/lit/ - Literature

[Gibbon No.16257961]

Redpill me on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Is it really just garbage or is it good?

[Anonymous No.16257973]

>>16257961
He was wrong that Rome declined because of Christianity. It declined because of immigration and degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.16257982]

I've read the abridged penguin edition, thought it was pretty good, I'll read the unabridged someday. The prose is nice but if you know any modern scholarship on ancient Rome a lot will feel dated but still interesting.

[Gibbon No.16257984]

>>16257973
I thought it fell because of barbarian invaders and such

[Gibbon No.16257991]

>>16257982
yeah I saw this today which is what made me think about it. I saw it cover each chapter in a few pages though. Did it feel like it was skipping over some stuff to you?

[Anonymous No.16258009]

Worth reading to get a sense of how history was written but it is garbage as actual history. The laundry list of sins (blatant factual errors, bad judgements, incorrect interpretations, etc.) committed by Gibbons when he wrote this book is too huge to post here. But it is worth reading more for the sake of historiographical sense because it is one of the first modern history books ever written.

[Anonymous No.16258023]

>>16258009
that was my worry, id heard that criticism alot. I think id rather get the actual history rather than read like 3500 pages just to go "ah so thats how they wrote incorrectly about history" if you get me

[Anonymous No.16258025]

>>16257973
>Christianity increases
>degeneracy and immigration increases

[Anonymous No.16258027]

>>16257973
>He was wrong that Rome declined because of Christianity. It declined because of immigration and degeneracy.
This is such a sixth-grade take. The day that I stop seeing "degeneracy" arguments for the fall of Rome is the day that pigs fly and interest rates rise.

[Anonymous No.16258031]

>>16258023
he >>16258009 is wrong
this isn't peddled by actual historians

[Anonymous No.16258032]

>>16258023
That's perfectly fair. I wouldn't espouse reading the whole thing, in that case. But maybe reading a few chapters could be helpful to an amateur historian to get a sense of the historiography.

[Anonymous No.16258154]

anyone read the roman history that got a literatur nobel?

[Anonymous No.16258548]

>>16257991
>Did it feel like it was skipping over some stuff to you?
It did but I was expecting it to and the author provides plenty of context and information to fill in the blanks left out of the original work.

[Anonymous No.16258574]

>>16257961
The David Womersley Penguin editions of Edward Gibbon are the best annotated ones out there.

[Anonymous No.16258649]

>>16258031
Where can I read more about ur picture? shit sounds hilarious

[Anonymous No.16260089]

>>16257982
>abridged penguin edition
This is the best of the abridged editions.

[Anonymous No.16260143]

IIRC there's a nice article that places Gibbon in a broader historiographic context, but can't remember what it is.

[Anonymous No.16261330]

Read Mommsen:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10706/pg10706-images.html

[Anonymous No.16261474]

>>16257961
>Is it really just garbage
no one ever said that, liar

[Anonymous No.16262600]

Call me a plebeian but I prefer Dan Carlin.

[Anonymous No.16262604]

>>16262600
plebian

[Anonymous No.16262637]

Gibbon and Mommsen are okay writers but pretty much nothing they said is agreeable to more modern historiography
Reading the sources themselves would be better
If you want a syllabus for the era covered by gibbon I can try to make something

[Anonymous No.16263972]

>>16257961
Only byzaboos hate it

[Anonymous No.16264002]

>>16257984
>immigration
>barbarian invaders


Those barbarians were migrating into Rome anon. You're saying the same thing

[Anonymous No.16264010]

>>16263972
And Christians

[Anonymous No.16264022]

>>16257961
the history is outdated but he is pleasurable to read. gibbon was a great master of language. read it, but take everything with a grain of salt.

[Anonymous No.16264031]

>>16262637
>>16264022
Seething christcucks

[Anonymous No.16265253]

What are some good biographies of Romans?

[Anonymous No.16265285]

>>16257973
Rome declined because of declining marginal returns due to excessive complexity.
t. Tainter

[Anonymous No.16265488]

>>16258649

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/7nun0x/they_are_the_most_ignorant_people_i_have_ever/

[Anonymous No.16265522]

>>16257973
There's no correlation between the two at all, right?

[Anonymous No.16265562]

The rise of Christianity did play a small, but not insignificant, part in the decline, in that it eroded traditional Roman beliefs and values and caused conflicts between Christians and those who continued to hold onto the old pagan philosophies. These conflicts led to persecution of the Christians, until the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine, put a stop to the persecution.

Most historians believe that there is a long list of causes for the fall of the Roman Empire. The internal causes included political corruption, economic problems, and a series of leaders that — let's face it — were more interested in their personal gain than in the welfare of the common people. The external causes ranged from disease and plagues that ravaged the population, to attacks and defeats from the Germans, Huns, and various barbarian tribes that weakened the Roman military and vastly decreased the amount of territory controlled by the Empire.

By 286 AD, the Empire was a mere shell of itself, and the Emperor Diocletian split the Empire into two: East and West. The Eastern Empire would eventually become the Byzantine Empire, while the Western Empire would decline into nonexistence. By 476 AD, the remnants of Roman Empire were finally destroyed, after barbarian tribes removed the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus, from power and Roman rule over Europe was no more.

[Anonymous No.16265568]

>>16265488
>Also this picture is claiming Julius Caesar was an Emperor, classic badhistory.
Geoffrey of Monmouth corroborates his status as emperor, but then you wouldn't find that in a pop history book written in 2018. Leddit is worthkess

[Anonymous No.16265632]

>>16265562
When the Roman Empire started, there was no such religion as Christianity. In the 1st century CE, Herod executed their founder, Jesus, for treason. It took his followers a few centuries to gain enough clout to be able to win over imperial support. This began in the early 4th century with Emperor Constantine, who was actively involved in Christian policy-making.

When Constantine established a state-level religious tolerance in the Roman Empire, he took on the title of Pontiff. Although he was not necessarily a Christian himself (he wasn't baptized until he was on his deathbed), he gave Christians privileges and oversaw major Christian religious disputes. He may not have understood how the pagan cults, including those of the emperors, were at odds with the new monotheistic religion, but they were, and in time the old Roman religions lost out.

Over time, Christian church leaders became increasingly influential, eroding the emperors' powers. For example, when Bishop Ambrose (340–397 CE) threatened to withhold the sacraments, Emperor Theodosius did the penance the Bishop assigned him. Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion in 390 CE. Since Roman civic and religious life were deeply connected—priestesses controlled the fortune of Rome, prophetic books told leaders what they needed to do to win wars, and emperors were deified—Christian religious beliefs and allegiances conflicted with the working of empire.

[Anonymous No.16265767]

>>16265285
Did the decline make it more complex and the increasing complexity increase the decline?
What margin is this? Time? The increase of what gave no returns? Why didn't this prompt decrease unto stability?

[Anonymous No.16265927]

>>16265562
>let's face it

This little parenthetical side makes me laugh. We're speaking with 2000 years of hindsight. There isn't anything that we haven't been able/willing to face before.

>>16265632
>CE
I still hate the move from BC/AD to BCE/CE.

[Anonymous No.16265955]

>>16258025
I understand everything in this meme except for the Tollhouse cookie sandwich. Can someone explain what it means?

[Anonymous No.16266529]

>>16265562
I too just read a pop history book

[Anonymous No.16266635]

>>16257973
Man I wonder if changing to a religion that welcomes everybody could have caused that????

[Anonymous No.16266644]

>>16258031
Wait as in the history is wrong? Because that's what hes saying.

[Anonymous No.16266697]

>>16260089
yes anon I'm certain you've read that 1000 page abridgement, as well as the modern library abridgement, as well as the unabridged version

[Anonymous No.16266757]

>>16257973
>degeneracy
Describe the degeneracy, much is made of this but it doesn’t seem like Rome at that time was especially degenerate.
Some of the time at its height Rome was ruled by a faggot who loved boipucci so much he deified it.
>immigration
This was a far more significant factor as immigrants who did not feel culturally Roman took up land and power in the empire, and Christianity destabilising roman identity didn’t help this, though I agree that Gibbon takes his criticism of Christianity too far.
>>16265285
This is the greatest factor but people don’t want to acknowledge it because it’s not as cool as the others, it’s pretty depressing.

[Anonymous No.16266783]

>>16265955
The toll houses are relatively outdated beliefs on hell within Orthodox Christianity relying on a type of gospel that is very rarely used as biblical "truth"

[Anonymous No.16266864]

>>16266757
>This was a far more significant factor as immigrants who did not feel culturally Roman took up land and power in the empire
Not him but this isn't true, at least among the nobles of the Germanic peoples. The Franks, Vandals, Goths and other served extensively as foederati and often took posts within the Roman military. By the 5th century, with the exception of the Franks, they were all Christian, if Arians. Culturally the German nobles admired Rome. Odoacer worked with the Senate and adopted Latin titles.

The influx of barbarians is not as much to blame as the constant state of infighting and civil war that existed in the Empire since the crisis of the 3rd century.

[Anonymous No.16266908]

>>16265285
I'm no scholar but I'm pretty sure that involves Syrian immigrants into Rome.

[Anonymous No.16266946]

>>16262637
>but pretty much nothing they said is agreeable to more modern historiography
So, what is?
What do you recommend?

[Anonymous No.16267818]

>>16266697
I've read two abridged versions, I haven't read the whole unabridged yet, but I did read the first volume which I heard was the best one.