What specifically is wrong with Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire?
I see people claiming it's full of lies or half truths. Which lies specifically? Were they really lies or was Gibbon just writing with less archaeological knowledge in the late 18th century than we have now?
I only ask because it feels like the same type of historical revisionism the West is rife with at the moment. Admonishing the influence of individual actors and ideologies. Attributing greater if not total influence to large scale anthropological forces like climate, geography, technology, population etc. (I don't innately disagree with this perspective of course but I do think a middle ground is preferable)
It feels like most people just criticise Gibbons conclusions about Rome's loss of martial spirit due to high culture/Christianity and their resultant over-reliance on foreign, hostile mercenaries. It seems like this is just an opinion drawn from the facts and can't really be called a lie in and of itself. Do the revisionists merely object to Decline's position of dominance in the Western canon? If that is the case then I suppose that's just par for the critical theory course.
Your thoughts?