I just ordered this from amazon. Is it as legendary as people make it out to be...

Does it discuss the Roman Empire or a different empire?

It's 2 bucks for Kindle right now

Probably because it’s an incredibly old work, so it’s a bit outdated now.

The only reason is because of the opinions he makes and a couple centuries of research. He pulls from primary sources just like they do and I think in that edition some notes actually let you know when something isn't true anymore or when something is more nuanced.

Attached: 1551169461054.png (640x640, 187K)

can someone give an example of something he flat out gets wrong, or is most of the modern criticism to do with him being a fucking white male who doesn't give enough consideration to the status of genderqueer people of color in the Roman empire etc.?

Most modern historians would emphasise economic factors more than Gibbon does. He was writing pre Smith and pre Marx after all

Do we really need to threads about the same book at once? there's so much we could possibly talk about..

two*

Gibbon also overemphasises Christianity's role in the decline and fall of the empire, so be aware of that.

in other words, no you can't give any specific examples of something he's wrong about

Generally speaking it is viewed as a classic work of history with real literary value, on the other hand it is factually decrepit and severely outdated.

Make a thread on /his/, or search the archive, or google. If you want a thoroughly reasoned and argued criticism there is always the history reddit, I will not repost the entire thing, it is there for you to read if you want to. Something something reflecting contemporary political climate onto events that are millennia old.

It is also lacking new sources and knowledge that has been built in the last 250 years. It is a dinosaur. If you don't care about historical autism then don't second guess and just read it. If you do care, then read and enjoy, but first read up and keep in mind what is trustworthy and what isn't.

This is history not mathematics

reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/94vwnt/in_gibbons_great_decline_and_fall_of_the_roman/e3oygq6/?st=jsnw30ap&sh=a5ed7ac5
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fd6f1/can_anyone_point_me_to_the_most_updated_theories/?st=jsnw24kd&sh=a106f35e
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qoxd6/the_darkening_age_by_catherine_nixey_argues_that/?st=jsnw1yj9&sh=cb46a338
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hondg/i_heard_someone_say_recently_that_rome_destroyed/cu9cbwz/?context=3&st=jsnw4rbl&sh=4bc7bca6
reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1utu6s/why_is_edward_gibbons_the_decline_and_fall_of_the/?st=jsnw4nvq&sh=82f14e76

Time for you to get reading.

I'll take that as a no

In this case it does mean something. The book starts a little late to be considered a complete history of Rome. I read it more for Rome's interactions with its neighbors.

>Make a thread on /his/
They are sitting there right now - frothing, waiting for me to launch a thread so they can excoriate me for being and ebil nodzee. They have very little to say of any use.

get over it dude you wasted your money

not OP you dildo

>the answer is still "no"

yeah of course i'm not OP

you're gay enough to be mistaken for him

OP here, I'm a girl.

>queue beta orbiters

Hey :3

well it doesn't get any gayer than that

No he didn't, he is just baiting very poorly.

/his/ enjoys gibbon, with reservations. No one will call you a nazi, or a tankie, unless you go full retard and start peddling your defunct ideology instead of discussing history.

>when the Britannic Kingdom declared independence all the Roman where just like "its so lit there, good for them"
be skeptical of anything pertaining to England

show tits or it doesn't matter

>he is just baiting very poorly.
I asked a pretty simple yes or no question and was answered with the astonishing insight that history is not math, some links to reddit, and "lol u wasted ur money bro" but yeah I'm the one who's trolling.

You asked a stupid question 'what did a historian get wrong'. History is not a process of uncovering facts until we arrive at a correct answer, it's like asking what did Titian get wrong.

Kek'ed at this

So history doesn't deal with facts at all?

If I said Abraham Lincoln died in 1866 would I be right or wrong? I was asking if there is anything that Gibbon categorically gets wrong as far as we can reasonably tell. And I think your answer is a pretty clear "no"

I had the same fucking conversation last night
>mention I picked this up since it was cheap for Kindle
>tell him the title
>well what's it about?

Congrats on wasting 130 bucks on an outdated history book that only covers a small fraction of what you're actually interested in and that you won't anyway because it's 4000 pages

one user pointed out it's like 2 bucks for a pdf
also I think it's like 3200 pages

If you believe history is about facts you are very, very stupid. What do you think history is for?

I think OP bought the edition he posted

at least it looks like a nice shelf piece

>is most of the modern criticism to do with him being a fucking white male
All historical criticism is political, because all history is political. There are no unbiased sources

>The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
>implying

Attached: lookat-me-im-the-roman-empire-now-29384102.png (500x529, 140K)

Ya have to go back.

The notion that there's an absolute truth to history that could be perfect is false. Read it for what it is
and recognize that it's not perfect, like any other history. Enjoy the writing style.

BYZANTIUM. ENDURES.

How does he compare to Momsen?

What else should he read then?

Who cares if it's accurate or not. The important thing is if you can learn and apply its lessons to your life and in our time or not.

Fuck I hate being poor

get an e-reader and pirate