues and reached different conclusions. Not all of the criticisms are necessarily valid, but some of them are pretty convincing, or at least no less plausible than Gibbon. Gibbon could only rely on the "original sources" he had to work with, some of which were either in error or else intentionally misleading to protect the guilty (how much faith do you put in an official historian who's being paid by the person he's writing about?). I'd say Gibbon is a good enough "primer" if you go into it with the understanding that it's not always completely accurate, because MOST of it is.

 

[Yakman]

Gibbon is a great writer and he tells his story in a wonderful style. I don't agree with his central thesis that the rise of Christianity weakened the Empire, but whatever.

The books are LONG. Lots of reading. If you have the time to commit, they are probably worth it, but there's plenty of shorter books that do a great job discussing the period.

 

[Arilou]

I think the Rome he wants is ancient, not recent.

There aren't really any new facts since. Gibbon did his homework. Quite meticulously. His language and interpretation may not be sexy anymore, but he's got all his facts right. You won't find anything actually wrong or mistaken. You can certainly learn from it.

But it certainly won't do if you want to learn about 21st. century ideas about history and civilization written in a dull academic style.

Err, yes?

We have a ton more numismatic, archeological, etc. evidence than Gibbon did.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

We have a ton more numismatic, archeological, etc. evidence than Gibbon did.

I had documentary records more in mind.

Numismatic & archaelogical evidence add details, but don't do very much speaking. And can be a little distracting. I have seen more inane theories raised on them than I've seen them serving as useful additions or changes to knowledge. But academics need jobs.

Gibbon is far from the "last word" on the matter. But even though everybody and their dog has assaulted it with ferocity since the 18th C., it has held up remarkably well. Other scholars may have different interpretations of the facts, but the facts haven't changed.

In fact, I could say that about several monumental 19th C. histories. Grote, Mommsen, Gregorovius, Hodgkin, etc. They haven't really aged badly, their prose is excellent and are still much better reads than much of what the moderns put out. Can't say that for all. Some are quite flawed and skippable. But I find it surprising how several are still not improved upon in spite of a century of modern academic industry and "numismatic and archaeological" evidence. Some areas more than others, of course.

I guess it pays to be the "first" to write comprehensively about something. Everybody struggles to get out from under you shadow. And if your write properly, posterity is your bitch forever.

 

[Amallric]

Mommsen is a bit different from people like Gibbon because he actually used archeological data to a large extent and was the first to do so. But even then he is full of arguably insignificant but numerous errors and wild XIXth interpretations. You have to take him with a grain of salt and therefore he is not the best choice for an introductory work about a subject. (And there's of course the little detail that in order to really understand all of his constant references to obscure Roman traditions and events you basically need to have read some basic corpus of Roman literature first, which was included in every school curriculum back then, but is much less known today) There is one thing in which XIXth century histories are clearly superior: style. But as for useful information I am less sure. And we are speaking about a few very best works; "much" of XIXth histories were very, very bad.

 

[Swamp Rat]

There aren't really any new facts since. Gibbon did his homework.

Of course there are. Archaeology was in its infancy at the time of Gibbon, and has seen an immense development in the last century. And despite the rather impressive literary legacy, most of our knowledge of the ancient world does come from archaeology, not from literary sources.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Of course there are. Archaeology was in its infancy at the time of Gibbon, and has seen an immense development in the last century. And despite the rather impressive literary legacy, most of our knowledge of the ancient world does come from archaeology, not from literary sources.

"Most"? Ha! Well, if you're talking about deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs, maybe. Otherwise, not even close.

Best archaeology has done is confirm stories that were already written - indeed, they usually follow the stories rather than the other way around. Otherwise they're as mystified as ever. Overall, contribution is quite negligible.

 

[Arilou]

"Most"? Ha! Well, if you're talking about deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphs, maybe. Otherwise, not even close.

Best archaeology has done is confirm stories that were already written - indeed, they usually follow the stories rather than the other way around. Otherwise they're as mystified as ever. Overall, contribution is quite negligible.

I seem to recall you being one of the big proponents of archeological evidence when it comes to eg. estimating the population of Rome