Does anyone have a better book or volume of books to read on the rise and fall of rome that are more current and perhaps less biased than what ed gibbons wrote? Thanks 🙂
Does anyone have a better book or volume of books to read on the rise and fall of rome that are more current and perhaps less biased than what ed gibb...
Don't know but if anyone recommends Mary Beard tell them to frick off. Bump.
What's wrong with the bearded woman?
Like all "social historians," she's obsessed with the trivial details of plebeian lives, and has nothing to say about the major events of history.
I think both sides are important.
OK, but OP is concerned about the momentous events that established and destroyed Rome. The smalldoings of plebs are irrelevant to the thread.
>less biased than gibbon
Why would you want to read something that is less correct about what happened?
But if you really want an alternative cycle of books that deals with the whole of Roman history, maybe Mommsen's "History of Rome". It's not exactly contemporary, but most modern authors tend to deal only with one specific period.
>Why would you want to read something that is less correct about what happened?
What the frick do you even mean by that?
That Gibbon was correct about Christianity leading to the fall of Rome and and work which is "less biased", i.e. performs mental gymnastics to absolve Christianity of its crime, is less correct about what happened.
>That Gibbon was correct about Christianity leading to the fall of Rome
such as....
Not that anon but Gibbon did postulate there to be 4 major reason for the fall if I remember correctly, one of which was the rise of Christianity and another of which was the rampant immigration that also took place. I do agree with the other anon though in saying that at some point it just became taboo to make these claims and people started blaming other causes, which may or may not have validity, the fall of something like the Roman Empire is bound to be multifaceted, but with all that aside Gibbon is still a notable entry in the field, a number of authors struggle to condense a cursory examination of the material he wrote at length about.
Surely there's economical factors, and the inevitable situation of borders being too big to actually control?
Of course, as time went on the Romans were no longer able to ward off the barbarians. Gibbon also is critical of the spread of Islam as a contributing factor as well, and doesn't have too many nice things to say about the israelites either. Don't forget the empire split, most the decline and fall is largely predicated on the western Roman empire, in the East it continued for a considerable amount of time.
>Gibbon also is critical of the spread of Islam
lmao he sucks off Muhammad and Ali
>one of which was the rise of Christianity
I don't see how this = fall of Rome exactly.
> the rampant immigration that also took place
Armed invasion is not 'immigration' and anybody calling it that is an idiot.
>though in saying that at some point it just became taboo to make these claims and people started blaming other causes
No it hasn't. They are not taboo in any sense.
Sounds like you didn't read all 6 books. The rise of Christianity according to Gibbon supplanted the pagan Roman faith and led to a decline in civic virtue, armed invasions were a part of life but the Roman empire had adopted different citizenship requirements post Gratian, eventually Roman came to identify a number of different people, the lack of cultural homogeny also led to a decline in civil virtue. Gibbon was the recipient of harsh criticism and accused of being a pagan for his stances which do have merit on their own. If you want to chudpost can't you just stick to /misc/ where you guys get into felatio contests over who larps as a Roman the best?
>pagan Roman faith
I'll never forget reading Tacitus and having him whine about the ''pagans'', only to finally deduce that the pagans in question were Christians.
>The rise of Christianity according to Gibbon supplanted the pagan Roman faith and led to a decline in civic virtue
I don't quite see how those two even match up. Especially considering that the legislation enforcing men work in their local curate were from the reign of Diocletian, decades before Christianity was a major part of public life. Neither does the lack of enthusiasm for doing what amounts to an expensive thankless job mean that the state is somehow failing when such things don't affect the Imperial administration, army or the major cities. Especially because the main place men went to instead of their curate was the administration.
>eventually Roman came to identify a number of different people
No it didn't. Being Roman was always more than citizenship. The Isaurians had been citizens for centuries yet they were considered Barbarians, even inspiring riots in Constantinople.
>the lack of cultural homogeny also led to a decline in civil virtue
This doesn't make any sense considering that those responsible for the curate were local elites. Not military notables.
Also 'civic virtue' is a moronic buzzword. Define what you actually mean by that or don't use the term.
>Armed invasion is not 'immigration' and anybody calling it that is an idiot.
There were massive amounts of Germanics that were granted citizenship in the late era. They likely played a role in welcoming their invading brothers. I challenge anyone here to find a civilization that survives its native religion being extracted from it and it being replaced with a new religion. I have not seen one. It may not be strictly cause/effect, but the change of religion has a very close relationship with civilizational collapse. A relationship worth exploring.
I dont think a Brit from the 1800s really had any idea on the topic of christianity espeically when even to this day they are anti-papacy. If you didnt know, the papacy dates back to the first century, so dont be surprised when things get biased. Also its 200~ years old, so if anything, id be reading it as an antique rather than a modern piece of information.
A lot of modern authors just read shit like Livy and then put it in modern vernacular anyhow. Unless some new archeological dig turned up something new to report on the subject matter hasn't been current in centuries.
1700s* but yes
Which primary sources on Rome were not available 200 years ago that are available now?
Not that guy but ChatGPT says:
Papyri Discoveries: The discovery and decipherment of ancient papyri, particularly from sites like Oxyrhynchus in Egypt, have provided valuable insights into various aspects of Roman life, including administrative documents, letters, contracts, and literary texts.
Archaeological Excavations: Ongoing archaeological excavations have unearthed new artifacts, inscriptions, and documents that shed light on different aspects of Roman society, such as daily life, religious practices, and social hierarchies.
Vindolanda Tablets: These are wooden writing tablets discovered at the Roman fort of Vindolanda on Hadrian's Wall in Britain. They contain a wealth of information about military life, personal correspondence, and administrative matters in the early Roman period.
Herculaneum Scrolls: The eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD buried the cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum. While Pompeii was well-known, the decipherment of carbonized papyrus scrolls from the Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum has provided insights into ancient philosophical and literary works.
Digital Cataloging and Imaging: The advancement of digital technologies and the internet have made it possible to access and study primary sources that were previously difficult to access. Many museums, libraries, and institutions have digitized their collections, allowing researchers to study and analyze ancient manuscripts and inscriptions from around the world.
Improved Preservation Techniques: Advances in preservation techniques have allowed researchers to recover previously unreadable or badly damaged inscriptions and manuscripts, revealing new information about various aspects of Roman life.
apart from the obvious scepticism that is warranted for everything chatgpt produces, this is actually interesting. I think I remember reading about how they imaged the scrolls from Pompeji without unrolling them some while ago, modern technology sure is neat
>That Gibbon was correct about Christianity leading to the fall of Rome
Refuted by historians.
Please tell me exactly all the very good arguments by historians on why changing their entire religion, culture, and value system had no effect at all on Rome
The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History by Elton Hugh
Best recommendation so far, great book.Another one is A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284-641, by Stephen Mitchell
Read Max Weber on the subject.
>cornicen makes a wah-wah sound everytime the enemy army makes a move
>Does anyone have a better book or volume of books to read on the rise and fall of rome that are more current and perhaps less biased than what ed gibbons wrote? Thanks 🙂
How is what he wrote biased?
Don't play the fool