Is Edward Gibbon's writings on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire a good take?

[Anonymous No.13335242]

Do you believe him to be accurate, or do you think he is outdated and colored his work with the bias of his time? What do you think about current scholarship opinion on Gibbons?

[Anonymous No.13335262]

>>13335242
It's an exceptionally bad take, that internalize most of the misinformation that spread during the Enlightenment. It casually ignores the massive economic developments that were going on the 4th and 5th century after the 3rd century so devastated the Empire. It's misunderstanding of the barbarians is so fundamental that it's almost of now value on the topic other than learning a few names and battles. Gibbon's writings are wonderful if you want to look into historiography, but painfully biased and misinformed if you are actually interested in Roman history.

[Anonymous No.13335279]

>>13335262
How does he misunderstand the barbarians?

[Anonymous No.13335296]

>>13335262
What's a good alternative that's

1. Well written and
2. Historically accurate

[Anonymous No.13335318]

>>13335262
yawn bore me later christcuck

[Anonymous No.13335321]

>>13335296
i would also like this

[Anonymous No.13335360]

>>13335279
The barbarians that conquered the West were not the same barbarians that the empire had dealt with three centuries earlier. They had grown economically, socially, politically, as well as in population, because of sustained contact with the Roman economy. Gibbon vastly underestimates them as well as the Sassanian Empire.
>>13335296
>>13335321
The Fall of the Roman Empire and Empires and Barbarians by Peter Heather are generally good starts, I have some issues with them, but they are very readable and make good use of archeological evidence. After that I'd suggest History of the Later Roman Empire by Bury. It's also pretty good, but it's an older and drier read than either of Heather's books, but it still has significant merit. Also don't get the kindle version of The Fall of the Roman Empire. It's an absolute abortion of a conversion that reads as though it had no editor.

After that you might want to take a look at Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne. It's generally agreed that his hypothesis that European trade collapsed with the Islamic conquest of North Africa is flawed and largely in error, but it does present a considerable amount of evidence behind the "transformation" theory. I will fully admit that I fall more in line with the collapse narrative, but it's always good to get more than one view. In the same vein as Pirenne, I'd also suggest The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown.
I hope that helps, anon.

[Anonymous No.13335364]

>>13335296
Yeah hit me up with something

[Anonymous No.13335568]

>>13335360
>>13335262
oh fuck off, our core understanding of the history of the roman empire hasn't changed significantly since the time of gibbon. this being the case, why should anyone read the wooden prose of some no name academic when you can just read mommsen, gibbon, and primary sources, and actually enjoy good writing

[Anonymous No.13335586]

>>13335242
>or do you think he is outdated and colored his work with the bias of his time

No less than current historians do today. Gibbon is still worth reading.

[Anonymous No.13335608]

>>13335242
Gibbon's footnotes are brilliant

[Anonymous No.13335689]

People who tell you not to read him (even academics in the field) largely haven't even read him and go to the standard stock criticism which oversimplifies him while still largely using the same sources and narrative as him.

[Anonymous No.13335705]

>>13335568
>hasn't changed significantly since the time of gibbon.
He was never a standart except for your typical propagandist of the Enlighnement

[Anonymous No.13336082]

>>13335568
Not defending academic writing, which is obviously largely garbage, but Gibbon's work is like an accomplished schoolboy's imitation of Tacitus. Except in english so it doesn't even work.

[Anonymous No.13336090]

>Dec. 18. I find Gibbon to have been less a man and more of a student than I had anticipated. His Roman History, by his own confession, was undertaken from no higher motive than the love of fame. In his religious views he did not differ nobly from mankind, but rather apologized and conformed. He was ambitious and vain.

>I hear him smack his lips at the prospect of a pipe of wine to be sent from England to Lausanne. There is not recorded of him, that I know, a single reckless and heroic action, which would have been worth a thousand histories. That would have been to Rise and Stand. I think of him only as the laborious ambitious student who wrote the Decline & Fall, during those 56 years—which after all it does not concern me to read.

[Anonymous No.13336187]

No. All you need to do is study history at any sort of higher education institution to realise this guy isn’t taken seriously anymore

[Anonymous No.13336205]

>>13335360
>Mohammed and Charlemagne by Henri Pirenne. It's generally agreed that his hypothesis that European trade collapsed with the Islamic conquest of North Africa is flawed and largely in error, but it does present a considerable amount of evidence behind the "transformation" theory
lol, Idiot

[Anonymous No.13336887]

>>13335689
Can you expand on this please? This seems like it could be a compelling argument.

[Anonymous No.13336941]

>>13335689
>even academics in the field
I'm pretty sure most academics specialising in late antiquity will have read Gibbon at some point