hits counter The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (Classic Non Fiction) - Ebook PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (Classic Non Fiction)

Availability: Ready to download

'I set out upon Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" [and] was immediately dominated by both the story and the style, ' recalled Winston Churchill. 'I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all....I was not even estranged by his naughty footnotes.' In the two centuries since its completion, Gibbon's magnum opus -- which en 'I set out upon Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" [and] was immediately dominated by both the story and the style, ' recalled Winston Churchill. 'I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all....I was not even estranged by his naughty footnotes.' In the two centuries since its completion, Gibbon's magnum opus -- which encompasses some 1,300 years as it swings across Europe, North Africa, and Asia -- has refused to go the way of many 'classics' and grow musty on the shelves. 'Gibbon is a landmark and a signpost -- a landmark of human achievement: and a signpost because the social convulsions of the Roman Empire as described by him sometimes prefigure and indicate convulsions which shake the whole world today, ' wrote E.M. Forster. Never far below the surface of the magnificent narrative lies the author's wit and sweeping irony, exemplified by Gibbon's famous definition of history as 'little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.'


Compare

'I set out upon Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" [and] was immediately dominated by both the story and the style, ' recalled Winston Churchill. 'I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all....I was not even estranged by his naughty footnotes.' In the two centuries since its completion, Gibbon's magnum opus -- which en 'I set out upon Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" [and] was immediately dominated by both the story and the style, ' recalled Winston Churchill. 'I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all....I was not even estranged by his naughty footnotes.' In the two centuries since its completion, Gibbon's magnum opus -- which encompasses some 1,300 years as it swings across Europe, North Africa, and Asia -- has refused to go the way of many 'classics' and grow musty on the shelves. 'Gibbon is a landmark and a signpost -- a landmark of human achievement: and a signpost because the social convulsions of the Roman Empire as described by him sometimes prefigure and indicate convulsions which shake the whole world today, ' wrote E.M. Forster. Never far below the surface of the magnificent narrative lies the author's wit and sweeping irony, exemplified by Gibbon's famous definition of history as 'little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.'

30 review for The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (Classic Non Fiction)

  1. 5 out of 5

    Darwin8u

    “the vicissitudes of fortune, which spares neither man nor the proudest of his works, which buries empires and cities in a common grave.” ― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volumes 1 - 6 = 3589 pages, and I can't think of more than 200 that I would have preferred to have skipped. Love Gibbon's sense of humor, his methodology, his hard bigotry towards the Huns, his soft bigotry towards the Christians, and his ability to find interesting nouns to link with rapine: "idleness, “the vicissitudes of fortune, which spares neither man nor the proudest of his works, which buries empires and cities in a common grave.” ― Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volumes 1 - 6 = 3589 pages, and I can't think of more than 200 that I would have preferred to have skipped. Love Gibbon's sense of humor, his methodology, his hard bigotry towards the Huns, his soft bigotry towards the Christians, and his ability to find interesting nouns to link with rapine: "idleness, poverty, and rapine"; "rapine and oppression"; "violence and rapine"; "rapine and cruelty"; "rapine and torture"; "rapine and corruption"; "rapine and disregard"; "War, rapine, and freewill offerings" AND that is all just volume one. An important and interesting work, that moves with a quicker pace than its size or age would suggest. There was some drudgery with the minor, post Constantine emperors. I was also not as excited by the HRE sections as I was by the sections on the Rise of Islam, the Mongols, the Ottoman Empire, and the Crusades. Those sections alone are why I rated the second half 5 stars and not 4. Anyway, a fantastic read. Ironic to finish it right after S&P lowers our national credit rating and our senators again fail to do anything productive.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Ahmad Sharabiani

    The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a six-volume work by the English historian Edward Gibbon. It traces Western civilization from the height of the Roman Empire to the fall of Byzantium. Volume I was published in 1776 and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781. Volumes IV, V, and VI in 1788–1789. The six volumes cover the history, from 98 to 1590, of the Roman Empire, the h The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a six-volume work by the English historian Edward Gibbon. It traces Western civilization from the height of the Roman Empire to the fall of Byzantium. Volume I was published in 1776 and went through six printings. Volumes II and III were published in 1781. Volumes IV, V, and VI in 1788–1789. The six volumes cover the history, from 98 to 1590, of the Roman Empire, the history of early Christianity and then of the Roman State Church, and the history of Europe, and discusses the decline of the Roman Empire among other things. تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز بیست و ششم ماه می سال 1975 میلادی عنوان: ان‍ح‍طاط و س‍ق‍وط ام‍پ‍رات‍وری روم؛ اثر: ادوارد گ‍ی‍ب‍ون؛ مترج‍م: اب‍وال‍ق‍اس‍م‌ طاه‍ری؛ چ‍اپ‌ نخست 1347؛ ک‍ت‍اب‍ه‍ای‌ جی‍ب‍ی‌؛ نشر ف‍ران‍ک‍ل‍ی‍ن‌؛ چاپ دیگر ت‍ه‍ران، س‍ازم‍ان‌ ان‍ت‍ش‍ارات‌ و آم‍وزش‌ ان‍ق‍لاب‌ اس‍لام‍ی‌، 1370، در 623ص‌؛ ن‍ق‍ش‍ه‌؛ ای‍ن‌ ک‍ت‍اب‌ را ب‍ا ت‍رج‍م‍ه‌ بانو ف‍رن‍گ‍ی‍س‌ ش‍ادم‍ان‌ (ن‍م‍ازی‌) ب‍ن‍گ‍اه‌ ت‍رج‍م‍ه‌ و ن‍ش‍ر ک‍ت‍اب‌ نیز در س‍ه‌ ج‍ل‍د، و در س‍ال‌های 1351؛ تا سال 1353هجری خورشیدی م‍ن‍ت‍ش‍ر کرده‌ اس‍ت‌ کتاب «تاریخ انحطاط و سقوط امپراتوری روم»، یا «انحطاط و سقوط امپراتوری روم»، کتابی تاریخی بنوشته ی: «ادوارد گیبون»، تاریخ‌نگار انگلیسی است، که به امپراتوری روم، از اواخر سده ی نخست میلادی، تا سقوط امپراتوری روم شرقی، می‌پردازد.؛ نسخه اصلی کتاب در شش جلد منتشر شده‌ است جلد نخست آن: در سال 1776میلادی، جلدهای دوم و سوم: در سال 1781میلادی، و جلدهای چهارم، پنجم و ششم: در سالهای 1788میلادی و 1789میلادی، منتشر شدند؛ این اثر به امپراتوری روم، اروپا، و کلیسای کاتولیک از سال 98میلادی تا سال 1590میلادی میپردازد و درباره ی انحطاط امپراتوری روم، در شرق و غرب، بحث می‌کند.؛ به سبب عینیت اثر، و استفاده ی بسیار از منابع اولیه، روش‌شناسی به کار گرفته شده در این اثر، در آن زمان، مدلی برای تاریخ‌دانان بعدی شد، و «ادوارد گیبون» به «نخستین تاریخ نگار مدرن روم باستان» شهره شدند تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 02/05/1399هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی

  3. 4 out of 5

    Tedb0t

    The history of human civilization and society is basically a continuum of idiots, sociopaths, murderers and bores, punctuated by the occasional rational individual whose life is cut short by those very sociopaths that succeed him. Gibbon's classic documents a tiny cross-section of some of the most lamentably pathetic mistakes and awful personalities this doomed species has ever suffered. Oh, how times have changed. The history of human civilization and society is basically a continuum of idiots, sociopaths, murderers and bores, punctuated by the occasional rational individual whose life is cut short by those very sociopaths that succeed him. Gibbon's classic documents a tiny cross-section of some of the most lamentably pathetic mistakes and awful personalities this doomed species has ever suffered. Oh, how times have changed.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Paul Bryant

    Well, it's not actually the last word on the Empire. Gibbon hated the Byzantines, thought they were appallingly religious and ineluctably corrupt. So he didn't have a good word to say on the Eastern Empire which lasted 1000 years after the fall of the Western Empire. Modern historians have rehabilitated the Byzantines to a great extent. You have to give it up for Mr Gibbon and his grossly distended testicles - he smuggled into the universities and libraries of the west a most refreshingly undermi Well, it's not actually the last word on the Empire. Gibbon hated the Byzantines, thought they were appallingly religious and ineluctably corrupt. So he didn't have a good word to say on the Eastern Empire which lasted 1000 years after the fall of the Western Empire. Modern historians have rehabilitated the Byzantines to a great extent. You have to give it up for Mr Gibbon and his grossly distended testicles - he smuggled into the universities and libraries of the west a most refreshingly undermined version of Christianity. I hold him partially responsible for the inside-out version of religion you see in the modern Church of England (aka Anglicans, aka Episcopalians). All the supernatural has been bled right out of the thing. They are not Byzantines any more. I only read vols 1-3 but intend to finish the whole thing one day. Hey, half of Gibbon is still twice as long as anyone else!

  5. 4 out of 5

    Roy Lotz

    I have a question that I think you might be able to help me with: should we send this book into space? You know, download it into a golden thumb drive—or perhaps seal a nice leather-bound set in a container—strap it to a rocket, and let it float like the Voyager space probe for all of time. There are weighty reasons for answering in either the positive or the negative. Let us examine them. On the one hand, we have every abominable act, every imaginable vice, every imprudent lunacy able to be comm I have a question that I think you might be able to help me with: should we send this book into space? You know, download it into a golden thumb drive—or perhaps seal a nice leather-bound set in a container—strap it to a rocket, and let it float like the Voyager space probe for all of time. There are weighty reasons for answering in either the positive or the negative. Let us examine them. On the one hand, we have every abominable act, every imaginable vice, every imprudent lunacy able to be committed by man here recorded. After all, this was written by a man who considered history “little more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind.” Imagine an alien race picking up the capsule and deciphering our language. Imagine the looks on their faces (if they have faces) when they hear of the grotesque bunch of bipeds on the other side of the galaxy who do nothing but rape, pillage, and kill each other. Imagine this happens after our sun explodes or we blow ourselves up; this is the last utterance of an extinguished species. Would we want it to be this? Why not Don Quixote or The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? On the other hand, intimately connected with this narrative of wickedness and stupidity, inextricably intertwined in the fabric of this book, is the genius of its author. Who could read a single page of this great book and not be humbled by the quality of his thought, the care of his method, the power of his prose? If ever there was a document that singlehandedly redeems all of the idiocy our race insistently indulges in, it’s this book. At least the aliens would know that one of us had a good head on our shoulders. It is impossible to discuss this work without its author. In perusing The Decline and Fall we find innumerable facets of Gibbon: the philosopher, the poet, the politician, the theologian, the strategist, the humanist, the public servant, the lawyer, the yellow journalist, the sage, (and the historian). But what we find, most of all, is Gibbon the lover of life. No man has ever loved more the variegated tapestry of human affairs—from the daily ritual of a serf to the greatest battles ever waged, from the planning of a palace to the marital squabbles of a prince. He will cast a glance at events large and small, weigh the facts with a disinterested hand, and with a knowing nod and amiable wink he will describe them in his inimitable prose. Gibbon views life like well-aged wine; he will take it in sips and draughts, savoring every strain in the flavor—from the musky, rotten odor to the sweet, honeyed tinge—and then discuss it with you at length. He is a connoisseur of life. Won’t you join him for a drink?

  6. 5 out of 5

    Szplug

    I borrowed the first two volumes—amongst my Dad's all-time favourites—from his study when I was around fourteen; and my enduring fascination with the Roman Empire, and ancient history in general, most likely stems from a combination of the heady brews of Gibbon's and Tolkien's masterworks, which ignited within me a terrific thirst for mythology, legend, and history that has yet to be slaked. As far as The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is concerned, I believe that Gibbon is the greatest pr I borrowed the first two volumes—amongst my Dad's all-time favourites—from his study when I was around fourteen; and my enduring fascination with the Roman Empire, and ancient history in general, most likely stems from a combination of the heady brews of Gibbon's and Tolkien's masterworks, which ignited within me a terrific thirst for mythology, legend, and history that has yet to be slaked. As far as The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is concerned, I believe that Gibbon is the greatest prose stylist in the English language after Shakespeare: even today, decades after that always-so-important first read, I still bear the scars—and leave lingering traces—of my hapless efforts to simulate the effortless erudition, sinuous sublimity, poetic polish, and mellifluous majesty of the supremely gifted Gibbon in my own comparatively shabby scribbling. If you read no other history of the Roman Empire besides this, you would still be impressively knowledgeable, especially about its (frequently deposed and/or murdered) ruler's fortunes, favorites, forays, fratricides, and follies, as well as the general impact on it of Christianity, both in its embryonic, defiant stages and after imperial mass-conversion—though it should be kept in mind that modern scholarship (see, for instance, Peter Heather's recent effort of propinquitous theme and rubric) challenges Gibbon's assignation of primacy to it in undermining the imperial structure. I always recommend reading the unabridged version—how dare they slice up Gibbon's beautiful prose painting!—as the Englishman's musings on the empire's Byzantine stepchild—and its melancholy, lingering efforts to clutch and hold the eastern provinces in seesaw struggle against Slav, Arab, Crusader, and Turk—is well worth the extra pound or two of paper and potential ligament damage.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Loring Wirbel

    The obvious issue to address in reviewing the 3,500-page unabridged edition of Gibbon's masterpiece, is whether the maniacal effort to attack such a work could ever justify preferring it over a single-volume abridged edition. That is an easy call. This work is occasionally tough, often exciting, but in every sense a necessity over any attempts to edit down Gibbon. I tried the 1200-page Modern Library edition and found it fragmented and hard to follow, simply because Gibbon is telling a story tha The obvious issue to address in reviewing the 3,500-page unabridged edition of Gibbon's masterpiece, is whether the maniacal effort to attack such a work could ever justify preferring it over a single-volume abridged edition. That is an easy call. This work is occasionally tough, often exciting, but in every sense a necessity over any attempts to edit down Gibbon. I tried the 1200-page Modern Library edition and found it fragmented and hard to follow, simply because Gibbon is telling a story that defies attempts to hone it down. Is the language stilted and occasionally hard to follow? Sure. The first three volumes were released in 1776, and the last three in 1787. Not only are the sentences convoluted and overextended in a manner far greater than 19th-century writers like Dickens, but Gibbon is inclined to use quaint, silly, and occasionally racist terms that were common in his era. Notions that racial characteristics could be determined by the latitudinal source of an indigenous people's homeland, or that a national culture could be described as "effeminate," have to be taken with an understanding of the limited intelligence of Western philosophers 250 years ago. But let's remind ourselves of what Gibbon really accomplished. Without the benefits of online inquiries or Wikipedia, without the easy ability to travel that some historians take for granted, Gibbon did far more than compile a history of the Western Roman empire from the time of Commodius to the collapse of Rome in the 470s, as well as the companion history of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) empire from 325 AD to 1453 AD. On the way, he compiles histories of Christianity (heresies as well as Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxies), Islam (Sunni and Shia), and a host of "barbarian" and tribal cultures such as Franks, Goths, Suevi, Huns, Vandals, Persian (Sassanid and beyond), khanates, Timurid, and every imaginable iteration thereof. Gibbon tells history as it should be told - as a flow of peoples across a landscape, not as a collection of static dates and personages to be memorized in history class (though, truth be told, it would be useful for him to include a few more dates than the years placed in the margins of each page). It deserves mention that the Catholic Church proscribed this book for more than 200 years, and not only or primarily because of how cruel Gibbon was to the Catholic Church (I for one would call him "cruel but fair," and he often bent over backward to make the case for orthodox interpretations of Christianity). Instead, the main reason the Catholic Church attacked Gibbon is because he described events that really happened. At several points in the last 1700 years, the Catholic Church has tried to claim that certain events in its attacks on heresy, and certain fights between popes and anti-popes, never happened. Gibbon will have none of that, nor will be accept the events in the lives of the saints as being wholly truthful. When he demanded fact-checking on claims of the Catholic Church, it is no wonder the church hierarchy wanted him banned. Many suggest that Gibbon worked with more care on the first three volumes covering the Western Empire than he did on the final three volumes. It's true that after the attempt by Emperor Justinian to re-take the Mediterranean, the narrative falters a bit. Some critics say that this is because Gibbon found the Greek Orthodox Byzantines to be less palatable than the traditional Romans. It's understandable he would have these feelings, because the Byzantine government and culture did not give rise to any great philosophers and historians, only treacherous rulers who would torture each other in odd lines of succession. After the ridiculous wars of iconoclasm in the eighth and ninth centuries, the rest of Byzantine history was just a slow ride down to the day in the mid-15th century when Constantinople was finally conquered by Ottoman Muslims. But Gibbon's problems in the final three volumes were really ones of organization. Perhaps because he didn't want to confuse the readers with the strange succession of emperors, Gibbon groups capsule histories of the emperors early on, then goes back to talk about Islam's spread, the schisms between Orthodox and Catholic churches, the meaning of the steppe-warrior invasions (both Zingis Khan and Timur), and even some odd chapters on Roman civil uprisings. There are times in the last two volumes of the history that the reader has to focus to keep the narrative train on the tracks. And the modern reader always must keep access to Wikipedia handy, because Gibbon rattles off some names tangentially that must be looked up and appraised merely to understand the point he is trying to make. But as challenging as Gibbon's own idiosyncracies are, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire deserves its reputation as the most significant work of history ever accomplished by a single author in the last 500 years. The personality that comes through in the writing shows us that this multi-volume study was not written by committee. Yet the scope of what Gibbon did, writing in 1776, seems far beyond what most modern historians could accomplish with the aid of electronic tools. Maybe Will and Ariel Durant's Civilization series deserves to be placed ahead of Gibbon's for that series' massive size and the equally exquisite writing. Yet the Durants were trying to describe global cultures and their histories in an open and free-flowing way. Gibbon was on a mission to tell a story that had no happy ending, and the reader morbidly follows as though this was the real-world Game of Thrones: the story inevitably will end badly for all concerned, yet we can't put the book(s) down.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Randolph

    Best narrative history ever written. Gibbon had so many fewer sources and tools than we have today, but his basic conclusions from the late 18th century information he had are still largely correct today. A weakened military and political state that relied heavily on barbarian mercenary soldiers for defense was doomed. The different internal barbarian factions just served to divide the military and political and religious structures to a point to where they were easy pickin's from both inside and Best narrative history ever written. Gibbon had so many fewer sources and tools than we have today, but his basic conclusions from the late 18th century information he had are still largely correct today. A weakened military and political state that relied heavily on barbarian mercenary soldiers for defense was doomed. The different internal barbarian factions just served to divide the military and political and religious structures to a point to where they were easy pickin's from both inside and outside the empire. The western empire falling first while the eastern (Greek) Byzantine empire, under less external pressure, survives much longer. (Until their Roman Christian Crusader brothers came to sack them.) Gibbons details the whole ugly mess down to minute detail and doesn't leave anything out, from incest to slaughter. His narrative is lively and opinionated, full of both shock and humor. Read the whole damned thing, footnotes and all, not some abridged abomination. This is a literary work as much as an historical work. Anyone who needs an abject lesson on how the modern western world is going to go, should read these books. We're already in the age of bread and circuses.

  9. 4 out of 5

    Markus

    Reading parts of this again for work, and realised I never reviewed this absolutely massive book. One of the most fascinating (and distorted) works of history ever written, created by one of the most famous (and biased and opinionated) historians of all time. Full review to come.

  10. 4 out of 5

    Bettie

    Description: Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece, which narrates the history of the Roman Empire from the second century A.D. to its collapse in the west in the fifth century and in the east in the fifteenth century, is widely considered the greatest work of history ever written. This abridgment retains the full scope of the original, but in a breadth comparable to a novel. Casual readers now have access to the full sweep of Gibbon’s narrative, while instructors and students have a volume that can be re Description: Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece, which narrates the history of the Roman Empire from the second century A.D. to its collapse in the west in the fifth century and in the east in the fifteenth century, is widely considered the greatest work of history ever written. This abridgment retains the full scope of the original, but in a breadth comparable to a novel. Casual readers now have access to the full sweep of Gibbon’s narrative, while instructors and students have a volume that can be read in a single term. This unique edition emphasizes elements ignored in all other abridgments—in particular the role of religion in the empire and the rise of Islam. audio 6 volumes g drive Will I ever get around to this? In the meantime I have found a film (which beats the faeces out of Gladiator) to entertain whilst I paint a yellow streak down my back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWEzp... 03:04:20 - - This film is called 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' deals with Marcus Aurelius 26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD (from wiki): He was the last of the Five Good Emperors, and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers. ETA: there is a TV documentary series, not as classy by any means but beggars and choosers and all that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61g4B...

  11. 4 out of 5

    Alan

    Gibbon's great, repeated subject: magnificent, superior ideas reduced by human motives to narrow self-aggrandising brutality. Not all historians are ironists, and few can summarize (albeit in compound paragraphs) complex Christian beliefs in stark contrast to un-Christian behavior (need a Gibbon for current US politics--don't see one): “but as the angels who protected the catholic cause were only visible to the eyes of faith, Theodosius prudently reinforced those heavenly legions with the more e Gibbon's great, repeated subject: magnificent, superior ideas reduced by human motives to narrow self-aggrandising brutality. Not all historians are ironists, and few can summarize (albeit in compound paragraphs) complex Christian beliefs in stark contrast to un-Christian behavior (need a Gibbon for current US politics--don't see one): “but as the angels who protected the catholic cause were only visible to the eyes of faith, Theodosius prudently reinforced those heavenly legions with the more effectual aid of temporal and carnal weapons, and the church of St Sophia was occupied by a large body of the Imperial guards”(II.12) His balanced, Tacitean grammar adds irony. Every paragraph may be read as a comment on our contemporary politics, because Gibbon writes of character and social structure. Take hypocrisy. Might we not find current U.S. equivalents for Augustus’s “tender respect for a free constitution which he had destroyed.” Gibbon sums up Augustus: “His virtues, and even his vices, were artificial” (Bk I, p.63), I‘ve often quoted. With a cool head and cowardly disposition, Augustus preserved the names and forms of the ancient administration: “But such was the propensity of the Romans to servitude, that the [military] oath was voluntarily taken by the magistrates, the senators, and the equestrian order, till the homage of flattery was insensibly converted into an annual and solemn protestation of fidelity”(57). “The corruption of Roman manners would always supply flatterers eager to applaud” and this, our White House in 2017 may equal. Augustus was sensible that “mankind is governed by names,” that Rustan’s Persian offered no words for any form of government except absolute monarchy, while “king” had alarmed even Caesar’s adherents. For the next couple hundred years the military chose the emperor*; however, after the generals stabbed Aurelian, they felt guilty and declined the purple. So did the Senate, putative selector, decline because of the military tradition. The result: an eight month interregnum, without sedition (275). During these centuries after Augustus, Christianity grew. “Our curiosity is prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth.” One possible answer, convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, “But as truth and reason seldom find so favorable a reception in the world…we may be permitted to ask…what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth.” 1 Inflexible zeal, 2 future life, 3 pure morals, 4 supernatural gifts, say with languages. (I.XV.383 & 409) This, from the famous chapter XV on Christianity and Judaism, boiled down from a full volume. Continuing"On the Progress of Christianity," "It is a very ancient reproach, suggested by the ignorance or the malice of infidelity, that the Christians allured into their party the most atrocious criminals, who, as soon as they were touched by a sense of remorse, were easily persuaded to wash away, in the water of baptism, the guilt of their past conduct…" Sounds like the Evangelicals in U.S, Jimmy Swaggart, "I have sinned!" (1988). He relegates to a footnote a Catholic detail, on miracles that Bernard of Clairvaux assigned to everybody but himself, "In the long series of ecclesiastical history, does there exist a single instance of a saint asserting that he himself possessed the gift of miracles?" More generally, "The expulsion of demons from the bodies of those unhappy persons whom they had been permitted to torment was considered as a signal though ordinary triumph of religion…and the most convincing evidence of the truth of Christianity." As I learned in a seminar with Sander Gilman (then of Cornell Medical School), disease was conceived as entering from outside the body, and exiting--especially at night, in the case of madness (say, Malvolio's curative dark box in Twelfth Night). As for Judaism, "The first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were all circumcised Jews…(and their congregation) united the law of Moses and the doctrine of Christ (called Nazarenes)." But in his rationalist admonitory style, "When the tides of the ocean and the course of the planets were suspended for the convenience of the Israelites; and when temporal rewards and punishments were the immediate consequences of their piety or disobedience, they perpetually relapsed into rebellion..and placed the idols of the nations in the sanctuary of Jehovah…." "In contradiction to every known principle of the human mind, that singular people seems to have yielded a stronger and more ready assent to the traditions of their remote ancestors than to the evidence of their own senses." Concluding his whole work, Gibbon lists, as he did with the attractions of Christianity, the causes of the Decline and Fall: Voila! Christianity is a principal cause. As for the increase of the public riches of the Church, members were urged to over-tithe “at the expense of their unfortunate children, who found themselves beggars because their parents had been saints”(425, noting Prudentius). Tertullian recommended Christians flee to avoid murdering, in military service, and also in civil administration. Christianity valued chastity, that some Virgins in Africa disdained flight, "permitted deacons to share their bed and gloried...in their unsullied purity." As for the six Vestal Virgins (their small round temple survives by the Tiber), "It was with the utmost difficulty that Rome could support the institution”(I.415). Emperors found imaginative ways to execute Christians (see my Lactantius rev); Nero, for example, besides crucifixion, sewed them in the skins of animals, had them devoured by dogs, or burnt as torches for a horse-race in Nero’s gardens (457). Writing on Theodosius, who in Constantinople suppressed my favorite Arianism, his daughter Galla Placida in Ravenna—where some Arian chapels still exist, showing Christ with a penis. Of course, Theodosius’s basilica is also there. Perhaps my favorite sentence in all Gibbon, the emperor’s excluding Arians from Hagia Sophia, as I began. Gibbon continually contrasts idealism and force, religion and murder. Toward the end, Gibbon assesses Mohammed, “an illiterate barbarian,” whose relative solitude attests his genius (Volume III, Ch L). Mohammed refused to perform miracles, but the Qu’ran itself, from an illiterate, has been seen as a miracle, though published posthumously. Gibbon makes the great point: “the most arduous conquests of Mohammed were those of his servant, his pupil, and his friend; since he presented himself as a prophet to those who were most conversant with his infirmities as a man”(III.93). * Emperors from Augustus to the conversion of the Empire under Constantine: Augustus 27B.C.-14A.D., Tiberius 14-37, Caligula 37-41, Claudius 41-54, Nero 54-68, Galla 68-69, Otho 69, Vitellius 69, Vespasian 69-79, Titus 79-81, Domitian 81-96, Nerva 96-98, Trajan 98-117, Hadrian 117-138, Antoninus Pius 138-161, Marcus Aurelius 161-180, Lucius Verus Antoninus 161-169, Commodus 180-192, Pertinax 193 (Jan 1-Mar 28), Didius Julianus 193, Septimus Severus 193-211, Caracalla 211-217, Geta 211-212, Macrinus 217-218, Elagabalus 218-222 (d. age 18), Severus Alexander 222-235, Maximinus 235-238, Gordians I, II, III 238-244, Philip the Arab 244-249, Decius 249-251, Valerian 253-260, Gallianus 253-268, Claudius Gothicus 268-270, Aurelian 270-275, Tacitus 275-276, Florian 276, Probus 276-282, Carus 282-283, Carinus 283-285, Diocletian 284-305, Maximian 286-305, Constantine & Licinius 307-324, Constantine 324-337.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Traveller

    Classic treatment by the eminent historian Gibbon of not only the contributing factors to the fall of the Roman Empire, but a blow-by-blow account of the course of its decline. For more pertinent thoughts, please see the comment box below.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Czarny Pies

    From the perspective of the 21st century, this book is quite preposterous. Beginning in 98 AD with the consulship of Trajan in Rome, it finishes in 1493 with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks. Thus it starts in the Italian peninsula and finishes in the Middle East. The narrative runs from classical antiquity, passes through the middle ages and concludes in the Renaissance. The scope is too wide and the time frame is absurdly long. It is of course a remarkable work of scholarship. At From the perspective of the 21st century, this book is quite preposterous. Beginning in 98 AD with the consulship of Trajan in Rome, it finishes in 1493 with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks. Thus it starts in the Italian peninsula and finishes in the Middle East. The narrative runs from classical antiquity, passes through the middle ages and concludes in the Renaissance. The scope is too wide and the time frame is absurdly long. It is of course a remarkable work of scholarship. At the time Gibbon was writing in the 18th century none of the classical works had been translated into modern languages so Gibbon read everything in the original Greek or Latin versions. This is an exploit that has never and will never be repeated. Reading "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is a hellish and a pointless slog.

  14. 4 out of 5

    grllopez

    This history was impressive. Gibbon has a beautiful writing style. He makes reading history (one of the most important histories of the world) so pleasant to read. I will have to reread this someday, and much more slowly. Here's a blurb from my review (on my blog): You have heard it said, "History repeats itself," and "One thing we learn from history is that no one learns from history." Well, we have no excuse for this, and that is why everyone should read it. Do not be intimidated because it is This history was impressive. Gibbon has a beautiful writing style. He makes reading history (one of the most important histories of the world) so pleasant to read. I will have to reread this someday, and much more slowly. Here's a blurb from my review (on my blog): You have heard it said, "History repeats itself," and "One thing we learn from history is that no one learns from history." Well, we have no excuse for this, and that is why everyone should read it. Do not be intimidated because it is history. This is essential history, well written. It is one of those works that makes you rethink the way you think about the history you have been taught. It forces you to put aside your own preconceived ideas, if only for a moment. And I cannot stress enough how beautifully well written it is. It is too bad that not all history is written this well. For the full review: https://greatbookstudy.blogspot.com/2...

  15. 5 out of 5

    Justin Evans

    Hard to know where to begin with this. His much praised style? Sure, it's better than most historians, but it still bears the scars of the eighteenth century in general, and eighteenth century self-importance in particular. Yes, there's the odd ironic gotcha, but I got the distinct impression that he was shooting fish in a barrel. With a shotgun. An automatic shotgun, like in a video game. Compare, for instance, Swift- he was hunting big game. The ideology? Only one kind of person could read thi Hard to know where to begin with this. His much praised style? Sure, it's better than most historians, but it still bears the scars of the eighteenth century in general, and eighteenth century self-importance in particular. Yes, there's the odd ironic gotcha, but I got the distinct impression that he was shooting fish in a barrel. With a shotgun. An automatic shotgun, like in a video game. Compare, for instance, Swift- he was hunting big game. The ideology? Only one kind of person could read this and think 'oh, it's refreshing how fair and balanced he is.' Basically, if you're the kind of person who thinks there are two (and only two) sides to every story, who also reads revisionist histories without understanding why the authors of said histories feel the need to 'revise,' and who thinks that anything that's been said more than twice deserves to be revised... you'll find this fair and balanced. If, on the other hand, you think that someone who comes to history with an absolute determination to read it through their own highly idiosyncratic beliefs (here- and I say this without knowing what Gibbon actually believed, so I might be wrong- classical republicanism, classical liberalism, and Voltaire-induced anti-clericalism) is likely to write from a skewed perspective... well, you might disagree with the idea that he's anything other than an extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely intelligent, well-read eighteenth century liberal. I should, though, have started with the breadth of the thing, which is fabulous. Even in abridgment, it's more wide-ranging than almost any history I've ever read. And I was particularly thankful for the editor's work: he included chapters from all the volumes, including a great chapter on the origins of Islam, and a speculative chapter linking 'Paulicianism' to the Cathars (no idea if this is at all accurate). On this basis, I'd far rather read the final volumes in full and skip the first one. I know most people would rather read about Rome than about medieval Europe, or the Eastern Empire, and so on. But I still can't work out why. So this has all the strengths and all the weaknesses of non-scholarly history, but is stronger and less weak than most of it. In the absence of statistical or archaeological research, the best thing you could do was read everything and try to weed out the facts from the legend, and Gibbon did that better than anyone. This is history as a moral discipline, in which you pick your heroes and your villains and then write (about individuals- groups are ipso facto villainous, except for heretics, merchants and intellectuals) accordingly; it's closer to Dante than historiography. That said, you will learn something; and if you're anything like me, you'll learn the most from the closing chapters.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Bryan Alkire

    The edition I just finished was a complete one volume e-book. It runs to 5414 e-pages. Simply put, they don’t publish books like this one anymore. Reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire really puts current historiography in perspective. First, a history today is considered magisterial if it runs to 500 pages, heaven forbid that it be two or more volumes after that. Second, most history published today is on social issues or single stand-alone events which become magnified into earthshaking The edition I just finished was a complete one volume e-book. It runs to 5414 e-pages. Simply put, they don’t publish books like this one anymore. Reading Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire really puts current historiography in perspective. First, a history today is considered magisterial if it runs to 500 pages, heaven forbid that it be two or more volumes after that. Second, most history published today is on social issues or single stand-alone events which become magnified into earthshaking events according to the author’s opinions. Decline and Fall is refreshing narrative history. Gibbon gamely covers everything important politically from the time of the Antonine’s to the 15th century and much that is not important but of interest to him. His writing is outstanding, no one writes like that today…it flows yet makes his points clearly in a narrative with is blessedly free of large chunks of undigested documentary sources. Additionally, Gibbon is an unapologetic about his views that Christianity weakened both Rome and Byzantium. Such views couldn’t be published today outside a limited political polemic not a massive historical narrative. Further, unlike many histories today, Gibbon doesn’t attempt to analogize between history and current events, a serious habit of modern historians. There’s nothing here about late 18th century society or events here aside from money conversions. Contrast that with today’s histories which try and often fail to link the history to modern events in often false or inappropriate analogies. I think every historian should read and reflect on this work, particularly the narrative itself. I do believe there are chapters which have been superseded by modern history and that there are better works on individual topics, but as a whole, this is the source to start your reading. Modern historians, academic and popular, have a long way to go in matching this classic.

  17. 5 out of 5

    Aloke

    I'm sure a whole book could be written just about the history of this book! From the introduction of my abridged edition, edited by Mueller: "The present abridgment is hardly the first and will likely not remain the last. Each age and each reader will find his or her own Gibbon. We must first ask then why Gibbon's words should be abridged at all. The short answer: because there are so many of them." For (my own) reference, Mueller's aim was to "preserve the thread" of the "spectacle of the decline I'm sure a whole book could be written just about the history of this book! From the introduction of my abridged edition, edited by Mueller: "The present abridgment is hardly the first and will likely not remain the last. Each age and each reader will find his or her own Gibbon. We must first ask then why Gibbon's words should be abridged at all. The short answer: because there are so many of them." For (my own) reference, Mueller's aim was to "preserve the thread" of the "spectacle of the decline and fall of a civilization across a thousand years". He also comments that he "has included as much religious history as possible, and certainly more than enough to offend." Cheeky.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Jacob Aitken

    Gibbon, Edward. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Abridged. Introduction by Daniel Boorstin. This is an abridged edition. It is 1300 pages long. If you feel like you would get bogged down from the whole work, this is a welcome addition. If you are the type where you want to soak in Gibbon’s magnificent prose, then get the Penguin edition of the full text, which are edited by David Womersley. Before we begin we need to spend time on Gibbon’s prose style. Like Samuel Johnson he was a master of t Gibbon, Edward. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Abridged. Introduction by Daniel Boorstin. This is an abridged edition. It is 1300 pages long. If you feel like you would get bogged down from the whole work, this is a welcome addition. If you are the type where you want to soak in Gibbon’s magnificent prose, then get the Penguin edition of the full text, which are edited by David Womersley. Before we begin we need to spend time on Gibbon’s prose style. Like Samuel Johnson he was a master of the “periodic style.” His use of compound and subordinate clauses bring us to a sharp conclusion. Also note the parallelism: “With regard to Spain, that country flourished as a province and has declined as a kingdom” (ch. 2). Do you see the point (flourished) and counterpoint (declined)? Gibbon describes the prosperous condition of the Roman Empire at the end of the 2nd century and deduces the causes of its decline (ch. 1). On a sub-level he is showing England the superiority of a life of virtue, which leads to public liberty. Rome’s problems are caused by her success, and especially as that success brings luxury. As Gibbon notes later on, “[T]he simplicity of Roman manners was insensibly corrupted by the stately affectation of the courts in Asia. The distinctions of personal merit and influence, so conspicuous in a republic, so feeble and obscure under a monarchy, were abolished by the despotism of the emperors” (ch. 17). Look for the historian’s assertions. Gibbon asserts that the Church grew because of (1) intolerant zeal; (2) doctrine of a future life, (3) testimony of miracles; (4) pure morals; and (5) union of the Christian republic (ch. 15). Gibbon asserts an implicit return to the morals and virtues of a free Republic. Obviously, this cannot be of Rome, so is he asking what would it look like of England?[ As a classical liberal, Gibbon prizes liberty above all else. Gibbon doesn’t say Christianity caused the Roman Empire to fall. Rather, it hastened its demise. This is correct. A more immediate answer is that success brings decadence and few men are virtuous enough to resist degeneration. He notes of the Byzantine emperors’ fall from the original ideal that “the form of government was a pure and simple monarchy; the name of the Roman Republic, which so long preserved a faint tradition of freedom, was confined to the Latin provinces; and the princes of Constantinople measured their greatness by the servile obedience of their people. They were ignorant how much this passive disposition enervates and degrades every faculty of mind….They were equally incapable of guarding their lives and fortunes from the assaults of the Barbarians” (ch. 32). What of Gibbon’s skeptical remarks and his notorious comments on homoousion? Take them for what they are worth. You aren’t going to Gibbon for conciliar theology--but even regarding the church he isn’t always wrong. His comments on monasticism are quite funny. This is a book you read off and on for about 10 years. Let his prose penetrate your entire being. It’s no accident that all of the theologians of the 19th century, almost all of them fair rhetoricians, schooled themselves on Gibbon.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Shyam

    I'll review this thoroughly the next time around, but for now, I would just like to direct anyone reading this to three excellent, long, epic works of truly Gibbonian proportions covering Roman History that they may wish to read both before, and after, Gibbon, as I did. Before Gibbon I. Theodor Mommsen's A History of Rome is a magisterial 5-volume work published 1854-1856, which begins with the founding of Rome in 753 BC and goes down to the reign of Julius Caesar. This work helped Mommsen win the I'll review this thoroughly the next time around, but for now, I would just like to direct anyone reading this to three excellent, long, epic works of truly Gibbonian proportions covering Roman History that they may wish to read both before, and after, Gibbon, as I did. Before Gibbon I. Theodor Mommsen's A History of Rome is a magisterial 5-volume work published 1854-1856, which begins with the founding of Rome in 753 BC and goes down to the reign of Julius Caesar. This work helped Mommsen win the Nobel Prize for Literature; this being the only work of History to receive such an honour. (The edition linked is abridged, and although I strongly agree with Montaigne's view that "every abridgement of a good book is a foolish abridgement.", I would still recommend it; it is intelligently abridged, and beautifully produced. There are unabridged, multi-volume editions available.) To fill the gap between the reign of Julius Caesar, where Mommsen ends, and the reign of Marcus Aurelius, where Gibbon begins, you could read Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars, and part of the Lives of the Later Caesars. (If you would prefer to go more in-depth, add Appian and Tacitus after Suetonius. See below for more . . .) After Gibbon II.Thomas Hodgkin's The Barbarian Invasions of the Roman Empire. Originally titled "Italy and her Invaders", and published 1880-1899 in 8 volumes. Beginning with the history of the Goths and Alaric's siege of Rome, it continues on with the Huns and Vandals, the Ostrogoths, Lombards, finally ending with the Franks and the crowning and death of Charlemagne down to 814 AD. It's very thoroughly researched (for it's time of course, just like Gibbon), and made even more impressive by the fact that he worked on it during his spare time as a Banker, working at a house that would eventually become Lloyds, which still exists to this day. (The edition linked is beautifully produced, illustrated throughout, and can be had for cheaper than regular hardback editions of the work, if, like me, you're lucky.) III. John Julius Norwich's Byzantium: The Early Centuries/The Apogee/The Decline And Fall. An excellent, accessible work opening with Constantine in 274 AD, and going down to the fall of Constantinople in 1453 AD. Great if you enjoyed reading about the Eastern Empire in Gibbon, and would like to learn more. __________ If, like me, you want to read primary sources of Roman History in a chronological fashion, before moving on to secondary sources (something I can recommend), here's a list of works that I can recommend. It's not exhaustive, but it contains all the major works providing a continuous, almost unbroken narrative, from the foundation of Rome in 753BC, down to the third-century AD, in primary sources. (Editions linked are translations I have read and can recommend; dates bracketed below are periods the works cover, not publication dates) Livy's Ab Urbe Condita or From the Foundation of the City (753-9 BC (!)) Books 1-10 & 21-45 are fully extant, with epitomes surviving of books 46-142 • Books I-V: The Early History of Rome (753-390BC) • Books VI-X: Rome's Italian Wars: Books 6-10 (389-293 BC) • Books XXI-XXX: The War with Hannibal: Books XXI-XXX of the History of Rome from its Foundation (218-202 BC) • Books: XXXI-XL: The Dawn of the Roman Empire: Books Thirty-One to Forty (201-179 BC) • V. Books XLI-XLV & the Epitomies of Books XLVI-CXLVII: Rome's Mediterranean Empire: Books 41-45 and the Periochae (178-9 BC) Polybius' The Histories (264-146 BC) Caesar's The Gallic War (58-51 BC) Caesar's The Civil War (49-48 BC) Appian's The Civil Wars (133-35 BC) Sallust's Catiline's War, The Jugurthine War, Histories (86-35 BC) Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars (100BC-96 AD) Tacitus' The Annals: The Reigns of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero (14-68 AD) Tacitus' The Histories (69-96 AD) Historia Augusta/Augustan History/ Lives of the Later Caesars: Lives of the Later Caesars

  20. 4 out of 5

    Adam

    Avoid this abridged edition of Gibbon’s classic. It is a huge disappointment to be being fully absorbed in the text and then groan as a cross is marked where a significant portion has been cut. This is depressing and makes for a disjointed unsatisfying read. But, that is not the worst crime of this edition. Every single one of Gibbon’s footnotes has been removed. Some of his footnotes just give his sources (which are important in themselves), but others comment on the text and continue it, and o Avoid this abridged edition of Gibbon’s classic. It is a huge disappointment to be being fully absorbed in the text and then groan as a cross is marked where a significant portion has been cut. This is depressing and makes for a disjointed unsatisfying read. But, that is not the worst crime of this edition. Every single one of Gibbon’s footnotes has been removed. Some of his footnotes just give his sources (which are important in themselves), but others comment on the text and continue it, and others provide an ironic commentary. This edition is beyond awful, dig up the full editions and avoid at all costs. Who allowed this butchery to exist?

  21. 4 out of 5

    Rob Roy

    For those who hated to learn dates in history, read this, it will change your mind. It covers 1200 years, and five volumes yet, only has two dates. A masterpiece without doubt, but his subjectivity, and preference for western European history is evident. He covers 300 years history of the Eastern Empire in one chapter. This book is like an elephant. You eat it one bite at a time. I read two sections between each book I read. Took me a year and a half, but I ate the elephant!

  22. 4 out of 5

    Jonathan Mckay

    1st book of 2021: The Forest and the Trees. After reading this near 4000 page epic, I found myself made of questions. What is Rome? What is history? What is a book? I don’t know enough to know whether Gibbon threw out the norms, or just wrote this before the norms were created, but Decline and Fall is like trying read a fractal version of game of thrones while playing a memory game about every person you met in elementary school. Is this something you would enjoy? Read on... First, every other 1st book of 2021: The Forest and the Trees. After reading this near 4000 page epic, I found myself made of questions. What is Rome? What is history? What is a book? I don’t know enough to know whether Gibbon threw out the norms, or just wrote this before the norms were created, but Decline and Fall is like trying read a fractal version of game of thrones while playing a memory game about every person you met in elementary school. Is this something you would enjoy? Read on... First, every other book about the decline and fall of the roman empire is wrong. Not wrong as in factually inaccurate, but wrong as in hilariously incomplete. Fell two trees worth of paper, and you can start to tell the story. Gibbon attempts all the details, each succession, assassination and great campaign. I’ll quote Gibbon on the perils of such an approach: “These annals must continue to repeat a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery; the natural connection of causes and events broken by frequent and hasty transitions, and a minute accumulation of circumstances must destroy the light and effect of those general pictures which compose the use and ornament of a remote history. ” I couldn’t help but think of that other 4000 page saga noting that “Every time a new Targaryen is born, the gods toss the coin in the air and the world holds its breath to see how it will land.” Put another way, the mechanics of empire created a random walk composed of succession events to new Emperors that over time had a destabilizing effect. No one emperor can destroy the empire, and when you only toss the fateful coin once a generation, it can take a long time for the odds to play themselves out. For Gibbon the question is not why did Rome fall, but “rather, why did the roman empire last so long?” As far as I could tell, the maritime trade connecting the prosperous north Africa with boat building and army-raising Europe and Asia created a stable advantage over the Iranian empires to the east and barbarians east of the Danube. But I digress by injecting economics into our story. What coin-tosses bankrupted the house? Like Seutonius, Gibbon does not summarize his history or create a narrative where the full details will suffice. So for the sake of my own sanity, I created one. 1. 276: First, Diocletian divided the empire in two, doubling the number of dangerous coin flips and civil wars. 2. Next, Christianity introduced a schismatic centrifugal force towards fracturing the empire. 3. 330: the capital moved to Constantinople. Wealth and power concentrated in the east, making Italy and other western provinces more of a backwater. When Rome itself permanently fell some 152 years later, it was not by any means the most important city in the empire. 4. Eventually, the western provinces, stripped of an African economic advantage or Asian support, fell. First in 395, then more permanently in 476, and then permanently for real with the fall of the exarchate in 751. 5. 565 After the Justinian reconquest, in which “the genius to command and the wisdom to obey were found only in the mind of Bellesarius” , Italy was essentially depopulated due to war and plague. There wasn’t anything worth taking for the weakened Byzantine empire. 6. 647 The Arab conquest of Egypt and North Africa stripped much of the economic advantage held by the Roman empire, this time for good. Umayyads siege Constantinople repeatedly and unsuccessfully, so our story continues for another 800 years. 7. At some point or another: Arabs, Turks, Bulgarians, and anybody in the neighborhood loot and annex provinces they can from the empire. 8. 1203 Crusaders and Venetians, through a bizarre combination of miscommunication, bribery, zeal, and debauchery successfully sack Constantinople on their way to fight infidels. Byzantines eventually get it back. 9. 1453 Sultan the Conquerer made it his life’s mission to subdue Constantinople, which at this point was the extent of the Byzantine empire and simply a ‘thorn in the side’ of the Ottomans. The only thing to keep a dear reader transfixed with an endless procession of successions and depositions is Gibbon’s writing style, which is punchy even 300 years later. My favorite Gib-burns: * On the state of Rome in the 5th century: "Europe was overrun by barbarians and Asia by the monks" * On the Justinian code: “the books of jurisprudence were interesting to few, and entertaining to none” * On the Arabs: “In Arabia as in Greece, the perfection of language outstripped the refinement of manners.” * On Roman-Persian wars: “But the events by which the fate of nations is not materially changed leave a faint impression on the page of history and the patience of the reader would be exhausted by the same hostilities undertaken without cause, prosecuted without glory, and terminated without effect. ” * On Byzantium, in general: “At every step, as we sink deeper in the decline and fall of the Eastern empire, the annals of each succeeding reign would impose a more ungrateful and melancholy task.” * On Baghdad falling to the Mongols: but the city was distracted by theological factions, and the commander of the faithful was lost in a harem of 700 concubines. The invasions of the Moguls he encountered with feeble arms and haughty embassies." You’ll either need some reference reading, or a few barrels of ancient wine to make it through to the end, here’s what I recommend: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWwAC... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

  23. 4 out of 5

    Lee Walker

    I have almost finished Volume 1. The first fourteen chapters were excellent. Unfortunately chapter 15 drones on about Christianity, in a way that I don't find very compelling (and normally I am not that averse to the history of religion). Furthermore the edition I have is edited by some religious nut-job who, whenever the topic turns to religion, becomes very excited and starts inserting 10 times as many footnotes as he normally does. On the whole, however, I am very much enjoying this work. Gibb I have almost finished Volume 1. The first fourteen chapters were excellent. Unfortunately chapter 15 drones on about Christianity, in a way that I don't find very compelling (and normally I am not that averse to the history of religion). Furthermore the edition I have is edited by some religious nut-job who, whenever the topic turns to religion, becomes very excited and starts inserting 10 times as many footnotes as he normally does. On the whole, however, I am very much enjoying this work. Gibbon has a very lively style which I find comforting. I have heard others complain that his language is too flowery, or even that it is hard to read. I disagree with both those contentions. Gibbon also peppers his narrative with many intriguing tidbits. For instance did you know the emperor Maximin was supposed to be 8 feet tall, could break a horse's thigh bone with a single punch, drank up to 7-8 gallons of wine in a day, and could eat 30-40 pounds of meat (also in a single day!) Exaggerations, no doubt. But fun to read. And Gibbon always gives his sources for these myriad factoids, so diligent readers may check the primary record for themselves.

  24. 4 out of 5

    sologdin

    were gibbon a marxist, he might say that the western empire fell because roman citizens slowly transformed through the dialectics of economic and military conquest from virtuous members of a cosmopolis into self-oriented and animalistic lumpenized antisocial nihilists, which would be difficult to dispute conceptually. whether this civic decay is the cause or rather the effect of mass irreversible saturnism remains nevertheless as yet unaddressed by the learned writer.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Richard Epstein

    Although the Empire teeters almost from the beginning, it takes a long time to fall. It turns out the fall, if not the decline, was all the fault of Christianity. And evil, thoroughly debauched emperors, like Gordion, Commodus, and Palpatine. With Gibbon's assistance, they fall in the best prose possible. I was going to insert a few of my favorite passages here, but there were about 6 volumes of them, so I desisted. Although the Empire teeters almost from the beginning, it takes a long time to fall. It turns out the fall, if not the decline, was all the fault of Christianity. And evil, thoroughly debauched emperors, like Gordion, Commodus, and Palpatine. With Gibbon's assistance, they fall in the best prose possible. I was going to insert a few of my favorite passages here, but there were about 6 volumes of them, so I desisted.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Ross Cohen

    Winston Churchill described reading "The Decline and Fall" best. He writes: "I set out upon...Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [and] was immediately dominated both by the story and the style. ...I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all." Having spent so much time with Gibbon, and having had so much fun along the way, I find it hard to accept the ride is over. Nevertheless, it is over – Rome has fallen, and it fell spectacularly. Winston Churchill described reading "The Decline and Fall" best. He writes: "I set out upon...Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [and] was immediately dominated both by the story and the style. ...I devoured Gibbon. I rode triumphantly through it from end to end and enjoyed it all." Having spent so much time with Gibbon, and having had so much fun along the way, I find it hard to accept the ride is over. Nevertheless, it is over – Rome has fallen, and it fell spectacularly.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Jennifer (JC-S)

    ‘Gibbon expressed the hope that his book would be read for two centuries.’ I first dipped into various volumes of this work in 1972, when I was studying Ancient History (Greek and Roman) at Launceston Matriculation College. I’d read it at the Launceston Library, initially as part of my search for different sources of information about the Roman Empire. No, I didn’t (then) read the entire six volumes. I didn’t have time. I was busy imagining my future, studying hard, wondering about possibilities. ‘Gibbon expressed the hope that his book would be read for two centuries.’ I first dipped into various volumes of this work in 1972, when I was studying Ancient History (Greek and Roman) at Launceston Matriculation College. I’d read it at the Launceston Library, initially as part of my search for different sources of information about the Roman Empire. No, I didn’t (then) read the entire six volumes. I didn’t have time. I was busy imagining my future, studying hard, wondering about possibilities. Now, 47 years later, I’ve read the work (the Folio Edition, in eight volumes). As I read, I remembered the idealistic teenager who first picked up those books. I remembered wondering about how history was written (and by whom) about the influences on historiography. In 1972 Edward Gibbon’s work sparked my interest in Byzantine history (not his intention I am sure, but I was ever contrary). Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was published between 1776 and 1789. It took him seventeen years to write. While Gibbon’s views on the fall of the Roman Empire may be challenged by some modern historians, the History was (and remains) a remarkable achievement. I love it for two reasons. Firstly, opening the pages takes me back some 47 years in my own life into a time of (seemingly) endless possibility and into worlds far more interesting than the one I then inhabited. Secondly, Gibbon’s footnotes add such value to the text. I read the History slowly, over a period of months. I could not have read it more quickly: I had both Gibbon’s journey and my own to undertake. And at the end, while I don’t completely agree that the Roman Empire failed solely because of its own weakness and the influence of Christianity, it makes sense in Gibbon’s worldview. Will I read it again? No. My journey is complete. But I am tempted to revisit the Greek side of Ancient History, with Thucydides and Herodotus. Jennifer Cameron-Smith

  28. 4 out of 5

    Debbie

    It did not take me as long to read this as it took Gibbon to write it but at times it felt like a backwards race for who will take longer. Part of the advantage of reading it is that I got it as an ebook from gutenberg.org. Part of the disadvantage is that it is an ebook that I owned so I could take as long as I needed. It also ran across the deadly experience of trying to read it on an app on a tablet instead of an ebook reader. During that phase, I rarely read as opening the tablet hurt my eye It did not take me as long to read this as it took Gibbon to write it but at times it felt like a backwards race for who will take longer. Part of the advantage of reading it is that I got it as an ebook from gutenberg.org. Part of the disadvantage is that it is an ebook that I owned so I could take as long as I needed. It also ran across the deadly experience of trying to read it on an app on a tablet instead of an ebook reader. During that phase, I rarely read as opening the tablet hurt my eyes. There was no night time setting available on tablets at that phase so it was always full light. Ow, ow, ow. I could set my e-reader app to comfortable levels, but I had to go through pain until it opened. I started reading in December 2011 and finished in September 2019. V.2, the longest time was 2012 to 2o15. That was the tablet time. The shortest was v. 3 at only 1 month. To the book itself. Gibbon's writing is what kept me reading this very, very long work. In spite of problems, his engaging style kept me intrigued. I had no idea the Roman Empire itself went on for so long nor that it actually split into two separate parts with the focus of the empire in the east. One of my challenges in reading the book was that I never knew "when" I was. Is it still 400 or have we progressed to 600? Part of the problem was the re-use of names common in Latin language based cultures. But the pattern we have today of Jr or III, IV, V was not used then (or by Gibbon) so which who is this. And rarely did Gibbon actually identify the years in which things happened.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Gary Beauregard Bottomley

    Was it 30 Emperors over sixty years that were covered in excruciatingly minute detail or was it 60 Emperors in thirty years? I don’t remember which it was but this book definitely did one or the other and later in the story the author will explain why he told the story in such excruciating detail. History should always be fun and the facts should never get in the way of good story telling, and sometimes it’s better to tell a story by leaving some of the details out or just wave ones hands around Was it 30 Emperors over sixty years that were covered in excruciatingly minute detail or was it 60 Emperors in thirty years? I don’t remember which it was but this book definitely did one or the other and later in the story the author will explain why he told the story in such excruciating detail. History should always be fun and the facts should never get in the way of good story telling, and sometimes it’s better to tell a story by leaving some of the details out or just wave ones hands around the details and explain the big picture instead of tell all of the details as Gibbon does with this book. I’m surprised how fluently the writing holds up today except for some of the misogynistic, ethno-centric racist and anti-Semite statements which pop up throughout the story such as ‘one can always trust a Jew in matters of pecuniary matters’ or ‘leave it to a woman to be cutting towards another woman’. I’m not critical of those anachronisms because that’s part of the charm that one gets from reading a history book that not only explains the history that came before it but also gives insights into the era it was written in. The author does differentiate his approach to history by claiming to use a ‘philosophical approach’ to history telling. That is, considering an inquiry about the inquiry towards history itself. This is really one of the best deals on audible. For one credit, one gets all 3910 pages of the book. There’s no way I would have been able to have actually read this book because it is incredibly flawed historically and has excessive details to the point of tedium and doesn’t always give a context for the history that is unfolding. At 2x listening speed the book has enough gems within it to make the tedium worthwhile. For example, when the author steps out of the chronological storytelling and tells you how the Christian religion was progressing and becoming a ‘universal’ religion and he would even relate it to the reformation of the 16th century the author was knocking it out of the park and actually ends up weaving one of the better Christian histories I’ve ever come across but not as part of the main narrative but mostly as a reflection of the author’s thoughts as he was synthesizing his major points. I would recommend the middle volumes of Will Durant’s ‘Story of Civilization’ over this book overall if your objective is learn and be entertained especially if Audible combined them all into one volume for one credit like this book did. Durant did something clever. Durant made Dante his over arching main character in one of his volumes. Gibbons mentions Dante (1315 CE) barely and made Petrarch (1360 CE) a big focal point in wrapping up some of his points. Both (Dante and Petrarch) are usually considered the first humanist in addition to Plutarch (100 CE). Durant weaved the history of the times with the philosophy and thought something Gibbon doesn’t do, and Gibbon also avoided giving dates so that often I would not know what century I was in (perhaps the written form of the book had dates in the margins?). An example of not weaving philosophical thought into the history: Gibbon does mention Augustine (400 CE) and Plotinus (250 CE) but only mentions them in connection with some Emperor you never heard of who Gibbon said spent too much time reading them and became irrelevant because of that, and I don’t think Gibbon mentioned St. Thomas Aquinas (1250 CE) at all or if he did it was only in passing. History needs more than just wars, Emperor’s names and names of countries or peoples long gone in order to understand the story and Gibbon often was a slave to the events. Gibbon did not even mention Pelagius in opposition to Augustine and what that means for today and the Protestant revolution, but I’m certain he would have mentioned the name of a bridge next to a river by a city that no longer exist in a battle that was fought and long forgotten. Who we are today and how the decline and fall of the Romans contributed to that are important stories and sometimes the real connections got lost in his exhaustively detailed story telling. I would also recommend Paul H Freedman’s ‘The Early Middle Ages (281 -1000 CE)’. A course from Yale available from Itunes and covers most of the same material but more coherently than this book does. Also, I would recommend the Daileader’s lectures from the Great Courses. Those courses covered the same material overall as this book does but with more finesse. Overall, this book is readable. It definitely dwells on details. It’s historically significant for its influence. It was in ‘The Great Book Series’ and probably belongs in it, but if your purpose is to be entertained and learn about Roman history since 150 CE there are better books or courses to choose from, but at one credit this book is one of the best deals you’ll ever come across in-spite of its faults.

  30. 4 out of 5

    James

    I want to tell you why I decided to read this original six-volume edition now. The primary reason was that I had just finished revisiting Isaac Asimov's original Foundation trilogy early this year (I thought, at first, to finally get to the other volumes, which I read back when they first appeared, but that was decades ago), and it occurred to me that I had never really settled down with Gibbon for any extended length of time. Asimov's debt to Gibbon is much clearer to me now--he never made a sec I want to tell you why I decided to read this original six-volume edition now. The primary reason was that I had just finished revisiting Isaac Asimov's original Foundation trilogy early this year (I thought, at first, to finally get to the other volumes, which I read back when they first appeared, but that was decades ago), and it occurred to me that I had never really settled down with Gibbon for any extended length of time. Asimov's debt to Gibbon is much clearer to me now--he never made a secret of it. Also, I am now fifty years old (soon to be fifty-one), and there are still a lot of major works I haven't gotten to yet. Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall seemed to me to be one of the most important. And now, we live in the internet age, a time when I can pick up my (relatively small) Nook device, link it to the incredibly useful site gutenberg dot org, download the entire six volume edition for free, and carry it around to read. What's more, I discovered an unabridged audio recording on archive dot org, read by someone who clearly loved the language and structure of it, and so I downloaded that as well to help me through long stretches of the work. You can say what you want about electronic readers, but I will tell you that it is much easier to carry a tablet than a large book, or in this case, several volumes of a very large work. I did get bogged down in the last thousand pages or so. Also, don't ask me detailed questions about Goth tribes or late emperors by name. BUT the experience of reading most of this magisterial (if somewhat flawed) work is stupendous, and one I intend to do again very soon. If nothing else, Gibbon is the master of sentence structure. He writes so well about such momentous things that you feel the weight of history, the consequences of bad actions, or the lack of actions--the apathy of empire, the all too literal resting on its laurels. I was carried through most of this by a compulsion to hear these sentences in my head. I often revisited sections twice while I read, savoring Gibbon's intense desire to dig deeply into strange Christian rituals. (He had a very Age of Enlightenment disdain for religion.) I *did not* read this because I thought that we are now living in the twilight of the American empire, even though the news every day here in 2016 would make any thinking person believe that. I also did not realize until I had done some more internet digging while reading that I am almost exactly the same age as Gibbon was when he finished The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. In fact, the publication of the last three volumes was delayed so that they would coincide with his fifty-first birthday (see above). The internet again: I will say that I did do several searches while reading. At the same time, I started the work diligently reading footnotes as they came up (which was something of a pain given that the electronic edition sometimes interspersed them within the text), but eventually I gave up on that because there are really quite a lot of them, and while most were somewhat helpful, some weren't, and I felt myself losing momentum. And I will again mention the audio version I found online, which also skipped the footnotes. As someone who thinks a lot about writing and reading, I cannot recommend the experience of reading Gibbon highly enough. Yes, he was somewhat hampered by his many obsessions, which become quite obvious over the course of this work, but it is still so clearly monumental that to avoid it is to do yourself a disservice, especially if you are a native English speaker and reader. And I certainly intend to revisit it before I pass from this mortal coil.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...