5 ms·

I just started the 126 1/2 Hour Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire mostly because it is 1 credit on Audible. So far Gibbon is setting the stage but it is cle

I just started the 126 1/2 Hour Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire mostly because it is 1 credit on Audible. So far Gibbon is setting the stage but it is clear the many levels of Roman organization is a main factor he credits in thier ability to control such a wide empire. The rights enjoyed varied from who was a real Roman, who was conquered and under what terms, who fought for them, who was enslaved by them, taxed by them, how successful you were in your trade, or how far you were geographically from the centers. The law, and lawyers, had to operate outside the city of Rome in context for each of these factors in each of the lands where it was enforced along with a mixture of the local laws/customs/religion(s). It was their legal flexibility to absorb all these gradients that held the Empire together in its prime.

OfSanguineFire 3y ago
> a main factor he credits I won’t dissuade you from reading (listening) to Gibbon as he is something of a literary classic, but you must always be aware that Gibbon was writing two centuries ago and had his own ideological ax to grind. Historians today, drawing on a wider range of sources than Gibbon had access to, ascribe many developments in Roman history to very different factors than Gibbon claimed. In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first, so that you are then reading Gibbon purely as a literary classic and not as any authoritative source.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Any you’d recommend? I’ve listened to the History of Rome podcast and read SPQR. I’ve thought about Gibbon but it is long and everytime it’s brought up online people say it’s outdated.
  - clarionbell 3y ago
    Modern historians have largely gone away with attempts to do works like Gibbon. Perhaps in part because of how his attempt ended up. So if you want to take a look at Roman history in general, you have to dip into popular history. And that is very uneven. Alternatively, you can get books about specific periods, like say late republic, and read those in sequence. But that takes more time. Finally, and this is my preferred approach, get things written by Romans. Yes, they were biased too, and often quite obviously. But at least they didn't have stake in modern society and politics. As long as you pay notice to fact that they are mostly recording either hearsay, or propaganda, you should be fine. In that course I would recommend Twelve Caesars by Suetonius (hearsay) and Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Caesar (propaganda). It's not always true, but it gives you a good idea of how they were thinking, what was their morality like and their values.
    - LaMarseillaise 3y ago
      The first complete work I read was Sallustius’ “Conspiracy of Catiline”. I was not prepared for such ridiculous propaganda.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Mary Beard's books (The Roman Triumph for instance) are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Mary Beard's books are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    All of Adrian Goldsworthy‘s books.
- jimmySixDOF 3y ago
  Thanks and I have heard the same it's much like the proper old sources like Herodotus or Josephus in that you are reading through a certain lense with artistic license. I got through the life of Samuel Johnson and there are definitely stylistic similarities from the era. I also got into The 12 Rulers of Byzantium back in the early podcast days so I hope that helps. Best part so far was descriptions of the old Roman footprint and what was there "now" as in 1780ish and needing to make another translation to the present. My how the times have changed(ish;)
- trgn 3y ago
  > In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first, I think that's the wrong way around. Start with reading the canon, and then delve into its refinements (schools get that all twisted too, only introducing cannon at the graduate level). Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well. _Especially_ so if you are reading out of a dilettante interest, rather than professionally.
  - consilient 3y ago
    > Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well. That's all well and good, but OP seems to be interested in learning about Roman history, not 18th century English historiography. And for those purposes Gibbon is extremely unreliable.
    - trgn 3y ago
      Reading gibbon will leave you well educated on roman history.
- everybodyknows 3y ago
  > had his own ideological ax to grind. I've read Gibbon (the abridged version). How would you describe the axe he was grinding?
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    Gibbon was writing out of an Enlightenment-era perspective warts and all, it was his firm position that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity is what did it in. Today, historians generally view the crises of the 3rd century (well before Constantine) as the fatal blow to the Empire, which then just stumbled along for the next two centuries before collapsing. Also, in England in Gibbon’s day there was very little knowledge of or interest in Byzantium. That half of the empire lasted another thousand years in spite of a remarkably tight connection between church and state. Only the Western Empire fell in AD 496.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

OfSanguineFire 3y ago

> a main factor he credits I won’t dissuade you from reading (listening) to Gibbon as he is something of a literary classic, but you must always be aware that Gibbon was writing two centuries ago and had his own ideological ax to grind. Historians today, drawing on a wider range of sources than Gibbon had access to, ascribe many developments in Roman history to very different factors than Gibbon claimed. In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first, so that you are then reading Gibbon purely as a literary classic and not as any authoritative source.

edgyquant 3y ago
Any you’d recommend? I’ve listened to the History of Rome podcast and read SPQR. I’ve thought about Gibbon but it is long and everytime it’s brought up online people say it’s outdated.
- clarionbell 3y ago
  Modern historians have largely gone away with attempts to do works like Gibbon. Perhaps in part because of how his attempt ended up. So if you want to take a look at Roman history in general, you have to dip into popular history. And that is very uneven. Alternatively, you can get books about specific periods, like say late republic, and read those in sequence. But that takes more time. Finally, and this is my preferred approach, get things written by Romans. Yes, they were biased too, and often quite obviously. But at least they didn't have stake in modern society and politics. As long as you pay notice to fact that they are mostly recording either hearsay, or propaganda, you should be fine. In that course I would recommend Twelve Caesars by Suetonius (hearsay) and Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Caesar (propaganda). It's not always true, but it gives you a good idea of how they were thinking, what was their morality like and their values.
  - LaMarseillaise 3y ago
    The first complete work I read was Sallustius’ “Conspiracy of Catiline”. I was not prepared for such ridiculous propaganda.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Mary Beard's books (The Roman Triumph for instance) are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Mary Beard's books are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  All of Adrian Goldsworthy‘s books.
jimmySixDOF 3y ago
Thanks and I have heard the same it's much like the proper old sources like Herodotus or Josephus in that you are reading through a certain lense with artistic license. I got through the life of Samuel Johnson and there are definitely stylistic similarities from the era. I also got into The 12 Rulers of Byzantium back in the early podcast days so I hope that helps. Best part so far was descriptions of the old Roman footprint and what was there "now" as in 1780ish and needing to make another translation to the present. My how the times have changed(ish;)
trgn 3y ago
> In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first, I think that's the wrong way around. Start with reading the canon, and then delve into its refinements (schools get that all twisted too, only introducing cannon at the graduate level). Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well. _Especially_ so if you are reading out of a dilettante interest, rather than professionally.
- consilient 3y ago
  > Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well. That's all well and good, but OP seems to be interested in learning about Roman history, not 18th century English historiography. And for those purposes Gibbon is extremely unreliable.
  - trgn 3y ago
    Reading gibbon will leave you well educated on roman history.
everybodyknows 3y ago
> had his own ideological ax to grind. I've read Gibbon (the abridged version). How would you describe the axe he was grinding?
- OfSanguineFire 3y ago
  Gibbon was writing out of an Enlightenment-era perspective warts and all, it was his firm position that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity is what did it in. Today, historians generally view the crises of the 3rd century (well before Constantine) as the fatal blow to the Empire, which then just stumbled along for the next two centuries before collapsing. Also, in England in Gibbon’s day there was very little knowledge of or interest in Byzantium. That half of the empire lasted another thousand years in spite of a remarkably tight connection between church and state. Only the Western Empire fell in AD 496.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]