3 ms·
Gibbon's writings are really not taken as gospel (hah!) truth anymore and are not really supported by any historical research more modern than the late 1800s.
by InTheArena 3y ago
Gibbon's writings are really not taken as gospel (hah!) truth anymore and are not really supported by any historical research more modern than the late 1800s.
Gibbon's core thesis is that Christianity caused the downfall of the Roman Empire leads him to reject quite a lot of evidence that the Roman Empire was a nasty, nasty place well before the Huns sacked Rome.
- Aloha 3y agoThere is a good coherent argument that the conversion to Christianity added additional instability to a system that was already very unstable. It may not have been fatal, but it probably contributed to a process that was already happening. The Roman empire was already both politically and economically unstable by 150 AD - and was shrinking. I think attributing to Christianity as the sole cause of the downfall of the empire shows a lack of the complex (mostly, but not entirely) economic factors involved.
- InTheArena 3y agoIt certainly did add instability. The Roman Empire depended on god worship (Caeser's power as a religious leader in particular), depended on slavery, and was very ethnocentric - all anathema to early Christianity. Gibbon, on the other hand, had a thesis and let the thesis shape the facts, rather than the other way around. Mike Duncan's Roman history podcast is still an awesome way to see all of the forces involved.