/lit/ - Literature

>>14690765
nah, just read Wikipedia anon

>>14690765
Got me through my divorce. That it's very well written and a great series of stories, mini-biographies, and traces the movements of (our) ancestral barbarian tribal forebears helps.

I've been reading it for 6 years, re-read the opening volumes many times but never finished it

it's honestly the greatest single secondary work on the entire Roman Empire ever created in any language

>>14690765
Haven't read it, but doubt it. Lots of outdated information. If you are looking for a good book about the collapase of Rome (and other), I can highly recommend this one. One of my most favourite books ever.

No it's not, it's shit, no historical value, only a nice prose.

>>14690860
>Haven't read it, but doubt it.

>>14690765
Yes
>>14690860
Don't answer the question if you haven't read it then. You read Gibbon for his skill as a writer, not for perfect historical accuracy.

>>14690765
read Vol I and decide for yourself

>>14690765
>From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind.

Gibbon is a good writer but a terrible historian by modern, pretty much none of his positions are even remotely popular

Im really interested in the Romans but don't have too much knowledge. Is this a good start?

>>14691054
modern historians are dry, dime a dozen faggots

>why yes I get all my sources either first hand or from the 17th-19th century historians and supplement with archaeology how could you tell

>>14691072
But archaeology is not nearly sufficient, you need a very good understanding of primary sources if you want to understand a time period properly

>>14691089
I already said I use primary sources

As did Gibbon who read every extant primary source on the Roman Empire that we have today in the original Latin and Greek
lmaoing at brainlets who try to flex on Gibbon, go back to your Mary Beard

>>14691054
(((20th century historians))) reject Gibbon, he thinks this is a negative

>>14691105
Teach me about the dominate daddy

>>14690765
No, not really, just Anglo trash. Stick to primary sources.

Not good as actual history. It is really an anti-french work. It is built around critiquing the French of his time and defending a specific Anglo state. Try Paul Zoch's Ancient Rome: An Introductory History. More contemporary with sources that is for damn sure. For the Eastern Romans try History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453 by Alexander A. Vasiliev. No such intro books for them that I know of.

>>14690765
This is one of my favorite books, not as a historic work, but because of its brilliant 18th century prose. Wish people still wrote like that.

>>14691615
tips

>>14690860
Pathetic cuck

>>14691054
Yet every professor of classics or ancient history has the first 3 volumes in their office

He's outdated in a number of areas, namely archaeology. This isn't a downside to him as a writer, but rather a historian. Numismatics has moved forward a lot, for example. If you want to read a fantastic piece of English literature, do so. If you want to read about Roman history, look elsewhere, as you'll get everything Gibbon says and more from other sources (who ultimately end up HAVING to cite Gibbon, because of how influential and important his works are).

>>14691657
signal theory

>>14691072
this but unironically, historical secondary works of history are a the greatest luxury literature has to offer.

>>14691071
Yes, then read Mommsen. After this turn to all the contemporary works some in this thread allude to without naming.

>>14690765
I wanted to listen to this at work but sadly I'm ESL and Gibbon's language is too flowery to understand while doing simple tasks, so I gave up.

lol gibbon has been excised from this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rome
but it cites mary beard and mike duncan in the bibliography/further reading ;)

>>14691038
might have something to do with it

>>14693207
who is mary beard and what are the criticisms against her?
And whats wrong with Gibbon?

>>14693754
Gibbon's first few vols came out ca. 1776, so it's old and felt not up to date (which it isn't, but so what). Still a good place to start.

>>14690944
>You read Gibbon for his skill as a writer, not for perfect historical accuracy.
Seems like we have a very different definitions if something is worth reading. I am fine with pottery, but reading an outdated literature of fact with so many pages seems pointless, unless you want to make a case study.
>>14690878
>>14691647
cope harder