Moved into a new house and it is full of interesting books that will keep me busy for years to come. Among them is pic related. A quick google revealed that it is from the 18th century.
So, Veeky Forums, is this book still considered accurate and worthy of a 21th century reader?
>worthy of a 21th century reader
Sounds crude, not what I wanted to express, should have left it at "is it accurate".
Kuhu kohta sa kolisid, et leidsid nii palju raamatuid?
Soovita häid Eesti kirjanduse raamatuid palun. Ma lugenud ainult Tammsaaret, teised tunduvad trashid.
It's THE book about the fall of roman empire
A bit damaged, is it all there?
It's long, but worth the read. Covers 1500 years of history, its emperors, laws, the wars, laws, religion, the fall of the western empire and destruction of the eastern by Islam.
>"muh historical accuracy"
The book is over 2000 pages long. You aren't going to soak up even a 3rd of it and you're sperging out over accuracy.
The real question you should be asking is do you want to read one of the greatest English prose stylists, not whether we have since been able to SCIENCE! the fact that Augustus was black.
sell me that book
It's long, respectable, and in the public domain.
No, nearly all of it has been debunked. What bits and pieces I have read were well-written, though.
Sarcasm?
>Abridged
yes, its a masterpeice
Correct, in 2016 everything a human has previously interfered with or opined about has been debunked because it can't be modelled on pure mathematics.
The overall argument for why it fell is inaccurate. Subsequent scholarship and archaeology has debunked or further developed the factual details that Gibbon uses. It's not read by anyone today as a definite guide to the fall of Rome. Gibbons longevity arises from his place in historiography, not from his works historical accuracy.
>overall argument inaccurate
>falling for the latest is best meme
Current scholarship is materialistically biased so it rejects ideological hypotheses as a matter of course. Prove that Original Edgelord Based Gibbon is wrong or stop memeing.
>Gibbons longevity arises from his place in historiography, not from his works historical accuracy.
This. Read the work for what it is, a masterpiece on the Roman Empire - fuck whether or not it's 100 % accurate using current information.
Real Mommsen as well for the same reason.
>Needing to Google Gibbon
Anyways as says this and Hume's History of England are probably the highest prose of the English language. The scale of research he did for it is massive, and while his arguments have been attacked and sometimes discredited, the history and arguments should be known regardless. Also, the copy you have is abridged, pic related is far superior
Like anything written before the 1960s it's sexist, misogynistic and biased towards a toxic masculocentric view of history. I would advise burning it if you wish to be an ally to womyn and people of color.
At no point did I claim that the latest is the best. All I said was his work is no longer seen as a definitive account of Rome's collapse because archaeological evidence has brought to light inconsistencies in some of Gibbons argument. One such example is Gibbons attitude towards culture; he sees cultural decline as indicative of general decline. Gibbon, therefore, cites the lack of cultural output in the 4th and 5th centuries as evidence that Rome was in decline. Modern archaeology however has revealed Late Antiquity to be, in fact, one of the culturally richest periods of the Roman Empire's existence.
The rejection of ideological hypotheses is based on the contemporary approach to try and understand each epoch on its own terms, rather than trying to subsume every period into an overarching narrative. You can draw generalisations after you've made a study, but it is dangerous to approach history through a pre-determined ideology as it runs the risk of the historian distorting events to suit the narrative. Gibbon, who himself wrote the "General Observations" BEFORE even beginning his research, has been accused of doing just this. The fact that he applies the same pre-conceived cycle of decline to his following analysis of the Barbarian kingdoms, the Arabs, and the Mongols, highlights, for many people, his reductionist (and thus inaccurate) approach as to why each kingdom fell.
In any case, the question OP asked was not "is it right", but "is it considered accurate". For the reasons highlighted above contemporary academia does not consider it accurate. The post I made was to try and explain why people consider it "inaccurate" today, not, as you seem to think, to prove "Original Based Gibbon" wrong.
It's 150 hours long and still only 1 Audible Credit.
Gibbon is great but is difficult to read for a complete newbie because he assumes you have basic schoolboy familiarity with Roman history. "Basic schoolboy familiarity" in Gibbon's day meant basic chronological awareness and a good smattering of classical readings. Might be a bit tedious for you.
Also, that's an abridgment, like others have said. The real book is like 3-4 times longer, because he carries it all the way up through the Byzantines.
>subsequent centuries scholarship has further developed and overturned a 300 year old Enlightenment literary historian's literary survey of Roman history
I don't fucking believe it!!
>cites the lack of cultural output in the 4th and 5th centuries as evidence that Rome was in decline. Modern archaeology however has revealed Late Antiquity to be, in fact, one of the culturally richest periods of the Roman Empire's existence.
Shit meme pushed by post-hippie hippies who want to make their scholarly bones by being contrarian
>ACKSHUALLY, THINKING THAT ROME'S CULTURE "DECLINED" IS OLD-FASHIONED "'GREAT' MAN" THEORY (GREAT IS DOUBLE-QUOTED BECAUSE 'GREAT MEN' WERE NOT GREAT BUT IN FACT WERE EVIL IMPERIALISTS!!!). DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT WEIMAR GERM-- I MEAN, LATE ANTIQUITY, WAS A TIME OF CULTURAL FLOURISHING AND LUMPENPROLETARIAT GOOD TIMES?????? LOOK AT THIS FUCKING JUG AND TELL ME IT'S LESS "GREAT" THAN CICERO!!! THE CRUDELY DRAWN DEPICTION OF TWO DOGS FUCKING, WHILE A SAINT BOWS TO ANOTHER SAINT BOWING TO ANOTHER SAINT AND ALL THE SAINTS LOOK LIKE OBLONG HAMS WITH SMILEY FACES, IS CLEARLY INDICATIVE OF A LACANIAN SOPHISTICATION IN THE PERENNIAL JEJUNE OF MASS CULTURE
READ GIBBON
HANG ALL MODERN CLASSICISTS
RESURRECT THE PRUSSIANS
Wew lad
Tough you have a point
And this is why some of us still come here. Articulate, knowledgeable, and useful.
>RESURRECT THE PRUSSIANS
The baltic tribe or the shit Germans?
for u
it's outdated.
I've heard Theodor Mommsen gives a far better account of the roman empire in his series of books. Anyone have some info?
i picked that up the other day 10 bucks. it's legitness
Asking the same. Also asking for a suggestion on translation to pick up.