Talk:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Archive : thru 2006

Disambiguation page needed

There are quite a few "Fall of Rome" games, some of them multiplayer, some of them solitaire, most of them with hexagons, but some of them with really big areas you put pieces or tokens in. Probably more than a dozen games in the last 35 years. Maybe even more. The one I am looking for, was never marketed in the US, it was marketed in England in 1976 or 1977. The game was reviewed in the UK-based "Game Magazine" (not gamer magazine) and there is British spelling all the way throughout. The Mongol Hordes keep pressing at the empire, and sooner or later break through, no matter how you try to build up your border. When you search for The Fall of Rome, you get redirected to this page, even though you are interested in the game by that name. I am not sure how to fix a redirect, but somebody here probably knows how to do it. The search engine in Wikipedia would work a lot better if the redirect were changed into a disambiguation page. The Fall of Rome is not the same thing as the History of the Fall of Rome. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversimplification

I came to this article because I was curious how long it took Gibbon to write The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The article provided that information very well, thank you.

However, I was appalled at the vast oversimplification of Gibbon's theory about the fall of the Roman Empire. This article needs to be reworked by someone who knows more than the original writer. Unfortunately, I am not that person; I know enough however to recognize that Gibbon's work has been distorted here by oversimplification. 4.155.99.137 04:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Specific commentaries welcome. Of course, this is an encyclopedia, summaries often do make things more simple than the complexity of the original work allows. I don't think it misrepresents what he was saying, these are commonly known points he made. -- Stbalbach 16:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly criticism of Gibbon's Decline and Fall

I'm not a professional historian, but from what I see the article as presently written is insufficiently criticial of how Gibbon holds up in the light of modern understanding of the Roman, and especially Byzantine, worlds. For instance, the piece makes it seem as though the only effective criticism of Gibbon in this regard lies in the area of his theorizing about why the Roman (and Byzantine) empires fell; and though it mentions J.B. (John Bagnell) Bury, it doesn't suggest that he -- in addition to John Julius Norwich -- was also a considerable critic of much of Gibbon's work.

As I say, I'm not a historian, and I admit I haven't read Bury's annotated edition of Gibbon's book, but let me point to a couple of things that make me believe that this is true. First, in the Bibliography to Vol. IV (the Eastern Roman Empire) of the original edition of the Cambridge Medieval History (the entire set of which was planned by J.B. Bury, though that volume was edited by others), concerning Gibbon's Decline and Fall it states -- and notice the note at the end:

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 1776-81. Ed. in 7 vols. by Bury, J. B. 1896. Latest edn. 1909 ff. (Bury-Gibbon.) [Notes essential especially for chronology.]

Second, in J.B. Bury's Introduction to the aforementioned Vol. IV of the Cambridge Medieval History, he writes:

In the period in which the Empire was strong, before it lost the provinces which provided its best recruits, its army was beyond comparison the best fighting machine in Europe. When a Byzantine army was defeated, it was always the incompetence of the general or some indiscretion on his part, never inefficiency or cowardice of the troops, that was to blame. The great disaster of Manzikert (1071), from which perhaps the decline of the Eastern Empire may be dated, was caused by the imbecility of the brave Emperor who was in command. A distinguished student of the art of war has observed that Gibbon's dictum, "the vices of Byzantine armies were inherent, their victories accidental," is precisely the reverse of the truth. He is perfectly right.

Given that kind of profound mistake on Gibbon's part, it would seem that -- as the C.M.H. Bibliography states -- "notes [are] essential" before taking much in the way of Gibbon's conclusions as gospel. Michael McNeil 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I added the criticism part and any additions would be helpful. Gibbon's views, as the article states, are not widely accepted, though Christianity was culturally inhibitive in some particular cultural areas (the Iconoclastic controversy and the decline of sculpture for example), I don't think I've read a single modern Historian who agrees with Gibbon's conclusions about the fall, in my opinion Gibbon is sometimes purposefully vague so as to detract from any ability to properly critique them, I mean, if the view you are rebutting has no easily definable assertions then it becomes difficult to construct counter-arguments.--NeroDrusus 17:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing I find odd about the section as it currently stands is that it starts with two lengthy quotes from Gibbon without any context for why they're being introduced, or what they have to do with the 'criticism' section heading. --Delirium (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read Gibbon's Decline and Fall (unabridged) several times. Anyone bold enough to criticise it should read it first. Clearly any historian has to make way for the insights of later research but frankly Gibbon's history towers above anything else I've ever read. Its a master work and you should tiptoe around when near it. 93.233.23.170 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

link to complete edition?

shouldn't there be a link to the complete online edition at www.ccel.org? Homun 13:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)homun

section may require cleanup?

A section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please list the specific points to clean up in bullet format. J. D. Redding 21:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Historians such as David S. Potter and Fergus Millar dispute claims that the Empire fell as a result of a kind of lethargy towards current affairs brought on by Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official state religion." That part ive highlighted is just bullshit, Constantine adopted it personally but it was Theodosius I that made the religion the official religion of the empire. Terrasidius (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

Should Asimov's Foundation Saga be included? Although this section seems to focus on academic work, I believe this would be a worthy addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.52.56 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Machiavelli's Virtu

• I linked "civic virtue" to Machiavelli's concept of virtu, though my descriptor explanation was inadvertently saved as "to Machiavelli" before I could complete it. --RayBirks (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Asimov quote

One might argue that Asimov's doggerel does not need to be in this article at all (though I am fond of it, FWIW). Given that it is in here, however, it is appropriate to point out to the reader that it understates the connection to Gibbons.

If anyone wishes to remove that point (or the entire quote), please explain the reasoning for doing so, at least. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Abridged Version

D. M. Low did an abridged version in 1960. It's a big red book. It's sitting in my lap, if that helps anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.98.153 (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this, the ISBN number would probably be the most helpful. In works published prior to implementation of ISBN, listing the author's full name, publisher (including country), publication-date and date of original copyright (if applicable) would work best. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Gibbons' Legacy

The current content focuses exclusively on a legacy of titles: The Decline and Fall of, and variations thereon. I have also understood -- but have no references to justify an addition -- that he is regarded as having - (A) set the standard for modern historical research, and (B) made the concept of Dark Ages (specifically, the aftermath of a societal collapse) a term of some fear in the English-speaking world. (That he lived in the Roman province that experienced perhaps the greatest disruption from the "decline and fall"; and that his literary style emphasized the consequence, are the points. He did not invent the term, though historians before had emphasized a more benign interpretation.)

Surely these deserve mention as well? Jmacwiki (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

In modern historiography it is usually the German Leopold von Ranke that are acclaimed with "setting the standard for modern historical research" through the foundation of history as an acadmical discipline. Gibbon was incredibly learned, and he was an eminent writer, but already by the 19th century his approach was beginning to look dated, and his use of sources criticised. I don't know the answer regarding your second claim. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Do you see any way to work in anything about this into the "Legacy" section? As I say, it doesn't report anything that would be considered a direct legacy. (The popularity of the "Decline and Fall" title shows that there is an important social and literary legacy, though an indirect one.) Jmacwiki (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Long quotation, good or overlong?

The quotation on Christianity is indeed long. I'd suggest that it is useful as it includes the essence of Gibbon's comments on the matter, both for and against, and that this is worth including in this particular case. Without it, we are left with rather vague comments often with rather little relevance to what Gibbon actually said, and the quotation does help to put the secondary sources into appropriate context. Comments? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I looked for it and did not find any too long quote. Of course the whole should stay. His style & reasoning is exemplary, and he was a first timer in this. Enjoy good written stuff, like I just did! Maybe the quotes could be styled different, within MOS, to set them apart. That tag was placed here [1] by User:Temporaluser, who has not talked or edited here since. I propose removing that tag. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

On first glance, the quotes are too long, relative to the size of the corresponding commentary. (To give context, the longest quotes in the featured article on Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason are only as long as their corresponding commentary, at the most.) I could've pared the quotes down, but I'm not familiar with the whole text to have the proper context to do so. (I wasn't even sure if these particular quotes properly presented his main arguments on Christianity.) @Richard Keatings, I don't think paraphrasing would make it vague. On the contrary, it will rephrase it in a form more intelligible to most modern readers. Breaking up this quote with commentary will also clarify some of his references that are no longer familiar to modern readers. I do agree that leaving a few shorter quotes will provide the adequate context. @DePiep, I don't know what "long" means to you, but the Gibbon's exact text makes up ~75% of the content in the section. Even if Gibbon's writing is exemplary, people can read it in WikiQuote. On a meta note, my purpose at tagging was to stimulate discussion of the quote lengths. Just because I haven't replied promptly to Richard Keatings's comments as you have doesn't mean my original tag is any less applicable. –Temporal User (Talk) 11:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple: it may be long, I don't see why it is too long.

There could be more context, but I don't see how introduction text should relate to the size of a quote. Nor do I argue that, the other way around, this work is so huge there should be lots of quotes from it. Paraphrasing to explain his style of writing is not the way to go. Exactly that is why we quote here. Of course before or after one can explain, but not instead of. And why should a reader go to Wikiquote? If I understand it well, overthere is like no context required at all. Why send the reader away? What is this article about then? And about your last remark: you tagged it but did not give arguments. The discuss-link lead to a blank. What is wrong in noting that?

Over all I am not convinced that it is too long by any relevant means. The tag being put up with paraphrasing or linking to Wikikquote is missing the essense of quoting here. Adding descriptions &tc to the section(s) is welcome. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

In view of the above, and of my own opinion that we have here a mildly unusual case in which the subject of the article can profitably be allowed to state their own position in their own words, I have removed the tag. I agree that commentary could well be added. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.me.com/wkirkpatrick13/DeclineandFallResources/Gibbon.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)