/lit/ - Literature

Not quite. It has been refuted by historians. Only good thing is the prose.

>>22419702
Yes. Nonfiction prose peaked with Gibbon. The innacuracies are easily outweighed by the truths.

>>22419704
what would you recommend for modern studies on the topic then?

Absolutely. It has been ‘refuted’ by ‘historians’ so you know it’s good.

>>22419711
so you know it’s bad*

>>22419711
based beyond calculation. 'historians' BTFO.

>>22419718
>you vill truzt ze (((conzenzuz)))

>>22419724
Gibbon was a 'historian' (although a bad and ugly one)

>>22419711
This, if a book doesn’t make contemporary “””academics”””” seethe then it’s not worth reading

>>22419728
>you vill truzt ze (((anglo))) """historian"""

>christianity is le bad!
A real mystery (((who))) is behind this book

>this book was written by jews, dont read it
>This book is hated by jews, read it
So i should base all my opinions on what jews think?

>read “””””accurate””””” history written 5 years ago by disabled genderqueer bipoc
>it’s an utter snoozefest
>you won’t finish it
>read “””””inaccurate””””” history written 250 years ago
>it’s fun and you actually finish it

>>22419767
both are boring

>>22419763
it's always da jooz, chuddies don't realize how much of themselves they're sacrificing for their sake

What is inaccurate about it?

>>22419710
Something on the WW2 Eastern Front.

>>22419772
oh man, are you a woman?

>>22419702
It's better written than anything you'll find in the last century, but Gibbon was working with less information than the modern classicist has. If you want the history, read something more modern. If you want a pleasant experience, try Gibbon out. He was pretty based as well.

>>22420079
No. I simply prefer better history writers

Anyone here read a history of the crusades by steven runciman?
It seems pretty good
I am generally pretty sympathetic towards Muslims

>>22419743
The (((Christian))) author, Edward Gibbon.

>>22419711
I'd love to agree, however I'm afraid that this is what he looked like.

>>22420252
The (((Anglo))) author Edward Gibbon.

>>22419777
Is it never?

>>22420192
>I simply prefer things that serve no purpose
In an alternate dimension fiction writers behave similarly to their predecessors as non-fiction writers do in our dimension. Your ability to make—LORD Jesus Christ please forgive me for my aggressive language here—fat fuckin stacks of cash money is dependent on your competitors being inferior. What better way to ensure sales than to convince retards that old thing is synonymous with bad thing? Indeed.

>>22420464
I actually prefer older history writers than Gibbon. Greek and Roman ones for instance.

>>22420471
That's understandable, though those men suffer translation issues just the same as all other foreign works. Homer has been abused most egregiously in this regard.

>>22420283
he was anglo

>>22420289
>>22420491
Sneed

>>22419702
>he's going to take his knowledge of Rome from this midget doughboy Anglo

>>22420482
english is a foreign language, latin is the true central language

>>22419710
Durant is more accurate and also has really good prose. Both the Life of Greece and Caesar and Christ are good.

>>22420283
PATRICIAN

>>22419702
Yeah, it's pretty enjoyable
The whole "it has been refuted" thing only matters if you are writing academic papers

>>22420289
He was a francophile and only wrote it English because I think Burke or Hume insisted.

>>22419777
Nice 90 IQ shitskinned leftist take. How stinky are your immigrant parents?

>>22420491
Anglos are based and make shitskins seethe.

>>22419704
How was it refuted? Blindly "trusting the experts" is for cattle.

>>22422088
holy mutt projection, I'm pretty comfortable in my 98% white European country

>>22422098
>Blindly "trusting the experts" is for cattle.
Just like you trust this lying anti-Christian Anglo goblin.

Is she a good modern author on Roman history? I've watched a documentary where she explained the entire history of Rome in over 3 hours and she seemed very cheerful and passionate about it

>>22419704
Killyourself

>>22422192
t.

>>22420029
Nothing. Its a masterpiece. These faggots just don't read it so they complain instead like little girls

>>22422185
Mary Beard is a specialist on roman religious practices which are vital to understand the republican state.

>>22422196
Wow what a devastating comeback comparing me to the greatest historian since Hume.

>>22419730
Why mention that he was ugly,that fact in itself cannot disprove anything he says.

Like others have said, it is worth reading for the prose alone. Gibbon is a better writer than any modern historian and it's not close.

>>22422215
I don't need to disprove anything. The pros have already done it numerous times lol

>>22422133
Based polish.

>>22422222
Name one

>>22422207
I'm sure you love being compared to a goblin. Probably an improvement.

>>22422258
You've really got nothing else

I never tire of pseuds shitting on gibbon yet of course can't articulate any reason why besides the most vague and general rubbish

>>22422358
Outdated scholarship

>>22422358
He lies left, right and centre.

>>22422371
>vague, inspecific, no evidence given

>>22422384
>vague, inspecific, no evidence given

It's still an extremely important book for historians, but not in the way Gibbon likely intended. We use it today to study how academics and others in that time period treated history. It's a good book for the study of the study of history rather than for the history itself, if you will.

>>22422447
>rather than for the history itself

Your equivications disgust me. You could say this for LITERALLY EVERY HISTORIAN WHO HAS EVER LIVED

>>22422467
Even Gibbon admitted some of his mistakes and was planning to revise his work. And later historians found other mistakes. Unsure why his fanboys are so aggressive. It's a good work of English prose, just not completely accurate history.

>>22422489
Dude, he's literally saying he should have just started with Nero instead of Commodus.

>>22419702
Gibbon's work is horribly outdated. It has little value if you want to learn about the Roman Empire. It's only use is to show how people thouht about the Roman empire 300 years ago. An example would be that Gibbon calls the time of the 5 adopted emperors (2nd century) the most happy time in history ever. But this was also the time of the antonine plague which caused one in three people to die in some parts of the empire.

>>22419702
What would you read instead?

>>22422535
>Gibbon calls the time of the 5 adopted emperors (2nd century) the most happy time in history ever.
It was.

>>22422535
>Gibbon's work is horribly outdated
it's not.
>An example would be that Gibbon calls the time of the 5 adopted emperors (2nd century) the most happy time in history ever. But this was also the time of the antonine plague which caused one in three people to die in some parts of the empire.
19th and 20th centuries were the peak of Europeans but bad shit still happened but that doesn't take away from the rest. What a garbage example.

>>22422582
Retard
>>22422586
>20th century
>peak of Europe
lmao

>>22422133
>I'm pretty comfortable in my 98% white European country
That's why you don't care about jews

>>22422358
Ya they haven't actually made any arguments, it seems like his detractors are just bugmen and non-whites who "trust the science."

>>22422149
Not an argument. And how did he lie?

>>22422640
I want the truth, not lies by anglo goblins.Simple as.

Phew, I almost buy this set. Had no idea it was outdated history and jewish dishonesty. Thanks guys.

>>22422535
>But this was also the time of the antonine plague

>>22422617
yes the early 20th century was the peak of europe's influence in the world

>>22422804
Not even close and has nothing to do with happiness necessarily. Europe suffered a lot in the 20th century and the good does not outweigh the bad.

This doesn;t deserve it own thread so I'm asking here. What is a good book about the Spanish Civil War?
I voted for Trump if it helps narrow down a recommendation I will enjoy.

>>22419702
No. Every sensible man already knows that empires fall as a natural part of their life cycle, and reading about the specifics of an ancient empire's collapse is pointless, because that empire is not coming back. Concern yourself with your own empire and try to discover what stage of its life you're living in.

>>22422872
For Whom the Bell Tolls

>>22422911
This is how nazis actually think
>just be ignorant and make the same mistakes bro
>how did my fascist empire collapse???????

>>22422872
I enjoyed reading Mine Were of Trouble and Homage to Catalonia, to get two diametrically opposite perspectives on the war. Mine Were of Trouble has the issue that the guy barely talks about ideology, so it's a big elephant in the room for him, but it was certainly interesting meeting all those Nationalists, and in the end, he even meets Franco.

Also helps reading up on Franco's regime on Wikipedia afterwards, so you see the aftermath of what happened.

My opinion of the war is that the entire country went insane, but the Republicans were crazier, what with burning down churches and killing priests and nuns.

>>22419702
Northrop Frye uses it as an example of how the meaning of a text can evolve over time. It is from a different perood when history was written differently. Besides giving you an overview of facts it gives you an idea of how people in Gibbon's period created narratives about Rome.
>>22419704
>prose
Shut up, retard.

>>22422872
>>22423010
I was going to say the exact same thing. MWoT (which I'm reading right now) and HtC. They're both a pleasure to read, although MWoT has quite a bit less talk of ideology, politics, and psychology (so far), which is unfortunate imo.

>>22419702
Also read Mommsen:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10706

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Rome_(Mommsen)

>>22419743
But it is.

>>22423618
go back

>>22422384
Can you name one lie?

>>22423627
Christianity being a main cause for Rome's downfall.

>>22422535
>Gibbon calls the time of the 5 adopted emperors (2nd century) the most happy time in history ever.
It was.

>>22423635
But it was.

>>22419702
Nobody reads this to learn about the Roman Empire. They read it to learn about the Enlightenment and the liberal values that define the modern world. So yes, it's worth reading. Just not as a history book. The work was always a propaganda screed.

>>22423645
It wasn't. It was a non-factor. Way bigger issues.

>>22422949
>>22423010
>>22423030
Thank you. I wrote these down on the piece of paper I keep in my wallet of books to look for.

>>22422185
SPQR is a pretty decent book imo

>>22422185
Holy fuck no.

>>22422203
Why would you want to read Beard about roman religion when you could read Wissowa, Rüpke, Scheid, or fuck, even de Coulanges?

>>22423678
That's like saying bolshevism was a non-factor in the collapse of the russian tsardom. Why are you lying?

>>22424227
Not at all the same. His lies have been refuted by later historians and academics.

>>22419702
not for any Christian.

>>22419704
>refuted by historians
Example

>>22424220
Why wouldn't you read them all? Are u stupid?

>>22424249
That isn't a real answer. How could the internal strife generated by the new up and coming christian elite trying to grab power from the old pagan elite not be a contributing element in the overall picture of the collapse? How could the gospel of weakness, passivity and submission, an oriental cult which turned vice to virtue and virtue to vice, being forced on the subjects of the empire by the elites during a time of grave crisis. when they should have mobilized themselves the hardest, not be a contributing element?

>>22423010
>Also helps reading up on Franco's regime on Wikipedia afterwards, so you see the aftermath of what happened.
>on Wikipedia

>>22424281
Ah, you're delusional anti-Christian arguing in bad faith. People have won wars and battles while being Christian, empires have spread while being Christian. But sure Christianity was to blame for the downfall of Rome, not the other different things affecting it. "Christianity = fall of Rome" is a lie from the Enlightenment era. Only retards still fall for it.

>>22424287
what? you don't like reading lies from anglos and trannies?

>>22424259
I will now read it because I'm not a christcuck

>>22425371
We get it, you’re trans and a redditor. Don’t be so loud, mate.

>>22419767
>if it's le fun it means it's le correct
imbecile

This thread was yet another utterly disgraceful display by illiterates harping on Gibbon for no legitimate reasons whatsoever.

>>22422133
>Uh I'm actually even more of a massive philosemite faggot than you thought, gotcha

Creatures that use animals for reaction images are letting you know in an unconscious way that they're subhuman.

>>22424329
You didn't even understand what he said.

>>22425732
Gibbon was a lying redditor.

>>22426844
and also fat

>>22424329
Can you even read and comprehend sentences?

>>22426839
>>22426883
Samefag. I already replied to you and your strawman of Christianity.

gibbon just ripped of montesquieu anyways

>>22426891
The madness of living with a two digit IQ.

>>22427067
Nice edit, fag.

>>22426583
>people this obviously idiotic are allowed to vote
>"why is my country going down the drain? it must be uhhh da jooz and animal self-insert posters on my mongolian basket weaving forum!"
...
sure...

>thread is still active
Holy shit

NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

>>22426855
>>22426844
What compelled you to type this child?

>>22426901
If these morons haven't read gibbon what are the odds they've read montesquieu?

>>22422185
SPQR is terrible airport pop-history.
t. bought it at the airport and read it on a long flight

>>22428276
It's an overview of Beards vast career and experience, what do you recommend instead? I'm looking forward to your plebian choices.

>>22428307
Other anons are in a better position to make recommendations than myself. All I can do is give you my personal opinion on SPQR and say it's a undetailed survey that doesn't particularly offer any real insight into Ancient Rome. It's the definition of an airport book. Maybe she's written specific essays/journal articles that are great but SPQR is doesn't work even as a popular survey of the overarching subject.

>>22428336
>but SPQR is doesn't work even as a popular survey of the overarching subject.
Compared to what?

>>22428474
>Compared to what?
Other popular histories I've read (e.g. Robert Gellately is the most recent). It's a survey but doesn't dip into details that flesh out the subject in any way. A good survey will still do this and SPQR doesn't. So, based on my personal experience with the book and reading history, it's not something I'd recommend to others. Maybe she has some really good essays and journal articles that are worth checking out, I'm not attacking her as an academic, but SPQR was disappointing.