Just bought picrel. What am I in for?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire
Just bought picrel. What am I in for?
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Him quoting Cicero a lot for no reason
He quotes Cicero at random? Is it to pad out the book, or what?
Because it's for the sake of writing. It's completely pointless as to actually writing a history. It's the literary equivlent of a Marvel cameo. He quotes Cicero because Cicero was possibly the most well renowned Classical writers while he wrote. He quotes a lot of sources that to put simply are completely irrelevant to his subject matter. Plutarch, Sallust and Homer are three others.
Not him but he often extrapolates what could never actually be known (Gaiseric and Vandal relations and actions in Africa being a big one). Uses limited sources, some of very dubious relation to the topic at hand. The 5th century has quite a lot of sources, but the only relevant sources he uses are Zosimus, Augustine and the fragments that Gregory of Tours left for us. He ignores many major chronicles for the period like Marcellianus Comes and many Saints lives. Even Byzantine sources like Constantine VII reveal what the Western court thought at times such as with Aetius but Byzantine sources are largely ignored. He uses sources like Symmachus which to put simply, don't really discuss the 5th century all that much. He's a strong source for the 6th century but not for the 5th at all.
outdated history
how is that possible?
not enough diversity?
not enough social theory?
explain yourself, ma'am.
Not enough accuracy.
Maybe it's the fact that it's missing over 200 years of research since it was published moron.
have a nice day troony homosexual.
>outdated history
>but horrible history.
Hmm. In what sense? The book well known, and generally viewed positively (which is why I bought it in the first place); but how terrible or inaccurate would you say it actually is, in terms of History.
is well known*
You make this thread every week and every week you get the same answers. Just check the archive.
Different OP, this time. I also didn't know others had recently asked for opinions.
It's not been viewed positively in over 100 years. Pretty much everything is either straight up wrong, made up or just massively misrepresented. Gibbon barely gets the basic facts right in most cases, even ones where the primary textual sources are the only thing we have to go by.
>but how terrible or inaccurate would you say it actually is, in terms of History
He argues that the fall of Western Rome was the Christianity because he lived throughout the Enlightenment era when it was in vogue to criticise religious dogma.
Histography wasn't very developed at the time either so he couldn't analyse the fall of Western Rome throughout other angles such as demographics, economics or military reforms.
If you wish to learn about ancient Rome or its fall then that's the worst book to start with. Try The Romans: An Introduction published by Routledge. It's relatively short and it summarises everything as well as it includes an extensive bibliography.
History is never outdated. You're postdated.
>History is never outdated
It can be.
Well written, but horrible history.
>What am I in for?
An historical masterpiece.
Kino of the highest caliber
shitting on Christianity praising Muhammad and Ali
>fall of the roman empire
>the empire started falling in 3rd century and finished in 15th
that's a long fricking fall if you ask me
>>the empire started falling in 3rd century and finished in 15th
Uh, sweetie? Don't you know that Byzantium isn't Roman?
The Roman Empire officially ended in 476 A.D.
>t. smug ignoramus
Actually, anon, the Roman Empire ended in 1453 with the sack of Constantinople, founded by none other than Roman emperor Constantine..
Really well written and modern (1st volume was published 1776 iirc). History is somewhat faddish so I wouldn't worry excessively about it being unfashionable, there are probably places where we know more but it doesn't invalidate the story. He's opinionated but that reputation is overblown, he is generally circumspect in his judgements. I'd get an edition with editorial notes. It's mostly famous as a work of literature, but as popular history it is great, which is why it's still being read 2 centuries later.
>modern
lol
Anon may want to look up 'modernism'
The early modern period lasted from ca. 1500-1715, for instance. Modernism per se 'concluded' right after ww2.
It reads very modern when compared to other texts from the time, makes it a very pleasant read. He isn't overly ornamental in his writing, he never tries for cleverness over clarity, which is a real problem with literature from the 18th centuries (and before ... and after). I never get the sense he is coming from an alien place, he seems very contemporary. The only exception I can recall is when he sperg out about race for several pages to prove that Ethiopians are white. But maybe that's not outdated, I'm sure /misc/ will soon get there as well.
The book is itself historical. Reading it is like being submerged in an entirely different culture of thought and mode of history. People who say it's outdated or whatever don't really get it, or if they do get this aspect, they don't get the significance of it.
At that point it's just fiction, not really history.
>fiction...history
Anon, I....
I know, I know, but still...
Yeah, ok, I admit archeological evidence, etc., can be a 'game-changer'
I also admit a sense of 'modern' as referring to right now, although I don't think OP of the referenced text intended the word in that sense
An abridged version of "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire" and not the full work by Gibbons, which is normally published in 8 volumes.