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

Archive : thru 2006

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)

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.