>muh Byzantine collection of despotates with a hyper-inefficient and corrupt bureaucratic system that was at the behest of both the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Venetian Doge was THE real successor of Rome
I think you're the 14 year old here
not great, Gibbon is very focused on how changes in Roman culture effected the course of their history but doesn't make a convincing case for his thesis. he relies on a relativly small number of sources compared to more modern takes on the subject and never examines them critically, always seemingly taking them at face value. not bad but more interesting for how it shaped late 18th and 19th century perceptions of rome than for learning about rome itself
a truely excellent book that more people should read
Terrible. It was good 200 years ago, but as a historian, I cannot recommend it as learning material.
Alright, what other book would you recommend?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gibbon's book is quite nice and everybody should try to read it at some point if they're interested in history, particularly Byzantine history. But it starts later than you want. I would recommend J.B. Bury's History of the Roman Empire if you're looking for a one-volume introduction to the Principate. If you want the Republic, I don't know a good book in particular. I read Mommsen (which is four or five volumes) but it's old, and even more dense and challenging than Bury's book on the Principate by modern standards. For earliest Roman history I can definitely recommend Forsyth's Critical History and Cornell's book (forget the name). Forsyth is better if you have autism and enjoy the really, really nitty gritty details of things.
I really doubt anyone in this thread has read Gibbon, especially the doubters. There are certain books on IQfy about which everybody knows that one soundbite you're supposed to say. "The Prince is satire," "Gibbon is outdated," etc. Undergrad history majors are particularly guilty of swinging their dicks around and telling people to read the Cambridge Medieval History instead of reading Pirenne or Huizinga first, for some reason.
Look up Garrett gayan's lectures on Rome (the full series he did on Rome as a whole, he has some smaller topical ones too). They're with The Teaching Company, now called The Great Courses. Easily pirated or gotten from the library. If you don't mind video or audio lectures they are a comfy way to get an overall view of Roman history.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Look up Garrett gayan's lectures on Rome
Been searching around. Any idea where I could pirate it?
Basically wothless outside of narrative. Gibbon likes to put his exeedingly moronic opinions in it and just gets things wrong often. There's muh prose but if you're reading history for the prose you're doing it for the wrong reason
Can someone tell me what the actual problems with this book are? So far I have only heard that he didn't see Byzantium as Roman (which it wasn't) and that the fall of Rome was actually caused by military losses, not Christianity (but which lead to those military losses).
i dont get how a history book can be outdated. the shit happened 2000 years ago. it isn't changing day to day. a book written 40 years ago versus now is almost nothing in terms of timespan.
But that's the thing with history, it's a (re)construction of the past, a subjective look at events that have transpired based on sources.
However there is always a huge lacune/absence in general, even more recent subjects can suffer from negligence if they are not properly archived.
Imagine this, but add christ-cuckery and decay, and that archeologists haven't even scratched the surface of Ancient Rome, in modern day Rome.
The biggest fear of any developer is stumbling upon the ancient city, and having to delay the process so some academics can frollic around in the dirt.
TLDR: We know jack-shit, and just gestimate a frick ton.
2 years ago
Anonymous
if we're talking about subjective assessments, i'd rather trust the literature of the 1970s and prior, as modern "scholarship" has been overloaded with ideological extremism to the point they are willing to pervert their own area of study in order to push a political narrative. based on that, i'd trust gibbon more than some modern blue hair.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Frick off, modern research isn't interested in these kinds of explanations, That dyke called Beard isn't representative for how the classici operate.
Subjective assesment is only applicable if you give a frick about explanations, most of them are happy just to give some dry ass facts and leave it at that.
The most progessive shit I've read in a monography was from Mac Sweeney that showed how in Ionia and more specifically Ephesus a matriarchy was established.
And she proved this by showing they didn't celebrate a bar-mitzvah-like festival, which was prevalent in Ionia, and they worshipped some troony that was turned into a
women gave birth and later got his manhood back.
Yet, the book didn't give a flying frick about: Yes, women slaaaay!
Read whatever you want, but don't think Gibbon wasn't an opionated moron.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hey guys, did you know that, uhhh, the vikings were BLACK?!?!
*clapping emoji spam* >the first britons were BLACK >mozart was BLACK >julius caesar, shakespeare, and the franks? all BLACK
New sources are found, archeology is done. New arguments are made against and for points. One of the most major sources on the Third Century we have today for example, just wasn't found in Gibbons time.
By the 4th century the Middle Ages had settled into Rome, what caused this transformation? Evidently the barbarianization of the Roman world: a culture mixture to the detriment of Mediterranean civilization.
You read it more for the pleasure of reading it. Imagine an Oscar Wilde or some other sarcastic writer doing history. If that sounds awful, you will hate it, but I think it is pretty fun.
His scholarship is good and he sites all his sources. It is accurate for the time, but yes some ideas about history have changed. I am studying more modern histories at the same time and it doesn't seem as inaccurate as everyone says it is, at least on the detail level, it is more of a tone/big picture interpretation thing, if that makes sense. Then again I don't mind inaccuracy as long as the read is enjoyable. I loved Livy if that gives you any reference.
Supposedly if you are studying history you use multiple sources to form your own interpretation anyway right???
Gibbon assumes you are familiar with Roman History up to Marcus Aurelius, and only gives the briefest of review, which is out of order and only meant to set up the situation of Rome for the decline. So I would recommend using other sources for everything up to that point.
Based on a lot of these responses I don't think many of these people have actually read it...
I read it quite a few years ago, and I remember it seemed like a very serious academic work, full of extensive documentation for every single claim and event mentioned in it. It might be incomplete if compared against the whole mass of modern and contemporary archaeological and philological research that is available in thousands of different papers published by journals all around the world, but it's about as good as it gets for a work written by a historian back in the 18th century, especially when compared against Whig history books and popular histories of the time.
Here's all you need to know about Rome: >A bunch of homosexuals made a city then made more and then killed and enslaved a bunch of people while the top dog homosexuals had sex with animals and shit >Christ came through >The homosexuals in Rome saw that all this Jesus stuff was getting very popular with the cattle masses, so they just said they were Christian now while still being homosexuals >It collapsed and it's gay little son Byzantium existed for a while doing gay shit and saying it was Christian while still being an actual slave trading homosexual zone >It collapsed too like a b***h >The Vatican became a secret playground for the animal lovers from the top Roman homosexuals for the next 2000 years
And that's how we got here
Not very, it requires quite a bit of prior required reading if you want to get anything meaningful out of it. If you want a qrd just listen to the history of Rome podcast.
Please help me out frens, what is a good book to learn about the Roman empire? I've read "The Romans" by Barrow for a quick overview
I have also read "Social History of Rome" by Geza Alfoldy or w/e, but It was incredibly boring. I am not into social history, I WANT THE EVENTS AND FACTS!
I cannot create a thread because I'm range banned by janny troony
Outdated
Absolute automaton
Filtered
>Outdated
term used by seething modern academics jealous of their predecessors
It's true.
you do realize that there are new archeological and texutal discoveries that are being made every day?
The genetics confirm gibbon. The republican romans were 50% blue eyed. The racial admixture diluted in the late imperial period
proof?
Reminder that everything reported by historians after the 60's is doctored
If you're starting off then a better option is with pic related.
>Holy
>Roman
>Empire
Now hold on just one minute...
Holy shit. You must be 18+ to post here
>muh Byzantine collection of despotates with a hyper-inefficient and corrupt bureaucratic system that was at the behest of both the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Venetian Doge was THE real successor of Rome
I think you're the 14 year old here
not great, Gibbon is very focused on how changes in Roman culture effected the course of their history but doesn't make a convincing case for his thesis. he relies on a relativly small number of sources compared to more modern takes on the subject and never examines them critically, always seemingly taking them at face value. not bad but more interesting for how it shaped late 18th and 19th century perceptions of rome than for learning about rome itself
a truely excellent book that more people should read
Read it and find out
Terrible. It was good 200 years ago, but as a historian, I cannot recommend it as learning material.
>as a historian
have a nice day.
>I want to learn about history
>Hey I know history
>FRICK OFF
OP here,
is not me.
Alright, what other book would you recommend?
Gibbon's book is quite nice and everybody should try to read it at some point if they're interested in history, particularly Byzantine history. But it starts later than you want. I would recommend J.B. Bury's History of the Roman Empire if you're looking for a one-volume introduction to the Principate. If you want the Republic, I don't know a good book in particular. I read Mommsen (which is four or five volumes) but it's old, and even more dense and challenging than Bury's book on the Principate by modern standards. For earliest Roman history I can definitely recommend Forsyth's Critical History and Cornell's book (forget the name). Forsyth is better if you have autism and enjoy the really, really nitty gritty details of things.
I really doubt anyone in this thread has read Gibbon, especially the doubters. There are certain books on IQfy about which everybody knows that one soundbite you're supposed to say. "The Prince is satire," "Gibbon is outdated," etc. Undergrad history majors are particularly guilty of swinging their dicks around and telling people to read the Cambridge Medieval History instead of reading Pirenne or Huizinga first, for some reason.
Look up Garrett gayan's lectures on Rome (the full series he did on Rome as a whole, he has some smaller topical ones too). They're with The Teaching Company, now called The Great Courses. Easily pirated or gotten from the library. If you don't mind video or audio lectures they are a comfy way to get an overall view of Roman history.
>Look up Garrett gayan's lectures on Rome
Been searching around. Any idea where I could pirate it?
soulseek
Basically wothless outside of narrative. Gibbon likes to put his exeedingly moronic opinions in it and just gets things wrong often. There's muh prose but if you're reading history for the prose you're doing it for the wrong reason
are you a, dare i say it, christcuck?
Most of my problems are really from his moronic takes on the Germanic peoples, especially the Franks.
Can someone tell me what the actual problems with this book are? So far I have only heard that he didn't see Byzantium as Roman (which it wasn't) and that the fall of Rome was actually caused by military losses, not Christianity (but which lead to those military losses).
It has to be outdated so midwit modern historians can justify their jobs
i dont get how a history book can be outdated. the shit happened 2000 years ago. it isn't changing day to day. a book written 40 years ago versus now is almost nothing in terms of timespan.
what they mean is they haven't sjw'd it up
But that's the thing with history, it's a (re)construction of the past, a subjective look at events that have transpired based on sources.
However there is always a huge lacune/absence in general, even more recent subjects can suffer from negligence if they are not properly archived.
Imagine this, but add christ-cuckery and decay, and that archeologists haven't even scratched the surface of Ancient Rome, in modern day Rome.
The biggest fear of any developer is stumbling upon the ancient city, and having to delay the process so some academics can frollic around in the dirt.
TLDR: We know jack-shit, and just gestimate a frick ton.
if we're talking about subjective assessments, i'd rather trust the literature of the 1970s and prior, as modern "scholarship" has been overloaded with ideological extremism to the point they are willing to pervert their own area of study in order to push a political narrative. based on that, i'd trust gibbon more than some modern blue hair.
Frick off, modern research isn't interested in these kinds of explanations, That dyke called Beard isn't representative for how the classici operate.
Subjective assesment is only applicable if you give a frick about explanations, most of them are happy just to give some dry ass facts and leave it at that.
The most progessive shit I've read in a monography was from Mac Sweeney that showed how in Ionia and more specifically Ephesus a matriarchy was established.
And she proved this by showing they didn't celebrate a bar-mitzvah-like festival, which was prevalent in Ionia, and they worshipped some troony that was turned into a
women gave birth and later got his manhood back.
Yet, the book didn't give a flying frick about: Yes, women slaaaay!
Read whatever you want, but don't think Gibbon wasn't an opionated moron.
>hey guys, did you know that, uhhh, the vikings were BLACK?!?!
*clapping emoji spam*
>the first britons were BLACK
>mozart was BLACK
>julius caesar, shakespeare, and the franks? all BLACK
you're a moron
Who are you quoting
New sources are found, archeology is done. New arguments are made against and for points. One of the most major sources on the Third Century we have today for example, just wasn't found in Gibbons time.
There are heckin' problemerinos! it doesn't include the modern heckin' narrativerino!
By the 4th century the Middle Ages had settled into Rome, what caused this transformation? Evidently the barbarianization of the Roman world: a culture mixture to the detriment of Mediterranean civilization.
Outdated
I am still on the first volume.
You read it more for the pleasure of reading it. Imagine an Oscar Wilde or some other sarcastic writer doing history. If that sounds awful, you will hate it, but I think it is pretty fun.
His scholarship is good and he sites all his sources. It is accurate for the time, but yes some ideas about history have changed. I am studying more modern histories at the same time and it doesn't seem as inaccurate as everyone says it is, at least on the detail level, it is more of a tone/big picture interpretation thing, if that makes sense. Then again I don't mind inaccuracy as long as the read is enjoyable. I loved Livy if that gives you any reference.
Supposedly if you are studying history you use multiple sources to form your own interpretation anyway right???
Gibbon assumes you are familiar with Roman History up to Marcus Aurelius, and only gives the briefest of review, which is out of order and only meant to set up the situation of Rome for the decline. So I would recommend using other sources for everything up to that point.
Based on a lot of these responses I don't think many of these people have actually read it...
I read it quite a few years ago, and I remember it seemed like a very serious academic work, full of extensive documentation for every single claim and event mentioned in it. It might be incomplete if compared against the whole mass of modern and contemporary archaeological and philological research that is available in thousands of different papers published by journals all around the world, but it's about as good as it gets for a work written by a historian back in the 18th century, especially when compared against Whig history books and popular histories of the time.
You're not as smart as you think you are
i am, actually. smarter than you too, shitskin
You're not as smart as you think you are
keep coping
Get Mommsen
Gibbon is too much of an angloshit homosexual
>Mommsen
Why?
Because he's a Germy gay
Here's all you need to know about Rome:
>A bunch of homosexuals made a city then made more and then killed and enslaved a bunch of people while the top dog homosexuals had sex with animals and shit
>Christ came through
>The homosexuals in Rome saw that all this Jesus stuff was getting very popular with the cattle masses, so they just said they were Christian now while still being homosexuals
>It collapsed and it's gay little son Byzantium existed for a while doing gay shit and saying it was Christian while still being an actual slave trading homosexual zone
>It collapsed too like a b***h
>The Vatican became a secret playground for the animal lovers from the top Roman homosexuals for the next 2000 years
And that's how we got here
Not very, it requires quite a bit of prior required reading if you want to get anything meaningful out of it. If you want a qrd just listen to the history of Rome podcast.
this book is useful for learning an ironic style
Please help me out frens, what is a good book to learn about the Roman empire? I've read "The Romans" by Barrow for a quick overview
I have also read "Social History of Rome" by Geza Alfoldy or w/e, but It was incredibly boring. I am not into social history, I WANT THE EVENTS AND FACTS!
I cannot create a thread because I'm range banned by janny troony
Pax romana by goldsworthy is a nice read but leaves out a lot of small details if you want that.
Pretty good, I'll list a couple books, because Gibbon covers pretty much the less famous parts of Roman history.
Theodor Mommsen's History of Rome (The entire republic)
The Landmark Julius Caesar is a great book on Caesar with all his writings, tons of commentary
Livy's Histories, Tacitus' Annals&Histories
Syme's Roman Revolution