What do you think?
Rate this book
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire #6
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
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 (as well as the Islamic and Mongolian conquests) 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.
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.
683 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1788
91 people are currently reading
709 people want to read
About the author
Edward Gibbon
2,019 books611 followersEdward Gibbon (8 May 1737 – 16 January 1794) was an English historian and Member of Parliament. His most important work, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788. The Decline and Fall is known for the quality and irony of its prose, its use of primary sources, and its open criticism of organised religion.
Gibbon returned to England in June 1765. His father died in 1770, and after tending to the estate, which was by no means in good condition, there remained quite enough for Gibbon to settle fashionably in London at 7 Bentinck Street, independent of financial concerns. By February 1773, he was writing in earnest, but not without the occasional self-imposed distraction. He took to London society quite easily, and joined the better social clubs, including Dr. Johnson's Literary Club, and looked in from time to time on his friend Holroyd in Sussex. He succeeded Oliver Goldsmith at the Royal Academy as 'professor in ancient history' (honorary but prestigious). In late 1774, he was initiated a freemason of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. And, perhaps least productively in that same year, he was returned to the House of Commons for Liskeard, Cornwall through the intervention of his relative and patron, Edward Eliot. He became the archetypal back-bencher, benignly "mute" and "indifferent," his support of the Whig ministry invariably automatic. Gibbon's indolence in that position, perhaps fully intentional, subtracted little from the progress of his writing.
After several rewrites, with Gibbon "often tempted to throw away the labours of seven years," the first volume of what would become his life's major achievement, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published on 17 February 1776. Through 1777, the reading public eagerly consumed three editions for which Gibbon was rewarded handsomely: two-thirds of the profits amounting to approximately £1,000. Biographer Leslie Stephen wrote that thereafter, "His fame was as rapid as it has been lasting." And as regards this first volume, "Some warm praise from David Hume overpaid the labour of ten years."
Volumes II and III appeared on 1 March 1781, eventually rising "to a level with the previous volume in general esteem." Volume IV was finished in June 1784; the final two were completed during a second Lausanne sojourn (September 1783 to August 1787) where Gibbon reunited with his friend Deyverdun in leisurely comfort. By early 1787, he was "straining for the goal" and with great relief the project was finished in June. Gibbon later wrote:
It was on the day, or rather the night, of 27 June 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in a summer-house in my garden. ... I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and perhaps the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had taken my everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that, whatsoever might be the future date of my history, the life of the historian must be short and precarious.
Volumes IV, V, and VI finally reached the press in May 1788, their publication having been delayed since March so it could coincide with a dinner party celebrating Gibbon's 51st birthday (the 8th). Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole. Smith remarked that Gibbon's triumph had positioned him "at the very head of [Europe's] literary tribe."
Gibbon returned to England in June 1765. His father died in 1770, and after tending to the estate, which was by no means in good condition, there remained quite enough for Gibbon to settle fashionably in London at 7 Bentinck Street, independent of financial concerns. By February 1773, he was writing in earnest, but not without the occasional self-imposed distraction. He took to London society quite easily, and joined the better social clubs, including Dr. Johnson's Literary Club, and looked in from time to time on his friend Holroyd in Sussex. He succeeded Oliver Goldsmith at the Royal Academy as 'professor in ancient history' (honorary but prestigious). In late 1774, he was initiated a freemason of the Premier Grand Lodge of England. And, perhaps least productively in that same year, he was returned to the House of Commons for Liskeard, Cornwall through the intervention of his relative and patron, Edward Eliot. He became the archetypal back-bencher, benignly "mute" and "indifferent," his support of the Whig ministry invariably automatic. Gibbon's indolence in that position, perhaps fully intentional, subtracted little from the progress of his writing.
After several rewrites, with Gibbon "often tempted to throw away the labours of seven years," the first volume of what would become his life's major achievement, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, was published on 17 February 1776. Through 1777, the reading public eagerly consumed three editions for which Gibbon was rewarded handsomely: two-thirds of the profits amounting to approximately £1,000. Biographer Leslie Stephen wrote that thereafter, "His fame was as rapid as it has been lasting." And as regards this first volume, "Some warm praise from David Hume overpaid the labour of ten years."
Volumes II and III appeared on 1 March 1781, eventually rising "to a level with the previous volume in general esteem." Volume IV was finished in June 1784; the final two were completed during a second Lausanne sojourn (September 1783 to August 1787) where Gibbon reunited with his friend Deyverdun in leisurely comfort. By early 1787, he was "straining for the goal" and with great relief the project was finished in June. Gibbon later wrote:
It was on the day, or rather the night, of 27 June 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last lines of the last page in a summer-house in my garden. ... I will not dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and perhaps the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled, and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had taken my everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that, whatsoever might be the future date of my history, the life of the historian must be short and precarious.
Volumes IV, V, and VI finally reached the press in May 1788, their publication having been delayed since March so it could coincide with a dinner party celebrating Gibbon's 51st birthday (the 8th). Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole. Smith remarked that Gibbon's triumph had positioned him "at the very head of [Europe's] literary tribe."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
May 28, 2017
Yesterday, I concluded the largest reading project I’ve tackled so far, with the completion of the 6th and final volume of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire!
I began reading Gibbon’s masterpiece on September 22, 2016, and chose to listen to it as an Audible book, read by the wonderfully talented David Timson. I will indeed miss hearing his sonorous and impeccable accent while driving, or walking the dog – it’s like saying goodbye to an old friend. And, I realize that taking on a mammoth tome like this as an audiobook may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it worked well for me, and reminded me how the largest of goals can be managed even with small increments of time – and lots of persistence!
My family members, of course, will be glad to no longer have to remove the stack of chapter summaries they invariably found in the passenger seat of my car, before being seated.
Some highlights of the 6th and final volume:
1. The rise of the Turks, and the resulting crusades – the institution of knighthood and the emphasis on chivalry.
2. Schisms between the Greek and Latin churches, and civil wars in the Eastern Empire.
3. Genghis (Zingis) Khan, the subsequent birth of the Ottoman empire, and the conquests of Timour (Tamerlane).
4. The final conquest (1453) and sacking of Constantinople by the Turks.
5. Conflicts between the Popes and Emperors, the Papacy in Avignon, the careers of Petrarch and Rienzi.
6. Final summary of the causes of the ruin of Rome.
Much has been written about this classic work, and any ardent lover of history should definitely have it on their bucket list. Gibbon’s prose is elegant, his opinions candid and numerous, and his wit dry and perceptive. I will always be glad for having invested the time, as it has brought me a vastly greater perspective and understanding – and frame of reference -- of more than 1,500 pivotal years of history.
I began reading Gibbon’s masterpiece on September 22, 2016, and chose to listen to it as an Audible book, read by the wonderfully talented David Timson. I will indeed miss hearing his sonorous and impeccable accent while driving, or walking the dog – it’s like saying goodbye to an old friend. And, I realize that taking on a mammoth tome like this as an audiobook may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but it worked well for me, and reminded me how the largest of goals can be managed even with small increments of time – and lots of persistence!
My family members, of course, will be glad to no longer have to remove the stack of chapter summaries they invariably found in the passenger seat of my car, before being seated.
Some highlights of the 6th and final volume:
1. The rise of the Turks, and the resulting crusades – the institution of knighthood and the emphasis on chivalry.
2. Schisms between the Greek and Latin churches, and civil wars in the Eastern Empire.
3. Genghis (Zingis) Khan, the subsequent birth of the Ottoman empire, and the conquests of Timour (Tamerlane).
4. The final conquest (1453) and sacking of Constantinople by the Turks.
5. Conflicts between the Popes and Emperors, the Papacy in Avignon, the careers of Petrarch and Rienzi.
6. Final summary of the causes of the ruin of Rome.
Much has been written about this classic work, and any ardent lover of history should definitely have it on their bucket list. Gibbon’s prose is elegant, his opinions candid and numerous, and his wit dry and perceptive. I will always be glad for having invested the time, as it has brought me a vastly greater perspective and understanding – and frame of reference -- of more than 1,500 pivotal years of history.
April 5, 2017
These six volumes are the result of astonishingly thorough scholarship, and yet they remain readable and interesting. The last two did drag, and Gibbon's religious relativism was evident throughout, but I would certainly recommend these books as worth the time. Just be prepared to take notes; there is so much information all the rulers and nations can blur together.
April 29, 2025
Book VI covers periods and incidences during the decline of Rome where hundreds of thousands of people were murdered over religious issues.
Moving past Christian schisms and emperor Charlemagne, Gibbon explores the beginnings of Islam and its explosive growth. His description of Muhammad was interesting.
Humans, by their nature, are prone enough to violence when they aren’t getting what they want. Throw some religious justification into the mix and the outcome can be an uncontrolled Chernobyl reactor #4. Apparently, when the library of Alexandra was destroyed by the caliph, Omar, it took more than six months of continuous wide-scale burning to finally get the job done. I really wish they hadn’t done that.
Unfortunately, intolerant zealotry of many disciplines continues today from the early beginnings described right here. One need go no further than the comment section under any well-meaning faith-based social media posts to see the caustic reverberations. Would that every god-fearing person could practice their faith in the style of the one whom Gibbon described as John the Handsome, severe to himself, indulgent to others, chaste, frugal, and abstemious!
the zeal of his flock was again exasperated by the same question, "Whether one of the Trinity had been crucified?"…Day and night they were incessantly busied either in singing hymns to the honor of their God, or in pillaging and murdering the servants of their prince. The head of his favorite monk, the friend, as they styled him, of the enemy of the Holy Trinity, was borne aloft on a spear; and the firebrands, which had been darted against heretical structures, diffused the undistinguishing flames over the most orthodox buildings.
Moving past Christian schisms and emperor Charlemagne, Gibbon explores the beginnings of Islam and its explosive growth. His description of Muhammad was interesting.
”…the frankness of his manner concealed the artifice of his views; and the habits of courtesy were imputed to personal friendship or universal benevolence. His memory was capacious and retentive; his wit easy and social; his imagination sublime; his judgment clear, rapid, and decisive. He possessed the courage both of thought and action; and, although his designs might gradually expand with his success, the first idea which he entertained of his divine mission bears the stamp of an original and superior genius.”
Humans, by their nature, are prone enough to violence when they aren’t getting what they want. Throw some religious justification into the mix and the outcome can be an uncontrolled Chernobyl reactor #4. Apparently, when the library of Alexandra was destroyed by the caliph, Omar, it took more than six months of continuous wide-scale burning to finally get the job done. I really wish they hadn’t done that.
Unfortunately, intolerant zealotry of many disciplines continues today from the early beginnings described right here. One need go no further than the comment section under any well-meaning faith-based social media posts to see the caustic reverberations. Would that every god-fearing person could practice their faith in the style of the one whom Gibbon described as John the Handsome, severe to himself, indulgent to others, chaste, frugal, and abstemious!
April 27, 2024
“The hill of the Capitol, on which we sit, was formerly the head of the Roman empire, the citadel of the earth, the terror of kings; illustrated by the footsteps of so many triumphs, enriched with the spoils and tributes of so many nations. This spectacle of the world, how is it fallen! how changed! how defaced!”
March 14, 2023
This sixth volume of Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Folio Society edition) begins in 641 CE and ends in the 12th century.
I thoroughly enjoyed this volume.
The author has noticeably moved beyond the parameters which had, in the first four volumes, kept him largely confined to the goings-on of Rome and its possessions. It is refreshing but, at times, disorienting.
The author studies the Franks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Russians, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Mongols, and Turks in this volume, turning this history of the “Roman” Empire into a decisively global one.
I enjoyed his single-chapter account of the reigns of 60 “Greek” emperors in the course of 600 years(!), ending with Andronicus I whose brutal execution in 1185 CE probably inspired, somehow, Benito Mussolini’s nearly eight centuries later.
Such a panoramic view of six centuries in just 60 pages is whiplash-inducing, but the author is forgiven by the following way he puts it all into perspective:
I also enjoyed the introduction of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, who, by the invitation of Pope Adrian I, entered Italy (no longer under Ostrogothic dominion) and repelled the Lombards from the papal states. As reward for his protection, the papacy crowned him emperor of the (Western) Romans on Christmas day, 800 CE. Once the Carolingian race expired, the seat of the Holy Roman Emperor transferred into the hands of the Germans.
The author’s discourse on the controversies concerning the Trinity, Christ’s incarnation, and the worship of icons is long-winded and often dry, but I see why it is included. It illustrates the great schism between Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox, and sets the stage for the holy crusades in the next volume.
For example, on the huge issue of worshipping images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints, the “Greeks” declared that the Romans had restored paganism, and the “Mohammedans” saw their conquests of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, which had all been fortified with such images, as God’s judgment in favor of their faith.
Of course, the “Mohammedans” are this volume’s namesake and the last 160 pages are devoted to their history, which I enjoyed the most:
The author does a splendid job of transporting the reader to the deserts of Arabia, whose inhabitants worshipped the sun, moon, and stars until a lowly Arab named Mohammed declared himself THE prophet of ONE God.
It is a fascinating tale of a man who founded a small religion in Mecca, fled to Medina, and there built a formidable following, both spiritual and military, that is not only extant but the second-largest in the world today.
This volume ends with the Arab conquest of Spain:
“[T]he line of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view … the fate of the Greek empire has been compared to that of the Rhine, which loses itself in the sands before its waters can mingle with the ocean.”
I thoroughly enjoyed this volume.
The author has noticeably moved beyond the parameters which had, in the first four volumes, kept him largely confined to the goings-on of Rome and its possessions. It is refreshing but, at times, disorienting.
The author studies the Franks, Arabs, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Russians, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Mongols, and Turks in this volume, turning this history of the “Roman” Empire into a decisively global one.
I enjoyed his single-chapter account of the reigns of 60 “Greek” emperors in the course of 600 years(!), ending with Andronicus I whose brutal execution in 1185 CE probably inspired, somehow, Benito Mussolini’s nearly eight centuries later.
Such a panoramic view of six centuries in just 60 pages is whiplash-inducing, but the author is forgiven by the following way he puts it all into perspective:
“[T]he duration of a life or reign is contracted to a fleeting moment: the grave is ever beside the throne; the success of a criminal is almost instantly followed by the loss of his prize; and our immortal reason survives and disdains the sixty phantoms of kings who have passed before our eyes, and faintly dwell on our remembrance.”
I also enjoyed the introduction of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, who, by the invitation of Pope Adrian I, entered Italy (no longer under Ostrogothic dominion) and repelled the Lombards from the papal states. As reward for his protection, the papacy crowned him emperor of the (Western) Romans on Christmas day, 800 CE. Once the Carolingian race expired, the seat of the Holy Roman Emperor transferred into the hands of the Germans.
The author’s discourse on the controversies concerning the Trinity, Christ’s incarnation, and the worship of icons is long-winded and often dry, but I see why it is included. It illustrates the great schism between Roman Catholics and the Greek Orthodox, and sets the stage for the holy crusades in the next volume.
For example, on the huge issue of worshipping images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints, the “Greeks” declared that the Romans had restored paganism, and the “Mohammedans” saw their conquests of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, which had all been fortified with such images, as God’s judgment in favor of their faith.
Of course, the “Mohammedans” are this volume’s namesake and the last 160 pages are devoted to their history, which I enjoyed the most:
“Mohammed, with the sword in one hand and the Koran in the other, erected his throne on the ruins of Christianity and of Rome. The genius of the Arabian prophet, the manners of his nation, and the spirit of his religion, involve the causes of the decline and fall of the Eastern empire…”
The author does a splendid job of transporting the reader to the deserts of Arabia, whose inhabitants worshipped the sun, moon, and stars until a lowly Arab named Mohammed declared himself THE prophet of ONE God.
It is a fascinating tale of a man who founded a small religion in Mecca, fled to Medina, and there built a formidable following, both spiritual and military, that is not only extant but the second-largest in the world today.
This volume ends with the Arab conquest of Spain:
“At the end of the first century of the Hegira [Mohammed’s migration from Mecca to Medina] the caliphs were the most potent and absolute monarchs of the globe.”
February 1, 2024
3.412 stars, I liked it. And worth returning to, in a decade or two when I'm more historically literate
The work of Gibbon's life is a valuable addition to one's background. It is an accessible text, and the narration was excellent (I was convinced the narrator was Ian McDiarmid, who played Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars franchise ... epicly appropriate, but actually it is Charlton Griffin). The Decline and Fall is not for the faint-hearted, at twice the length of Les Miserables. Originally published in 6 volumes in the 18th century, it runs to 127 hours on audio, without footnotes.
Edward Gibbon does not limit the scope of the work to just the boundaries of the Roman Empire, but brings in all competing societies at the boundaries and given the scope of the empire and it's endurance, it is amazing he manages to squeeze such a vast topic into a readable narrative. While discussing the Persians at length seemed a reasonable topic, I did not expect him to cover the barbarians from Attila to Tamerlane in such depth or to recount the development of Charlemagne's conquests into the Holy Roman Empire, or to the entertwining of the Roman, Orthodox, and 'heretical' churches within the Western and Byzantine Empires. Nor for so much depth to be provided on the rise of the Arabs and the Turks or the Crusades.
In summary, I learned that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to cruelty, politics, betrayal, stupidity, cleverness, manipulation, avarice, taxation, and blackmail. Some good things happened too, but the preponderance of the tide of events was saddening.
Edward was an athiest, not all that common in the 18th century, but he did not seem to be unfairly harsh on Christianity or Islam or on Zorasterianism. Yet his premise throughout is that Imperial strength derives from the discipline of the camp and is sapped by religious fervor. And perhaps unsurprisingly, key individuals, on gaining the purple, restored a modicum of strength to the declining empire, and if the good had been more than about one in five emperors, we might still have this empire to contend with.
Gibbon's writing is excellent, almost lyrical in nature, yet he manages to express complex events and thoughts with a minimum of words and maximum of clarity. He sets a very high standard. One improvement he should consider for his next edition is to provide better time references, since he goes back and forth chronologically.
The work of Gibbon's life is a valuable addition to one's background. It is an accessible text, and the narration was excellent (I was convinced the narrator was Ian McDiarmid, who played Emperor Palpatine in the Star Wars franchise ... epicly appropriate, but actually it is Charlton Griffin). The Decline and Fall is not for the faint-hearted, at twice the length of Les Miserables. Originally published in 6 volumes in the 18th century, it runs to 127 hours on audio, without footnotes.
Edward Gibbon does not limit the scope of the work to just the boundaries of the Roman Empire, but brings in all competing societies at the boundaries and given the scope of the empire and it's endurance, it is amazing he manages to squeeze such a vast topic into a readable narrative. While discussing the Persians at length seemed a reasonable topic, I did not expect him to cover the barbarians from Attila to Tamerlane in such depth or to recount the development of Charlemagne's conquests into the Holy Roman Empire, or to the entertwining of the Roman, Orthodox, and 'heretical' churches within the Western and Byzantine Empires. Nor for so much depth to be provided on the rise of the Arabs and the Turks or the Crusades.
In summary, I learned that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to cruelty, politics, betrayal, stupidity, cleverness, manipulation, avarice, taxation, and blackmail. Some good things happened too, but the preponderance of the tide of events was saddening.
Edward was an athiest, not all that common in the 18th century, but he did not seem to be unfairly harsh on Christianity or Islam or on Zorasterianism. Yet his premise throughout is that Imperial strength derives from the discipline of the camp and is sapped by religious fervor. And perhaps unsurprisingly, key individuals, on gaining the purple, restored a modicum of strength to the declining empire, and if the good had been more than about one in five emperors, we might still have this empire to contend with.
Gibbon's writing is excellent, almost lyrical in nature, yet he manages to express complex events and thoughts with a minimum of words and maximum of clarity. He sets a very high standard. One improvement he should consider for his next edition is to provide better time references, since he goes back and forth chronologically.
August 13, 2025
I think this is the single largest reading project i have undertaken of one author. Maybe Tolkien compares for me. But I don’t think all of the Tolkien I’ve read amount to this. Perhaps CS Lewis.
It’s funny I’ve been reading the six volume addition of the history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon and what’s weird is at least so far. I haven’t seen a single mention about that whale and I’m already passed Manzikert in 1071.
It makes me wonder how much you just can’t fit in even in a six volume history of a certain era and a certain topic. That’s not really his thing but still I have found personal interest in Porphyrios the Whale both in the context of just the history of the era, but also because after reading Moby Dick, which is one of my favorite books I grew greatly interested in whales. And I don’t know if it was in there specifically, but it might’ve been mentioned in Moby Dick as well, but I ended up reading about a whale that terrorized London that I believe was mentioned in Moby Dick and I ended up reading about whales in history that I’ve terrorized cities, and I ended up reading about this whale that terrorized Constantinople for years.
It’s interesting to consider how much history and books is just left out not necessarily because the author doesn’t find it interesting but because there’s simply no space.
But anyway, I’m about to hit chapter 58 and that’s when we get over to the first Crusades so I guess that battle in 1071 really galvanized the Eastern Roman Empire into asking for help from the pope and getting a papal bowl by Pope urban.
I think it’s absolutely important to study the history of the Roman Empire because although we may have interests and other things such as science or entertainment or cultural things a lot of that rests on our ability to have a stable political environment without threats of war, pillaging, or things like that so that we can create a stable society. So I think in large part, the goal of this book is to explore the multifarious reasons why the Roman empire fell. And certainly you could say the Highpoint was the Roman Republic, but the key aspects of the Roman Republic are likely the structure of its constitution and the focus on civic virtue. By contrast, Edward Gibbon would say that what changed was the focus on Christian metaphysical in tangible things that shift from Civic virtue. And I think he makes a good point with respect to that, but I think that there were other factors as well I mean, certainly you could say if the Roman empire didn’t have any enemies then it probably wouldn’t of fallen and you could also say that the fall of Rome itself was more that the political center had shifted, and also they were changing economic tides, and you could say any numerous mistakes could’ve been made during military campaigns or there could’ve been bad political alliances with individuals such as the Hans, and you can also say let the geography impelled people to pour in from what is modern Ukraine in Russia and who knows what sort of climactic climate change occurred that forced people to switch over and move east or west depending on the situation and certainly there’s better climate in Europe as such because of the tradewinds from the Caribbean Sea so there’s a lot to be said for the multifarious reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire and I don’t think you can attribute it to one singular thing indeed I think that’s actually a common topic even in modern academics you can find article saying well. This new idea is the reason why it fell anything from plague or Or excessive taxation or other such things, but I think the truth is that we live in a world of mathematic ideas and many memes in the sense of ideas that can be propagated so it’s not necessarily just one factor but it’s this whole matrix of factors that affected the Roman Empire and that were affecting people who are opposed to the Roman empire as well there’s a reason why they were migrations from Asia And so I think it’s imperative to study the whole factors of history and you could even be studying what’s going on in China or what’s going on in the Persian empire and that’s why anthropology and archaeology is also so important because it helps us fill these gaps in historical record that were not available or were written or have been Lost And that we need to fill-in so I think it’s incumbent upon us as historians and people who study government and political science to take in these examples, not only for empirical study, although empirical study itself can be helpful, but for using these examples as ways in which we can do deductive reasoning as well, that is the state start from premises that can be deduced and then build from there And then sometimes sometimes I guess that’s how Plato’s republic function. It wasn’t necessarily an empirical study, but more a form of deductive reasoning, and then we could also look at the Aristotelian method that focuses on inductive reasoning and empirical study.
And in that context of the dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle, I think it’s interesting to consider what German idealist thinkers such as Hegel would’ve thought when reading about this history specifically when trying to determine what the causes and what the spirit of history might be going forward, I don’t think it’s necessarily that there’s a linear or even a spiral path that these events are taken, but it’s that through deep study and through newly found evidence andsuch things such as archaeological studies, and the history of thought and how things have progressed since then we can come to new theories about the Roman Empire.
Regarding personalities, it’s not so clear to me how much the individual personality is necessarily changed Roman history I mean I guess you could look at Julius Caesar’s personality and derive certain ideas based on his personality, but the thing is I didn’t get the sense that individual personalities were driving things although I guess looking back maybe Julian the apostate or certainly maybe Markus Aurelis might’ve had these beautiful minds in some sense that they were genuinely interested in philosophy and history and thus pursued learning for learning own sake. I’m not entirely sure, and it may not just be personality. Certainly these personalities might have existed even if they were an emperor as they might’ve been never given the opportunity to hoist such power.
Excellent summary of the crusades it’s interesting. Young don’t usually consider the Roman empire in the course of considering the crusade, but certainly in this context that makes sense with the visit between empire.
I’ve been writing different parts of these paragraphs as I work my way through the book. But right now I’m towards the end of volume six and dude towards the end of the entire series, and some of it is starting to get a little melancholy simply because the end of a book is somewhat sad but also it’s the end of the empire coming up pretty soon and the ending is known. I’m in chapter 65 right now about Tamarlane and I was thinking to myself about About why the Roman empire ended and I think it’s surprising that it lasted so long I think one of the central thesis arguments that given makes is that it was a loss of civic virtue, and I think he perhaps equate civic virtue with the notion of the ideals that existed in the Roman republic and I got me thinking that really may be the end of the empire was the fact that it became such an autocratic rule where the Senate boss power and what’s really surprising is that it lasted so long And I think given often suggest that Christianity is the reason civic virtue started to fall apart and lose prominence, but I would argue actually that it was starting to lose prominence and that you know after the Anthony emperor such as Markus Aurelius and really it was because there were so much power invested in one person and characters such as Elagabalus or Marcus Aurelius‘s son were able to have so much power and just engage in so much activity and I think that Christianity and Constantine actually brought back some of that civic virtue I mean, I understand Gibbons point that Christianity was maybe focused on metaphysical values such as the eternal nature of the soul, but again that argument arguably comes back or originates from Plato in feeding and democracy so this idea that Christianity was the decline or the cause of the decline of the empire I don’t think it is necessarily true because I think even in the crisis of the third century, there was a lot to be said for the decline of role occurring and maybe it just got too big and I mean there could be the truth could be that they’re just so many factors as to why the Roman empire fell, but I was thinking Christianity and Constantine, and as this is exhibited through Belarusiruius and Justinian and I think that goes to show that the Christianity was not the problem Pacific Rich in fact, those two individuals arguably embodied civic virtue of the Roman republic and did so more so than other cases, but I mean, I think that it also comes down to that there was a constant invasions from the east, and the east started gaining more military knowledge and organization, and also the asymmetry of technological advancement started shifting as well especially after the collapse of the Persian empire there’s these massive invasions that keep coming because fundamentally speaking it seems like the Persian empire, or the successor empires to the Persian empire might’ve been just technologically, advanced or at least not so far off from the Romans and more over they were separated by geography making invasions rather difficult, but I think that there are multiple factors that ultimately led to the decline and fall the Roman empire and one of them was technological a Cemetery, which is best exemplified by 1453 where cannons were used against the byzantine and they didn’t really have gunpowder and then also military prose and technology and also population asymmetry and also administrative difficulties. You could also counter or discuss difficult financial planning that existed such as financial constraints you could also indicate that the rise of centralized states in Europe primarily Western Europe also led to diffusion of power because these communities could no longer be controlled by a central Roman authority so I think that there are multiple factors that could be considered. But really I just wanted to say I think that Christianity, especially as exemplified under the rain of Justinian brought back civic virtue, and Constantine certainly exemplified that as well and it’s really the empire declined and fell. I think because it was an empire I think that if the Roman republic continued to exist, which may be impossible because the conditions for which the Roman republic fell apart existed within the lake Roman republic itself, but if the Roman republic continue to exist, it wouldn’t have had theseproblems and indeed, if Julius Caesar lived, perhaps he would’ve been able to invade Parthia and conquer and extend the Empire bar is Alexander the great or further.
He seems to love the Greeks in terms of value of history and literature and he greatly laments the fall of Constantinople and what was lost. He seems to feel very sorry for those who suffered. And he said that the progress of human civilization suffered most in the day when the Ottomans destroyed the libraries of Constantinople. He said only a small percentage of Aristotle survives.
He definitely blames Christianity in large part. He seems to say Constantine could have held against the Turks if the church didn’t slow him down.
It’s funny I’ve been reading the six volume addition of the history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon and what’s weird is at least so far. I haven’t seen a single mention about that whale and I’m already passed Manzikert in 1071.
It makes me wonder how much you just can’t fit in even in a six volume history of a certain era and a certain topic. That’s not really his thing but still I have found personal interest in Porphyrios the Whale both in the context of just the history of the era, but also because after reading Moby Dick, which is one of my favorite books I grew greatly interested in whales. And I don’t know if it was in there specifically, but it might’ve been mentioned in Moby Dick as well, but I ended up reading about a whale that terrorized London that I believe was mentioned in Moby Dick and I ended up reading about whales in history that I’ve terrorized cities, and I ended up reading about this whale that terrorized Constantinople for years.
It’s interesting to consider how much history and books is just left out not necessarily because the author doesn’t find it interesting but because there’s simply no space.
But anyway, I’m about to hit chapter 58 and that’s when we get over to the first Crusades so I guess that battle in 1071 really galvanized the Eastern Roman Empire into asking for help from the pope and getting a papal bowl by Pope urban.
I think it’s absolutely important to study the history of the Roman Empire because although we may have interests and other things such as science or entertainment or cultural things a lot of that rests on our ability to have a stable political environment without threats of war, pillaging, or things like that so that we can create a stable society. So I think in large part, the goal of this book is to explore the multifarious reasons why the Roman empire fell. And certainly you could say the Highpoint was the Roman Republic, but the key aspects of the Roman Republic are likely the structure of its constitution and the focus on civic virtue. By contrast, Edward Gibbon would say that what changed was the focus on Christian metaphysical in tangible things that shift from Civic virtue. And I think he makes a good point with respect to that, but I think that there were other factors as well I mean, certainly you could say if the Roman empire didn’t have any enemies then it probably wouldn’t of fallen and you could also say that the fall of Rome itself was more that the political center had shifted, and also they were changing economic tides, and you could say any numerous mistakes could’ve been made during military campaigns or there could’ve been bad political alliances with individuals such as the Hans, and you can also say let the geography impelled people to pour in from what is modern Ukraine in Russia and who knows what sort of climactic climate change occurred that forced people to switch over and move east or west depending on the situation and certainly there’s better climate in Europe as such because of the tradewinds from the Caribbean Sea so there’s a lot to be said for the multifarious reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire and I don’t think you can attribute it to one singular thing indeed I think that’s actually a common topic even in modern academics you can find article saying well. This new idea is the reason why it fell anything from plague or Or excessive taxation or other such things, but I think the truth is that we live in a world of mathematic ideas and many memes in the sense of ideas that can be propagated so it’s not necessarily just one factor but it’s this whole matrix of factors that affected the Roman Empire and that were affecting people who are opposed to the Roman empire as well there’s a reason why they were migrations from Asia And so I think it’s imperative to study the whole factors of history and you could even be studying what’s going on in China or what’s going on in the Persian empire and that’s why anthropology and archaeology is also so important because it helps us fill these gaps in historical record that were not available or were written or have been Lost And that we need to fill-in so I think it’s incumbent upon us as historians and people who study government and political science to take in these examples, not only for empirical study, although empirical study itself can be helpful, but for using these examples as ways in which we can do deductive reasoning as well, that is the state start from premises that can be deduced and then build from there And then sometimes sometimes I guess that’s how Plato’s republic function. It wasn’t necessarily an empirical study, but more a form of deductive reasoning, and then we could also look at the Aristotelian method that focuses on inductive reasoning and empirical study.
And in that context of the dichotomy between Plato and Aristotle, I think it’s interesting to consider what German idealist thinkers such as Hegel would’ve thought when reading about this history specifically when trying to determine what the causes and what the spirit of history might be going forward, I don’t think it’s necessarily that there’s a linear or even a spiral path that these events are taken, but it’s that through deep study and through newly found evidence andsuch things such as archaeological studies, and the history of thought and how things have progressed since then we can come to new theories about the Roman Empire.
Regarding personalities, it’s not so clear to me how much the individual personality is necessarily changed Roman history I mean I guess you could look at Julius Caesar’s personality and derive certain ideas based on his personality, but the thing is I didn’t get the sense that individual personalities were driving things although I guess looking back maybe Julian the apostate or certainly maybe Markus Aurelis might’ve had these beautiful minds in some sense that they were genuinely interested in philosophy and history and thus pursued learning for learning own sake. I’m not entirely sure, and it may not just be personality. Certainly these personalities might have existed even if they were an emperor as they might’ve been never given the opportunity to hoist such power.
Excellent summary of the crusades it’s interesting. Young don’t usually consider the Roman empire in the course of considering the crusade, but certainly in this context that makes sense with the visit between empire.
I’ve been writing different parts of these paragraphs as I work my way through the book. But right now I’m towards the end of volume six and dude towards the end of the entire series, and some of it is starting to get a little melancholy simply because the end of a book is somewhat sad but also it’s the end of the empire coming up pretty soon and the ending is known. I’m in chapter 65 right now about Tamarlane and I was thinking to myself about About why the Roman empire ended and I think it’s surprising that it lasted so long I think one of the central thesis arguments that given makes is that it was a loss of civic virtue, and I think he perhaps equate civic virtue with the notion of the ideals that existed in the Roman republic and I got me thinking that really may be the end of the empire was the fact that it became such an autocratic rule where the Senate boss power and what’s really surprising is that it lasted so long And I think given often suggest that Christianity is the reason civic virtue started to fall apart and lose prominence, but I would argue actually that it was starting to lose prominence and that you know after the Anthony emperor such as Markus Aurelius and really it was because there were so much power invested in one person and characters such as Elagabalus or Marcus Aurelius‘s son were able to have so much power and just engage in so much activity and I think that Christianity and Constantine actually brought back some of that civic virtue I mean, I understand Gibbons point that Christianity was maybe focused on metaphysical values such as the eternal nature of the soul, but again that argument arguably comes back or originates from Plato in feeding and democracy so this idea that Christianity was the decline or the cause of the decline of the empire I don’t think it is necessarily true because I think even in the crisis of the third century, there was a lot to be said for the decline of role occurring and maybe it just got too big and I mean there could be the truth could be that they’re just so many factors as to why the Roman empire fell, but I was thinking Christianity and Constantine, and as this is exhibited through Belarusiruius and Justinian and I think that goes to show that the Christianity was not the problem Pacific Rich in fact, those two individuals arguably embodied civic virtue of the Roman republic and did so more so than other cases, but I mean, I think that it also comes down to that there was a constant invasions from the east, and the east started gaining more military knowledge and organization, and also the asymmetry of technological advancement started shifting as well especially after the collapse of the Persian empire there’s these massive invasions that keep coming because fundamentally speaking it seems like the Persian empire, or the successor empires to the Persian empire might’ve been just technologically, advanced or at least not so far off from the Romans and more over they were separated by geography making invasions rather difficult, but I think that there are multiple factors that ultimately led to the decline and fall the Roman empire and one of them was technological a Cemetery, which is best exemplified by 1453 where cannons were used against the byzantine and they didn’t really have gunpowder and then also military prose and technology and also population asymmetry and also administrative difficulties. You could also counter or discuss difficult financial planning that existed such as financial constraints you could also indicate that the rise of centralized states in Europe primarily Western Europe also led to diffusion of power because these communities could no longer be controlled by a central Roman authority so I think that there are multiple factors that could be considered. But really I just wanted to say I think that Christianity, especially as exemplified under the rain of Justinian brought back civic virtue, and Constantine certainly exemplified that as well and it’s really the empire declined and fell. I think because it was an empire I think that if the Roman republic continued to exist, which may be impossible because the conditions for which the Roman republic fell apart existed within the lake Roman republic itself, but if the Roman republic continue to exist, it wouldn’t have had theseproblems and indeed, if Julius Caesar lived, perhaps he would’ve been able to invade Parthia and conquer and extend the Empire bar is Alexander the great or further.
He seems to love the Greeks in terms of value of history and literature and he greatly laments the fall of Constantinople and what was lost. He seems to feel very sorry for those who suffered. And he said that the progress of human civilization suffered most in the day when the Ottomans destroyed the libraries of Constantinople. He said only a small percentage of Aristotle survives.
He definitely blames Christianity in large part. He seems to say Constantine could have held against the Turks if the church didn’t slow him down.
May 13, 2023
The journey of a lifetime ends with this volume several months after it started with Gibbon observing vespers-chanting friars among the ruins of Rome’ Capitol. It took Gibbon twenty years to research and write this epic piece which took me nine months to complete – only to make a cursory study of the contents. The language is enticing and difficult at the same time. Even now, I can’t claim to have grasped all the nuances the author had cleverly hidden behind and between the lines. But the flowery prose does not hinder Gibbon in evaluating the topic lucidly and making a clear and direct observation of the state of things. This volume contains chapters 57 to 71 and the storyline runs from the Latin conquest of Constantinople and ends with its irrecoverable fall to the Turks. It also includes an analysis of the rise of Mongols, Seljuks and Ottoman Turks, the plight of the city of Rome in the middle ages and the crusades. The growth of the papacy utilizing the state of no sovereigns residing in the city or Italy is also described.
This book portrays a pathetic picture of the inroads of Islam to Asia Minor and then to Eastern Europe with its savagery exceeding that of the times. By the eleventh century, Turkish occupation of Anatolia was complete, with their capital situated hardly 100 km away from Constantinople. With the payment of tribute and guaranteeing perpetual servitude, Christians were permitted limited exercise of their religion. But their most holy churches were profaned and bishops were regularly insulted. Gibbon sardonically remarks that ‘many thousand children were marked by the knife of circumcision and many thousand captives were devoted to the service or pleasure of their masters’ (p.31). The sultans then found an easy way to supply a professional military corps to their army. Christian children were forcibly taken away from their parents as slaves and converted to Islam. They were then given a strict training imparting lessons of discipline and valour. Having thus cut their roots off their families, these slaves sometimes astonished their masters in their religious bigotry and attacks over the Christians. The sultans treated the entire Christian community as war booty and demanded a fifth part of them as the sultan’s share. The fifth child of Christian families were snatched away from them and converted to become the special force known as Janissaries in adulthood. The author also narrates the position of Athens under the suffocating yoke of Turkish rule. He remarks that the Athenians walked with supine indifference among the glorious ruins of antiquity and such was the debasement of their character that they were incapable of admiring the genius of their predecessors. The modern language of Athens is the most corrupt and barbarous of the seventy dialects of the vulgar Greek.
Muslim fanatics even now claim the Crusades as a gross injustice perpetrated by Christendom on the Islamic kingdoms of the Middle East in the middle ages. It is curious to examine their claims of victimhood from the information provided by this book. The question is whether the Christians were justified in reclaiming their holiest places from sacrilege. We now turn to what the author has to say. Caliph Omar subdued Jerusalem in the seventh century and by the year 1000, three-fourths of the Palestinians had become Muslim. The Fatimite caliph Hakem of Egypt demolished the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem to its foundations and interrupted Easter prayers. He also damaged the holiest Church of Holy Sepulchre. Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem in the eleventh century and their fanaticism alienated and oppressed the Christian pilgrims to the holy land. The Turks insulted the clergy of every sect and the Patriarch was dragged by the hair along the streets and cast into a dungeon to extract a hefty ransom. With this level of humiliation, no person having even a trace of self-respect can continue to watch it impotently and Europe erupted in attack. A new spirit had arisen in Europe of religious chivalry and papal dominion. A nerve was touched of exquisite feeling and the sensation vibrated to the heart of Europe – that’s how Gibbon poetically frames it.
There were seven crusades in all, but all except the early ones were poorly motivated and inadequately taken up. The armed ‘pilgrims’ of Europe marched into Palestine with a determination to wrest Jerusalem at any cost or fall a martyr. In a sense, this was the moment when Europe instilled a spirit of ‘jihad’ in the Christian cause. The first crusaders were unprepared for the task they undertook at a moment’s notice. 300,000 of them perished before a single city was rescued from the Turks. Yet, the myriads that survived, marched and pressed forwards were a subject of astonishment to themselves and to the Eastern Greeks. The crusaders’ march through Constantinople alarmed the Eastern Emperor and he heaved a sigh of relief when the last of the troops moved on from his city. But in 1204, the situation became very nasty and they turned against the emperor and sacked Constantinople. This was reclaimed by the Greeks six decades later. The crusades were successful as far as the immediate goals were concerned. They re-took Jerusalem and obtained control of the holiest shrines of Christianity, but Gibbon mockingly concludes that their objective was ‘possessing a tombstone 2000 miles from their country’ (p.116). But the Muslims were relentlessly rampaging against the crusader kingdoms and finally Saladin took it back from the Christians. This book also notes the social implications of the crusades in European society. Feudalism in Europe suffered greatly as a consequence. The estates of the barons were dissipated and their race extinguished in these costly and penniless expeditions. Their poverty unlocked the fetters of the slave and extorted their charters of freedom. The crusades also opened up a lucrative field transporting holy relics to European churches where they were displayed and worshipped. Devotees flocked to such places in large numbers and the churches made a windfall in revenue. These relics included such objects as the true cross, crown of thorns, baby linen of Jesus, the lance, the sponge and the chain of the Passion, the rod of Moses and part of the skull of John the Baptist.
The fall of Constantinople is an epoch-making event in history and Gibbon traces the ascent of Turks around the city for nearly a century before they finally decided to take the plunge. Ottomans established their rule around Constantinople and encircled the city. The namesake Greek emperor was forced to serve as their vassal. He paid generous tributes and even sent troop contingents to fight alongside the Ottomans against other Christian kingdoms. They were also made to present their princesses to the Sultan’s harems. Functionally, they were thus similar to Rajputs under Mughals. The property and person of the Christian nobles were not above the frowns of the Sultan. On suspicion of sedition, Sultan Murad commanded Emperor John Palaeologus to blind his own son Andronicus and his infant grandson John, which he meekly carried out. The Ottomans could have taken Constantinople anytime, but they hesitated to do it fearing a possible backlash from the Christian kingdoms that might unite in a second and more formidable crusade. Then came the invasion of Timur which pulverized the Ottomans and their defeated Sultan Bayazid was taken to Samarkand in an animal cage. This put back the fall of Constantinople by fifty years.
Curtains fall with the victory of Mehmet II over Constantinople and the perpetual doom of the Greek church. Eastern emperors desperately tried to patch up their religious differences with the western powers under the spiritual guidance of the pope. The nobles openly repudiated their sect and joined the pope in communion. But the dispute over a supernatural concept cannot be resolved by arguments to reason. They can only be settled by conquest, whether physical or spiritual. The eastern clergy forcibly opposed the efforts of union and saw it only as a ruse to involve European Christendom in the former’s fight for survival against the Ottomans. This interaction had other effects such as helping to diffuse the Greek language in western courts and thus smoothing the way to renaissance. The timing was perfect. The Italian soil was prepared for the cultivation of the seeds of knowledge before they were scattered by the Turkish winds. Gibbon provides a detailed review of the sack of Constantinople and the sacrilege of Christian holy places and people that followed it. The Cathedral of St. Sophia was immediately converted to a mosque. He also tells the miserable story of how the victors selected their victims and pressed them into the meanest slavery.
This volume ends with a survey of the vicissitudes of papal power from its temporal and spiritual rivals. By the fifteenth century, Pope’s rule was firmly established at Rome. As a personal curiosity, Gibbon investigates the reasons behind the heavy ruin of ancient monuments in Rome. Even though invaders performed a small part in the outcome, the substantial cause is ascribed to the avarice of native Romans who pillaged the material for other buildings from the remains of ancient ones. At the end of the volume and series which took twenty years of the author’s life, Gibbon hopes that he may come up with another series on a suitable topic in future. Unfortunately, it never materialized.
The book is highly recommended.
This book portrays a pathetic picture of the inroads of Islam to Asia Minor and then to Eastern Europe with its savagery exceeding that of the times. By the eleventh century, Turkish occupation of Anatolia was complete, with their capital situated hardly 100 km away from Constantinople. With the payment of tribute and guaranteeing perpetual servitude, Christians were permitted limited exercise of their religion. But their most holy churches were profaned and bishops were regularly insulted. Gibbon sardonically remarks that ‘many thousand children were marked by the knife of circumcision and many thousand captives were devoted to the service or pleasure of their masters’ (p.31). The sultans then found an easy way to supply a professional military corps to their army. Christian children were forcibly taken away from their parents as slaves and converted to Islam. They were then given a strict training imparting lessons of discipline and valour. Having thus cut their roots off their families, these slaves sometimes astonished their masters in their religious bigotry and attacks over the Christians. The sultans treated the entire Christian community as war booty and demanded a fifth part of them as the sultan’s share. The fifth child of Christian families were snatched away from them and converted to become the special force known as Janissaries in adulthood. The author also narrates the position of Athens under the suffocating yoke of Turkish rule. He remarks that the Athenians walked with supine indifference among the glorious ruins of antiquity and such was the debasement of their character that they were incapable of admiring the genius of their predecessors. The modern language of Athens is the most corrupt and barbarous of the seventy dialects of the vulgar Greek.
Muslim fanatics even now claim the Crusades as a gross injustice perpetrated by Christendom on the Islamic kingdoms of the Middle East in the middle ages. It is curious to examine their claims of victimhood from the information provided by this book. The question is whether the Christians were justified in reclaiming their holiest places from sacrilege. We now turn to what the author has to say. Caliph Omar subdued Jerusalem in the seventh century and by the year 1000, three-fourths of the Palestinians had become Muslim. The Fatimite caliph Hakem of Egypt demolished the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem to its foundations and interrupted Easter prayers. He also damaged the holiest Church of Holy Sepulchre. Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem in the eleventh century and their fanaticism alienated and oppressed the Christian pilgrims to the holy land. The Turks insulted the clergy of every sect and the Patriarch was dragged by the hair along the streets and cast into a dungeon to extract a hefty ransom. With this level of humiliation, no person having even a trace of self-respect can continue to watch it impotently and Europe erupted in attack. A new spirit had arisen in Europe of religious chivalry and papal dominion. A nerve was touched of exquisite feeling and the sensation vibrated to the heart of Europe – that’s how Gibbon poetically frames it.
There were seven crusades in all, but all except the early ones were poorly motivated and inadequately taken up. The armed ‘pilgrims’ of Europe marched into Palestine with a determination to wrest Jerusalem at any cost or fall a martyr. In a sense, this was the moment when Europe instilled a spirit of ‘jihad’ in the Christian cause. The first crusaders were unprepared for the task they undertook at a moment’s notice. 300,000 of them perished before a single city was rescued from the Turks. Yet, the myriads that survived, marched and pressed forwards were a subject of astonishment to themselves and to the Eastern Greeks. The crusaders’ march through Constantinople alarmed the Eastern Emperor and he heaved a sigh of relief when the last of the troops moved on from his city. But in 1204, the situation became very nasty and they turned against the emperor and sacked Constantinople. This was reclaimed by the Greeks six decades later. The crusades were successful as far as the immediate goals were concerned. They re-took Jerusalem and obtained control of the holiest shrines of Christianity, but Gibbon mockingly concludes that their objective was ‘possessing a tombstone 2000 miles from their country’ (p.116). But the Muslims were relentlessly rampaging against the crusader kingdoms and finally Saladin took it back from the Christians. This book also notes the social implications of the crusades in European society. Feudalism in Europe suffered greatly as a consequence. The estates of the barons were dissipated and their race extinguished in these costly and penniless expeditions. Their poverty unlocked the fetters of the slave and extorted their charters of freedom. The crusades also opened up a lucrative field transporting holy relics to European churches where they were displayed and worshipped. Devotees flocked to such places in large numbers and the churches made a windfall in revenue. These relics included such objects as the true cross, crown of thorns, baby linen of Jesus, the lance, the sponge and the chain of the Passion, the rod of Moses and part of the skull of John the Baptist.
The fall of Constantinople is an epoch-making event in history and Gibbon traces the ascent of Turks around the city for nearly a century before they finally decided to take the plunge. Ottomans established their rule around Constantinople and encircled the city. The namesake Greek emperor was forced to serve as their vassal. He paid generous tributes and even sent troop contingents to fight alongside the Ottomans against other Christian kingdoms. They were also made to present their princesses to the Sultan’s harems. Functionally, they were thus similar to Rajputs under Mughals. The property and person of the Christian nobles were not above the frowns of the Sultan. On suspicion of sedition, Sultan Murad commanded Emperor John Palaeologus to blind his own son Andronicus and his infant grandson John, which he meekly carried out. The Ottomans could have taken Constantinople anytime, but they hesitated to do it fearing a possible backlash from the Christian kingdoms that might unite in a second and more formidable crusade. Then came the invasion of Timur which pulverized the Ottomans and their defeated Sultan Bayazid was taken to Samarkand in an animal cage. This put back the fall of Constantinople by fifty years.
Curtains fall with the victory of Mehmet II over Constantinople and the perpetual doom of the Greek church. Eastern emperors desperately tried to patch up their religious differences with the western powers under the spiritual guidance of the pope. The nobles openly repudiated their sect and joined the pope in communion. But the dispute over a supernatural concept cannot be resolved by arguments to reason. They can only be settled by conquest, whether physical or spiritual. The eastern clergy forcibly opposed the efforts of union and saw it only as a ruse to involve European Christendom in the former’s fight for survival against the Ottomans. This interaction had other effects such as helping to diffuse the Greek language in western courts and thus smoothing the way to renaissance. The timing was perfect. The Italian soil was prepared for the cultivation of the seeds of knowledge before they were scattered by the Turkish winds. Gibbon provides a detailed review of the sack of Constantinople and the sacrilege of Christian holy places and people that followed it. The Cathedral of St. Sophia was immediately converted to a mosque. He also tells the miserable story of how the victors selected their victims and pressed them into the meanest slavery.
This volume ends with a survey of the vicissitudes of papal power from its temporal and spiritual rivals. By the fifteenth century, Pope’s rule was firmly established at Rome. As a personal curiosity, Gibbon investigates the reasons behind the heavy ruin of ancient monuments in Rome. Even though invaders performed a small part in the outcome, the substantial cause is ascribed to the avarice of native Romans who pillaged the material for other buildings from the remains of ancient ones. At the end of the volume and series which took twenty years of the author’s life, Gibbon hopes that he may come up with another series on a suitable topic in future. Unfortunately, it never materialized.
The book is highly recommended.
December 27, 2018
This was the end of a huge project that wasn't as rewarding as it should've been. For all the talk about what a great writer Gibbon was, most of the time he confused me, both in what he got wrong from the source texts but also not being a good narrator. As I was reading Volume 6 I was constantly consulting John Julius Norwich's Byzantium to figure out what was really going on. The last two chapters were better than most of the rest, probably because the history of Rome after the fall of Constantinople was fresher and he had less of a chance to get things wrong.
I feel a bit of accomplishment having completed it but if someone asked me to recommend a really long book on ancient history I'd advise them to read Herodotus.
I feel a bit of accomplishment having completed it but if someone asked me to recommend a really long book on ancient history I'd advise them to read Herodotus.
January 29, 2020
This indefatigable reader has conceived and executed the odious or abhorrent task of finishing all six volumes, 5,300+ pages, 126+ hours of Gibbon's masterpiece. This sycophantic review is simply to highlight the equanimity and alacrity or poignancy required for such an endeavor. A pusillanimous or languid attempt would certainly result in the reader's deleterious demise. The vicissitudes of the reader have been transcendental. Yes, 5,300 pages of that. dictionary.com got a hell of a lot of hits. This was, without a doubt, the most impressive piece of literature I've ever read.
November 24, 2020
After 100+ hours of reading, I'm finally finished! To Gibbon's credit, he read *all* the sources and spent nearly 20 years writing these volumes. However, I'm sure there is a modern history I could have read which would have been more succinct, better-organized, and not explicitly sexist and racist.
August 8, 2019
Tough
I finally finished the series I found this volume like all in the series informative yet difficult to follow good for you if you can get through the whole series
I finally finished the series I found this volume like all in the series informative yet difficult to follow good for you if you can get through the whole series
January 3, 2020
It almost killed me! But so good!
February 11, 2023
It took me more than a year to get through this series. I'll read this work again sometime in the future.
Read
July 14, 20245/5
April 20, 2025
Covers the crusades and the end of the eastern Roman empire quite well.
October 13, 2012
Gibbon’s last volume takes the reader through the simultaneously fascinating and nauseating decades of the Crusades and also continues develop the players who would ultimately bring down the Byzantine Empire. By shifting the focus between the Latin crusades and the growth of the Turkish empire, Gibbon is able to not only elucidate on the reasons behind the crusades themselves but also on their effect on the remnant of the Roman Empire in the east. Similarly, Gibbon introduces a character that would be completely foreign to me had I not taken a class on the history of central Asia, Tamerlane.
It is actually quite fascinating that a person who single-handedly prevented the end of the Byzantine Empire for half a century and who purposely made it his mission to be in the annals of history is largely unknown in the western historical cannon. I guess when you kill hundreds of thousands of people to put your name in history karma is not particularly kind to you. : P
Subsequently, I found Gibbon’s return to Rome was quite a poetic way to bring the narrative full circle. This also allowed a fan of history to pick up right with the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. Similarly, Gibbon makes quite a thorough argument, backed by Petrarch himself, putting the responsibility for the decay of the city of Rome from the glory of the Empire in the hands of the citizens of Rome themselves instead of on the Barbarian invasions.
Lastly, I can honestly say that having finished Gibbons last volume, even in an abridged version, feels like reaching the summit of a mountain that not too long ago seemed insurmountable. To quote Christopher Dawson, “[Gibbon] stood on the summit of the Renaissance achievement and looked back over the waste of history to ancient Rome, as from one mountain top to another.”
It is actually quite fascinating that a person who single-handedly prevented the end of the Byzantine Empire for half a century and who purposely made it his mission to be in the annals of history is largely unknown in the western historical cannon. I guess when you kill hundreds of thousands of people to put your name in history karma is not particularly kind to you. : P
Subsequently, I found Gibbon’s return to Rome was quite a poetic way to bring the narrative full circle. This also allowed a fan of history to pick up right with the beginning of the Italian Renaissance. Similarly, Gibbon makes quite a thorough argument, backed by Petrarch himself, putting the responsibility for the decay of the city of Rome from the glory of the Empire in the hands of the citizens of Rome themselves instead of on the Barbarian invasions.
Lastly, I can honestly say that having finished Gibbons last volume, even in an abridged version, feels like reaching the summit of a mountain that not too long ago seemed insurmountable. To quote Christopher Dawson, “[Gibbon] stood on the summit of the Renaissance achievement and looked back over the waste of history to ancient Rome, as from one mountain top to another.”
September 10, 2016
And with this final volume, the 3800 page history of Rome's decline and fall is concluded in, obviously, tragic fashion. The final fall of Constantinople is described in very poetic yet incisive language as is the folly of the Crusades, the brief but incredible conquests of the Mongols, and the tenuous relationship of the Papacy with Rome and its ever-warring barons and "nobles." This is the finest thing I have ever read and if you can, purchase the 6 Volume Everyman edition which is not only beautifully bound but contains very helpful footnotes and updates and is usually very reasonably priced. Gibbon's accomplishment here is something that will last forever, unlike Rome herself...
March 14, 2013
The further I read, the more impressed I became. After accustoming myself to Gibbon's referencing every non-Roman as a barbarian, savage, or infidel, I came to appreciate his ultimately progressive view of the world. This is six volumes of the sublime. "Genius may anticipate the season of maturity; but in the education of a people, as in that of an individual, memory must be exercised, before the powers of reason and fancy can be expanded: nor may the artist hope to equal or surpass, till he has learned to imitate, the works of his predecessors."
February 4, 2011
Ooo man them Musulmans/Moslems (don't know why the alternate spellings) really take it to the Greeks/Romans/Byzantines in this volume. Heraclius - get off your rear and and do something! Then again, the mighty Persians fared even worse.
By this point (AD 650 - 750) the Roman Empire has pretty much fallen. Hard to see what more Gibbon has to cover in two final volumes.
By this point (AD 650 - 750) the Roman Empire has pretty much fallen. Hard to see what more Gibbon has to cover in two final volumes.
May 28, 2016
2016 Book #29/35 End of the series. Overall, what a fascinating journey from start to end. Glad I took the time to read all of them. I started on April 26th and ended on May 28th. One of the more interesting months of reading in my life.
November 3, 2011
By the middle of the sixth volume, the steam in Gibbons tome is more or less lost. It is still a good source of historically biased information but the reader tires of Gibbon's style.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews