Picked up Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Anonymous No.15318444]

Am I in for some quaran-kino, lit?

[Anonymous No.15318473]

>>15318444
Pretty sure this was thoroughly debunked as pseudo-history.

[Anonymous No.15318523]

>>15318444
Yeah, but it'll take you awhile to get there.

[Anonymous No.15318730]

>>15318444
It's about as historical as King Arthur

[Anonymous No.15318876]

>>15318473
>>15318730
Evidence?

[Anonymous No.15319628]

There's plenty to read online already, plus The History of Rome podcast.

https://www.ancient.eu/article/835/fall-of-the-western-roman-empire/
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fall_of_Rome
https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-the-fall-of-rome-112688

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJz15Y6hKMM

[Anonymous No.15319952]

>>15319628
online reading destroyed my eyes. it sucks. my left eyelids feels like theres some weight on it :(

[Anonymous No.15320037]

Is there any point reading history written prior to the 1960s other than out of historiographical interest?

[Anonymous No.15320055]

>>15320037
>Is there any point reading history written prior to the 1960s other than out of historiographical interest?
yes. the actually interesting question is the opposite of yours. Is there any point reading history written post 1960s? Answer: maybe, but not really.

[Anonymous No.15321061]

>>15319628
>The History of Rome podcast
Unironically better than Gibbon

[Anonymous No.15321101]

>>15318444
Watch this, from actual academics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSGPHByAZc

[Anonymous No.15321166]

>>15321061
doubt it.

[Anonymous No.15321184]

>>15318444
I’m pretty sure the Quran would be a better choice for that

[Anonymous No.15321236]

>>15318876
It's really solid historical analysis. Honestly, one of the most impressive both marco-level thesis and marshaling of micro-level evidence. Some of the best prose English has to offer. It doesn't account for new evidence (Archaeology, Epigraphy, so on) but his analysis is extremely strong and still influences modern scholarship.

Pea-brain = GIBBON IS OUT DATED

Big-brain = "Well excellent historiography, one appreciates it almost as one would ancient historian like Livy"

Galaxy-brain = The Christian's destroyed the Roman Empire... and that's a good thing (Saying this as someone about to start his Phd in September and is integrating Ellul's milieu into my processes)

[Anonymous No.15321316]

>>15321236
I agree. You can never really ignore Gibbon; every subsequent historian dealing with an era of history that he covered has to come to terms with him, one way or another. In a way I'd compare Gibbon to a very, very old house: built of solid materials, but with only a shaky grasp of proper engineering, and lacking modern finishes that make it livable.

[Anonymous No.15321340]

>>15321316

Did gibbon have access to historical sources that don’t exist today!

[Anonymous No.15321346]

Rubicon by Tom Holland
SPQR by Mary Beard
Lives of the Caesars by Suetonous
Livy's History of Rome
Plutarch's Fall of the Roman Empire

Adrian Goldsworthy has some good shit check him out and as somebody mentioned The History of Rome podcast is a great place to start

[Anonymous No.15321360]

>>15318876
He cites Ossian for a start. It is read-but-don’t-cite desu. A fantastic stylist but he was hampered by circumstances (lack of modern editions etc.) his own slightly shaky grasp of Greek and the fact that the writing of ‘history’ had not yet escaped the moralising mold of old.

[Anonymous No.15321366]

>>15321340
No.

[Anonymous No.15321700]

>>15318444
It gets weird when he starts praising islam

[Anonymous No.15321714]

>>15320037
Great prose that historians today aren't capable of

[Anonymous No.15321725]

>>15321346
>Rubicon by Tom Holland
>SPQR by Mary Beard
You're joking right?

[Anonymous No.15322250]

>>15321236
I've found that the whole "the fall of Rome was good" argument is becoming a lot more common as America starts to crack/America's cracks become larger and more visible

[Anonymous No.15322261]

>>15321725
Not him, but Rubicon was enjoyable and seemed like a halfway decent introduction for people casually interested in the subject.

[Anonymous No.15322268]

>>15321700
I found that most based thing. Quite a unique historical context to create that: anti-Catholicism.

Was really surprised and pleased how detailed Gibbon discussed the other cultures interacting with the Roman Empire and the detours; each tangent being very well done.

[Anonymous No.15322280]

>>15322250
Fair enough - I stumbled across this idea after reading Ellul and his understanding of the Roman Empire in relationship to the technological society. Christian resistance and dissent. Modern scholars can't make that connection since, though right, it might lead to similar theories of modern Europe being undermined by Muslims (not an accurate assessment since I think people like the Amish or Quakers are more analogous

[Anonymous No.15322295]

>>15322280
I am not qualified enough to judge the merits of the argument--it was merely an observation. Could you tell me more about your course of study?

[Anonymous No.15322319]

>>15322295
This is just my own intellectual side project since something like this would be shunned in academia unfortunately. As I've become more Christian I've become more sympathetic to it however... (I study the Late Economy of the Empire so fairly different).

However, here is a bit of his argument, prefaced by talking about Ancient Greece (merely a small introductory section of his masterpiece)

The Greeks were suspicious of technical activity because it represented an aspect of brute force and implied a want of moderation. Man, however humble his technical equipment, has from the very beginning played the role of sorcerer’s apprentice in relation to the machine. This feeling on the part of the Greeks was not a reflection of a primitive man’s fear in the face of something he
does not understand (the explanation given today when certain persons take fright at our
techniques). Rather, it was the result, perfectly mastered and perfectly measured, of a certain
conception of life. It represented an apex of civilization and intelligence. Here we find the
supreme Greek virtue, iyp&r<t* (self-control). The rejection of technique was a deliberate, positive activity involving self-mastery, recognition of destiny, and the application of a given conception of life. Only the most modest techniques were permitted—those which would respond directly to material needs in such a way that these needs did not get the upper hand. In Greece a conscious effort was made to economize on means and to reduce the sphere of influence of technique. No one sought to apply scientific thought technically, because scientific thought corresponded to a conception of life, to wisdom. The great preoccupation of the Greeks was balance, harmony and moderation; hence, they fiercely resisted the unrestrained force inherent in technique, and rejected it because of its potentialities. For these same reasons, magic had relatively little importance in Greece.

[Anonymous No.15322328]

>>15322319
Rome. Social technique was still in its infancy. Doubtless, there had been some attempts at
social organization— those of certain Pharaohs, and those of the Persian empire, were not
negligible. But such organizations could be maintained only by police power, whereas the exact
opposite is true of genuine social organization. By the very fact of its existence, coercion
demonstrates the absence of political, administrative, and juridical technique; for this reason,
the great empires of the past are of little importance to our study. Correlatively, an army (even
the army of the Chaldeans, who advanced the art of war furthest) was a fairly inorganic crew
whose aim was pillage and which applied no social technique. The army of Alexander made use
of genuine strategy, but this was almost exclusively military and had no sociological foundations
or attributes. It was the expression not of a people but of a state— and therefore lacked the
substance necessary to technique. In Rome, however, we pass on, at one step, to the perfection
of social technique, both civil and military. Everything in Roman society was related to Roman
law in its multiple forms, both public and private.
To characterize the technique of this law in the period during which it flourished (from the
second century b .c . to the second century a .d. ), we can say first of all that it was not the fruit of
abstract thought, but rather of an exact view of the concrete situation, which the Romans
attempted to turn to account with the fewest possible means. This realism respected justice and
acknowledged history and necessity. From this concrete, experimental view, which the Romans
held consciously, their administrative and judicial technique developed. And a kind of discipline
appeared: the use of a minimum of means. This discipline, which probably had its foundations
in religion, is one of the secrets of the whole development. To the degree that the Roman had to
respond to necessity, and at the same time not permit himself excessive luxury, it was necessary
to refine every means, to bring it to perfection, to exploit it in every possible way, and to give it
free rein, without shackling it with exceptions and secondary rules. No social situation
developed which did not immediately find its response in organization. Nor could this response
be the creation of a new means, but rather the perfection of an old means. Indeed, the
proliferation of means is thought even today to denote technological weakness.

[Anonymous No.15322351]

>>15322328
(skipping a couple of paragraphs for easy sake)

The West is making a prodigious advance in technique at the present, and the West is
traditionally Christian. Nor can it be maintained that Christianity is a negligible factor in that
advance. However, there were several distinct historical periods in the West The West was
officially Christian until the fourteenth century; thereafter, Christianity became controversial
and was breached by other influences. What do we find, from a technical standpoint, in the so-
called Christian era, the period from the fourth to the fourteenth centuries, the “sociological
moment”? First, we observe the breakdown of Roman technique in every area— on the level of
organization as well as in the construction of cities, in industry, and in transport from the fourth
to the tenth centuries, in fact, there was a complete obliteration of technique, a condition so
deplored that it became a focus of anti-Christian polemic, and rightly so. It was because the
Christians held judicial and other technical activity in such contempt that they were considered
the “enemies of the human race”— and not only because they opposed Caesar. The reproach of
Celsus was not without truth. After the Christian triumph in Rome, there was not one great
jurist left who could guarantee the life and the value of the Roman organization. Decadence? No
— complete disinterest in such activity. Saint Augustine devoted much of his De Civitate Dei to
justifying the Christians in this respect, and to denying that their influence was detrimental.
"They are good citizens," he proclaimed. That may have been so, but their focus of interest was
nevertheless on something other than the state and practical activity. I shall show later on that
the technical state of mind is one of the principal causes of technical progress. It is not a
coincidence that Rome declined as Christianity triumphed. The Emperor Julian was certainly
justified in accusing the Christians of ruining the industry of the Empire.

Ellul essentially vindicates Gibbon's argument: Christianity destroyed the Empire, yet the interpretation is profoundly different

[Anonymous No.15322423]

>>15322351
Thanks anon, interesting stuff

[Anonymous No.15322723]

>>15321061
You should be crucified for this.

Thomas Hodgkin's "Italy and her Invaders" is the only thing that compares to Gibbon (it's slightly better actually). Some sperg with a podcast ... fuck that.

https://archive.org/details/italyherinvaders01hodg

[Anonymous No.15323388]

>>15321166
>>15322723
Have you actually listened to it?

[Anonymous No.15323452]

>>15318473

>debunked

What this means:

Historians in academia are faced with the problem that new history isn't being produced fast enough for them to justify their tenure. Real subjects like computer science are endlessly vigorous and innovative and look down on them. Their remedy is as follows: every twenty years they "debunk" everything from the previous generation, saying it's all nonsense and a whole shelf-full of new history books need to be written to SET THINGS RIGHT.

"You thought Thomas More was a good guy and it was wrong to cut his head off?" That's so 2010, dude! He was actually a monster! Henry VIII did nothing wrong!

etc

[Anonymous No.15323773]

>>15318444
i got the same edition.

[Anonymous No.15323842]

>>15321360
>moralizing bad
Objectivity is impossible.

[Anonymous No.15324214]

>>15321725
What's wrong with those books?