Hacker News Reader

Comment by OfSanguineFire | Hacker News Reader

> a main factor he credits

I won’t dissuade you from reading (listening) to Gibbon as he is something of a literary classic, but you must always be aware that Gibbon was writing two centuries ago and had his own ideological ax to grind. Historians today, drawing on a wider range of sources than Gibbon had access to, ascribe many developments in Roman history to very different factors than Gibbon claimed.

In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first, so that you are then reading Gibbon purely as a literary classic and not as any authoritative source.

View on HN

> In fact, it is advisable to read several more recent works on Roman history first,

I think that's the wrong way around. Start with reading the canon, and then delve into its refinements (schools get that all twisted too, only introducing cannon at the graduate level). Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well.

_Especially_ so if you are reading out of a dilettante interest, rather than professionally.

> Reading Gibbon will give you a deep appreciation of his influence. In the process, you'll get a genuine step closer to experience the Enlightenment (imagine yourself in your salon, by candlelight, a gaggle of kids playing in the room next to you) as well.

That's all well and good, but OP seems to be interested in learning about Roman history, not 18th century English historiography. And for those purposes Gibbon is extremely unreliable.

Reading gibbon will leave you well educated on roman history.

Thanks and I have heard the same it's much like the proper old sources like Herodotus or Josephus in that you are reading through a certain lense with artistic license. I got through the life of Samuel Johnson and there are definitely stylistic similarities from the era. I also got into The 12 Rulers of Byzantium back in the early podcast days so I hope that helps. Best part so far was descriptions of the old Roman footprint and what was there "now" as in 1780ish and needing to make another translation to the present. My how the times have changed(ish;)

Any you’d recommend? I’ve listened to the History of Rome podcast and read SPQR. I’ve thought about Gibbon but it is long and everytime it’s brought up online people say it’s outdated.

Modern historians have largely gone away with attempts to do works like Gibbon. Perhaps in part because of how his attempt ended up. So if you want to take a look at Roman history in general, you have to dip into popular history. And that is very uneven.

Alternatively, you can get books about specific periods, like say late republic, and read those in sequence. But that takes more time.

Finally, and this is my preferred approach, get things written by Romans. Yes, they were biased too, and often quite obviously. But at least they didn't have stake in modern society and politics. As long as you pay notice to fact that they are mostly recording either hearsay, or propaganda, you should be fine. In that course I would recommend Twelve Caesars by Suetonius (hearsay) and Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Caesar (propaganda).

It's not always true, but it gives you a good idea of how they were thinking, what was their morality like and their values.

The first complete work I read was Sallustius’ “Conspiracy of Catiline”. I was not prepared for such ridiculous propaganda.

Mary Beard's books (The Roman Triumph for instance) are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.

Mary Beard's books are quite accessible and the ones I read seemed pretty good.

All of Adrian Goldsworthy‘s books.

> had his own ideological ax to grind.

I've read Gibbon (the abridged version). How would you describe the axe he was grinding?

Gibbon was writing out of an Enlightenment-era perspective warts and all, it was his firm position that the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity is what did it in. Today, historians generally view the crises of the 3rd century (well before Constantine) as the fatal blow to the Empire, which then just stumbled along for the next two centuries before collapsing.

Also, in England in Gibbon’s day there was very little knowledge of or interest in Byzantium. That half of the empire lasted another thousand years in spite of a remarkably tight connection between church and state. Only the Western Empire fell in AD 496.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com