What do you think?
Rate this book
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 3
"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 thirteen hundred 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 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."
The third volume contains chapters forty-nine through seventy-one of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire .
The third volume contains chapters forty-nine through seventy-one of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire .
2537 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1788
141 people are currently reading
3712 people want to read
About the author
Edward Gibbon
1,981 books592 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 - 30 of 92 reviews
March 31, 2021
A splendid masterpiece! Gibbon wraps up the monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire with the end of the Empire of the East and a survey of the states of the various nations that had been born at the time. It is, like the first two volumes, written with an incredible vocabulary and such perfect prose. His tone succeeds in avoiding being dry and barren, but rather rests sarcastic and humorous throughout.
August 17, 2015
As this is my fourth review of Gibbon, and as I am not as inexhaustible as that great man, this review will be somewhat scatterbrained—just a few casual observations and some final reflections.
First, it occurred to me, after reading Gibbon’s memoirs, that one of the largest influences on his writing must have been Homer. Notice that Gibbon systematically reuses and repeats certain key phrases and words in the same situations, just as Homer reused the same formulas through his poems. For example, Gibbon always uses “the winds and waves” to denote challenges at sea, while Homer always uses “wine-dark sea” to denote the stormy, foreboding sea. Homer was, in all probability, an oral poet, so it’s no surprise that one finds formulas in his poems. But Gibbon must have done this quite intentionally; this wouldn’t be surprising, as he was a great fan of the Grecian bard.
Next, as I have on several occasions sung Gibbon’s praises, I think it only fair that I jot down some of his shortcomings. Gibbon’s prose is supremely beautiful; but, unlike the beauty of, say, Shakespeare’s language, Gibbon’s writing is all beautiful in the same way. Gibbon mastered one aesthetic, and deployed it to great effect. But after thousands upon thousands of pages of his style, one does grow a bit tired of it. I think much of this has to do with pacing. Gibbon’s mind traveled at one speed—a slow, stately procession. The tumult of battle and the sublimities of philosophy are all recounted in the same majestic waltz. Of course, this is a great part of the appeal of his works, since he manages to cast his silken shroud over all of life’s defects. Yet the reader does sometimes long for some variety, some bit of headstrong passion or unrestrained pathos on the part of the author.
Both of the above qualities—his reuse of certain phrases, and the uniformity of his style—combined to give an artificial homogeneity to the material under discussion. Whether discussing the Turks or the Tuscans, the same phrases are heard, the same cadences sounded. It is often difficult to picture the action in the mind’s eye; the appeal is rather to the ear, as Gibbon’s prose rolls augustly along in its inexorable course.
Gibbon’s other major flaw is his cultural snobbishness. His heroes are all cultured gentlemen and amateur philosophers; his villains are philistines and savages. Gibbon will connect the decline of an empire with the decline in literary taste, and the ruin of a polity with the ruin of a monument. His historical explanations all involve loosening standards of personal honor—something most modern readers are wont to regard as an effect, rather than a cause, of decline.
Yet I will speak no more of this. It feels dishonest of me to nitpick an author who has so deeply influenced me, and has filled so many of my leisure hours with pleasure and companionship. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is as great a monument of the human spirit as is the Coliseum. And like that ancient amphitheater, this work exquisitely blends the most noble and most base aspects of our species: a grand edifice, erected by diligence and knowledge, preserved by respect and care; and in the center of this great work—amid the elegant archways and the polished marble—the spectator finds nothing but pointless bloodshed.
First, it occurred to me, after reading Gibbon’s memoirs, that one of the largest influences on his writing must have been Homer. Notice that Gibbon systematically reuses and repeats certain key phrases and words in the same situations, just as Homer reused the same formulas through his poems. For example, Gibbon always uses “the winds and waves” to denote challenges at sea, while Homer always uses “wine-dark sea” to denote the stormy, foreboding sea. Homer was, in all probability, an oral poet, so it’s no surprise that one finds formulas in his poems. But Gibbon must have done this quite intentionally; this wouldn’t be surprising, as he was a great fan of the Grecian bard.
Next, as I have on several occasions sung Gibbon’s praises, I think it only fair that I jot down some of his shortcomings. Gibbon’s prose is supremely beautiful; but, unlike the beauty of, say, Shakespeare’s language, Gibbon’s writing is all beautiful in the same way. Gibbon mastered one aesthetic, and deployed it to great effect. But after thousands upon thousands of pages of his style, one does grow a bit tired of it. I think much of this has to do with pacing. Gibbon’s mind traveled at one speed—a slow, stately procession. The tumult of battle and the sublimities of philosophy are all recounted in the same majestic waltz. Of course, this is a great part of the appeal of his works, since he manages to cast his silken shroud over all of life’s defects. Yet the reader does sometimes long for some variety, some bit of headstrong passion or unrestrained pathos on the part of the author.
Both of the above qualities—his reuse of certain phrases, and the uniformity of his style—combined to give an artificial homogeneity to the material under discussion. Whether discussing the Turks or the Tuscans, the same phrases are heard, the same cadences sounded. It is often difficult to picture the action in the mind’s eye; the appeal is rather to the ear, as Gibbon’s prose rolls augustly along in its inexorable course.
Gibbon’s other major flaw is his cultural snobbishness. His heroes are all cultured gentlemen and amateur philosophers; his villains are philistines and savages. Gibbon will connect the decline of an empire with the decline in literary taste, and the ruin of a polity with the ruin of a monument. His historical explanations all involve loosening standards of personal honor—something most modern readers are wont to regard as an effect, rather than a cause, of decline.
Yet I will speak no more of this. It feels dishonest of me to nitpick an author who has so deeply influenced me, and has filled so many of my leisure hours with pleasure and companionship. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is as great a monument of the human spirit as is the Coliseum. And like that ancient amphitheater, this work exquisitely blends the most noble and most base aspects of our species: a grand edifice, erected by diligence and knowledge, preserved by respect and care; and in the center of this great work—amid the elegant archways and the polished marble—the spectator finds nothing but pointless bloodshed.
August 25, 2014
Volumes V and VI include probably the most interesting period for my taste, while also including the worst individual chapter and even more unnecessary Byzantine-bashing (Constantinople's "decline is almost coeval with her foundation") and even clearer bias on Gibbon's side. It's fascinating to read someone so blithely unaware of the inconsistencies in his own beliefs, and so happily accepting of the superiority of his own class. You know who should control everything, Gibbon asks? The most wealthy merchants and the nobility. Why? Because that's freedom and liberty. But don't let others have freedom and liberty, that way lies anarchy. This is based on a rigorous classicism, which imagines that "the old patricians were the subjects, the modern barons the tyrants, of the state." Yes. In Ancient Greece, the massively wealthy just hung out talking about Homer all day. Ignore the slaves being used as footstools while they read.
On the other hand, the sheer volume of things he knows makes it much harder for him to keep up his own bigotries for long, and he concludes there there were many causes for end of Rome in both West and East--not just one. He's clearly made uncomfortable by the knowledge that what we have of Ancient Rome in the West was saved by the Papacy, but gives Sixtus V his due. Womersley argues in the introduction that Gibbon's movement away from philosophical history was complete by the end of the History, but that's a bit extreme.* There's plenty of hatred for everyone who isn't a rich, British, post-Anglican rationalist.
And there are still plenty of great fantasy-novel stories in this volume; I expect a dissertation soon, "Fall of Thrones: Gibbon's influence on George R. R. Martin". And many perfect turns of phrase: "Hitherto the weight of supernatural belief inclines against the Protestants; and many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God, than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant." Not sure the doctrine of predestination is coming back from that. "The battles won by lessons of tactics may be numbered with the epic poems created from the rules of criticism." Hah. On gunpowder: "If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind."
It makes me slightly uncomfortable that it took me so long to put my finger on the great flaw in Gibbon's prose, but I finally did: his rhythms and cadences don't alter according to the importance of the information being presented. Whether he's describing one of the most important points in his argument, or just throwing away a line about a fifth-rate Byzantine princeling, his words *sound* the same. In this, at least, we've gone one better than Gibbon. But, as he says, "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." Gibbon helps us to to exercise memory, his work is an example of the powers of reason, and he is certainly an artist worthy of imitation, as well as worth surpassing.
*: The best part of Womersley's excellent introduction is his quote from Johnson's 'Journey to the Western Islands': "whatever withdraws us from the power of our senses; whatever makes the past, the distant, or the future predominate over the present, advances us in the dignity of thinking beings." Most certainly this applies to Gibbon's History.
On the other hand, the sheer volume of things he knows makes it much harder for him to keep up his own bigotries for long, and he concludes there there were many causes for end of Rome in both West and East--not just one. He's clearly made uncomfortable by the knowledge that what we have of Ancient Rome in the West was saved by the Papacy, but gives Sixtus V his due. Womersley argues in the introduction that Gibbon's movement away from philosophical history was complete by the end of the History, but that's a bit extreme.* There's plenty of hatred for everyone who isn't a rich, British, post-Anglican rationalist.
And there are still plenty of great fantasy-novel stories in this volume; I expect a dissertation soon, "Fall of Thrones: Gibbon's influence on George R. R. Martin". And many perfect turns of phrase: "Hitherto the weight of supernatural belief inclines against the Protestants; and many a sober Christian would rather admit that a wafer is God, than that God is a cruel and capricious tyrant." Not sure the doctrine of predestination is coming back from that. "The battles won by lessons of tactics may be numbered with the epic poems created from the rules of criticism." Hah. On gunpowder: "If we contrast the rapid progress of this mischievous discovery with the slow and laborious advances of reason, science and the arts of peace, a philosopher, according to his temper, will laugh or weep at the folly of mankind."
It makes me slightly uncomfortable that it took me so long to put my finger on the great flaw in Gibbon's prose, but I finally did: his rhythms and cadences don't alter according to the importance of the information being presented. Whether he's describing one of the most important points in his argument, or just throwing away a line about a fifth-rate Byzantine princeling, his words *sound* the same. In this, at least, we've gone one better than Gibbon. But, as he says, "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." Gibbon helps us to to exercise memory, his work is an example of the powers of reason, and he is certainly an artist worthy of imitation, as well as worth surpassing.
*: The best part of Womersley's excellent introduction is his quote from Johnson's 'Journey to the Western Islands': "whatever withdraws us from the power of our senses; whatever makes the past, the distant, or the future predominate over the present, advances us in the dignity of thinking beings." Most certainly this applies to Gibbon's History.
February 19, 2021
I can't believe that an non fiction from 1776 can be so interesting and very easy to gulp up. I'm reading these books like a fine candy. A nice treat from time to time as I'm trying to space them out. Going to bed sad when there is no more books left, only got one more to go
August 22, 2013
Ok I'm onto volume III and starting to shake because it's coming to the end. By now I am a complete addict, just a few thousand pages in. What can I do when I get to the last page? Is there a centre that treats people for Edward Gibbon withdrawal?
It is a great shame that the Roman empire collapsed so quickly after a mere 1500 years of analysis because Gibbon could have just kept going.
If you find yourself in prison, on a slow train or on a desert island take all three with you. The only downside is that I have started to speak in arcane English which is insensible in the present world.
I have mostly laughed because Gibbon is a superb ironist but I have also learned that the more the world changes in terms of our material culture the more we humans living in it stay the same. I also learned that I am a Barbarian.
It is a great shame that the Roman empire collapsed so quickly after a mere 1500 years of analysis because Gibbon could have just kept going.
If you find yourself in prison, on a slow train or on a desert island take all three with you. The only downside is that I have started to speak in arcane English which is insensible in the present world.
I have mostly laughed because Gibbon is a superb ironist but I have also learned that the more the world changes in terms of our material culture the more we humans living in it stay the same. I also learned that I am a Barbarian.
May 16, 2022
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, Vol.III
With three volumes finished now, still Edward Gibbon's narrative style is a favourite. While it may be hard to stay focused on every detail, one must realise that when they own a copy of his work it is like they hold in their library the entirety of Rome's history. Still it may be said that some conclusions and speculations he makes along the journey should be taken with a grain of salt, but otherwise it is a work uncontested. His artful prose is saturated with colourful vocabulary, satirical humour, and powerful disdain. With another three volumes to read, this book is yet to disappoint and I'm confident in my excitement there will be lots more to learn too.
Volume III focuses around the 5th Century, marking the defined end of the Western Roman Empire. With catastrophic natural events coupled by increasingly brave warriors, Rome and its Roman frontiers whittle away by constant invasions and attempts at managing influxes of people and disaster-control. Gibbon describes the Scythians, the Goths, the Vandals, and a new group of players into the mix - the Huns. Their ability, with Attila the Hun as their leader, to be able to strike fear was uncontested, and the Roman Empire was in perpetual turmoil trying to alleviate Attila's thirst for war over in the East with gifts and trades. Structural instability and lack of cohesive government within the West Roman Empire led to its eventual, and yet abrupt, end; soon the settled Franks, Vandals, Goths, Saxons, Moors, Alani, and indeed the Huns, were able to carve out pieces of the Empire's boundaries as independent states, typically with little or ineffectual resistance.
With three volumes finished now, still Edward Gibbon's narrative style is a favourite. While it may be hard to stay focused on every detail, one must realise that when they own a copy of his work it is like they hold in their library the entirety of Rome's history. Still it may be said that some conclusions and speculations he makes along the journey should be taken with a grain of salt, but otherwise it is a work uncontested. His artful prose is saturated with colourful vocabulary, satirical humour, and powerful disdain. With another three volumes to read, this book is yet to disappoint and I'm confident in my excitement there will be lots more to learn too.
Volume III focuses around the 5th Century, marking the defined end of the Western Roman Empire. With catastrophic natural events coupled by increasingly brave warriors, Rome and its Roman frontiers whittle away by constant invasions and attempts at managing influxes of people and disaster-control. Gibbon describes the Scythians, the Goths, the Vandals, and a new group of players into the mix - the Huns. Their ability, with Attila the Hun as their leader, to be able to strike fear was uncontested, and the Roman Empire was in perpetual turmoil trying to alleviate Attila's thirst for war over in the East with gifts and trades. Structural instability and lack of cohesive government within the West Roman Empire led to its eventual, and yet abrupt, end; soon the settled Franks, Vandals, Goths, Saxons, Moors, Alani, and indeed the Huns, were able to carve out pieces of the Empire's boundaries as independent states, typically with little or ineffectual resistance.
February 5, 2017
Upon completing this 3rd Volume, I now stand at the halfway point of Gibbon’s 6 Volume masterpiece. From this vantage point, it’s the late 5th Century, Attila the Hun has invaded, pillaged and conquered the Eastern Empire, and the last Emperor of the crumbling Western Empire, Romulus Augustulus, has made way for Odoacer, the first Barbarian King of Italy.
I grow more fascinated, as I continue this long and detailed history, with just how much material Gibbon imbibed in order to organize and write this work. I’m especially glad my edition contains his footnotes, where he copiously references a wealth of historians from earlier eras --- and doesn’t hesitate to pass judgment on their veracity or their errant speculations.
Some highlights from this portion of the journey:
• The continuous invasions of, battles against, and alliances with, the Goths, Huns, and Vandals.
• The final years and death of Theodosius the Great.
• A detailed account of the final destruction of Paganism in the Empire, as the Christians tore down idols (replacing them with relics of Christian martyrs), statues, and temples, and introduced the worship of saints.
• The final division of the Eastern and Western empires, and the new Western headquarters at Ravenna .
• The valor and leadership of Stilicho.
• A fascinating account of the career of Attila the Hun.
It’s not difficult to see clear parallels with modern times: for instance, during the 5th Century, the Empire’s military became weaker, along with the borders of the Empire. What followed were numerous invasions of barbarians, and the sacking of Rome by the Goths.
See you at the end of Volume 4!
I grow more fascinated, as I continue this long and detailed history, with just how much material Gibbon imbibed in order to organize and write this work. I’m especially glad my edition contains his footnotes, where he copiously references a wealth of historians from earlier eras --- and doesn’t hesitate to pass judgment on their veracity or their errant speculations.
Some highlights from this portion of the journey:
• The continuous invasions of, battles against, and alliances with, the Goths, Huns, and Vandals.
• The final years and death of Theodosius the Great.
• A detailed account of the final destruction of Paganism in the Empire, as the Christians tore down idols (replacing them with relics of Christian martyrs), statues, and temples, and introduced the worship of saints.
• The final division of the Eastern and Western empires, and the new Western headquarters at Ravenna .
• The valor and leadership of Stilicho.
• A fascinating account of the career of Attila the Hun.
It’s not difficult to see clear parallels with modern times: for instance, during the 5th Century, the Empire’s military became weaker, along with the borders of the Empire. What followed were numerous invasions of barbarians, and the sacking of Rome by the Goths.
See you at the end of Volume 4!
February 18, 2012
Quite the masterpiece but very, very long and the language is both archaic and complicated, so a fair effort is required. This is, however, repaid as this complete Historian covers all the angles. So, his account of the end of the Roman Empire includes the fate of the Eastern Empire based at Constantinople and this, in turn, includes the rise of Islam, the Crusades, the Mongols and the viccissitudes within the Islamic states.
A pleasant surprise is his modern mind. Gibbon's critiques of religion are Enlightenment gold and still not perceived by many today. Indeed, in the appendicies we find his response to critics who have called him on his religious comments and like so many religious critics of our own day, their criticism are ill considered and often simply not relating to what the text says. While his language is a treasure trove of disused spelling and grammar such as sea-shore, fewell and use of an before any "h" even remotely considered silent.
The 4 reasons for the decline and fall are also very telling. Barbarian invasion we all know about, internicine rivalries also. More surprising is the importance he uneraths of recycling the physcial material of the great buildings of Rome, which literally and figuratively diminishes it. Perhaps above all though, the lesson for our times is that environmental factors were the fourth cause.
A pleasant surprise is his modern mind. Gibbon's critiques of religion are Enlightenment gold and still not perceived by many today. Indeed, in the appendicies we find his response to critics who have called him on his religious comments and like so many religious critics of our own day, their criticism are ill considered and often simply not relating to what the text says. While his language is a treasure trove of disused spelling and grammar such as sea-shore, fewell and use of an before any "h" even remotely considered silent.
The 4 reasons for the decline and fall are also very telling. Barbarian invasion we all know about, internicine rivalries also. More surprising is the importance he uneraths of recycling the physcial material of the great buildings of Rome, which literally and figuratively diminishes it. Perhaps above all though, the lesson for our times is that environmental factors were the fourth cause.
September 18, 2020
A fantastic overview of the time between Constantine and the later Roman emperors. I find my comprehension of early Christianity continues to grow as I read more texts from this period. Excellent as always, try Gibbons and his epic history of the Roman Empire.
April 27, 2017
The finale volume of Modern Library’s three-volume reprint of Edward Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire covers chapters 49 through 71 of the author’s vast magnum opus. Beginning with the Iconoclast controversy in correlation with rise of the Vatican and Holy Roman Empire in the 8th century and ending with a description of the causes and progression of the decay of the city of Roman in the 15th century, Gibbon relates in detail the political, martial, social, and theological developments in both Europe and the Middle East ultimately led to the end of Byzantine Empire with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans and the state of the city of Roman at time of the Roman Empire’s complete end.
The majority of the 22 chapters deal with the rise of Islam and the resultant political and martial effects that would ultimately determine the fate of the Byzantine Empire. Although beginning with the Iconoclastic controversy that began the schism of the Christian church as the bishop of Rome rose to power in the West, Gibbon used those developments to launch into how Islam rose in Arabia then spread across not only areas once under Roman control but also their long-time Persian rivals in the aftermath of the reconquests of Heraclius. While detailing the internal struggle within the Caliphate period, Gibbon reveals how Emperors attempted to combat this new faith and military force to increasing little effect has time went on.
The thorough retelling of the numerous political changes throughout Asia that affect the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire shifted the focus away from the ‘Roman’ world to locations as far east as China, but revolutions of people in these areas would play into the fortunes of Constantinople. Also playing into fate of Byzantine was the barbarian Christian West that the Emperors called for aid not only from kings but the Pope as well. Unfortunately the resulting Crusades and mercenary arms that went East would inflict a mortal wound to the Empire in 1204 thus beginning a centuries long death spiral that only lasted as long as it did because of internal revolutions with the growing Ottoman Empire until 1453. This dreary recounting of the end of Byzantium is mirrored by Gibbon in his recounting of the history of the city of Rome itself throughout the Middle Ages until the fall of the New Rome in the East.
This finale volume of Gibbon’s life consuming work revealed the struggle of the Eastern Empire of Byzantium to continue against a succession of Islamic powers and its ultimate demise thus completing the fall of the Roman Empire. Yet in retelling the eventual fall of Constantinople, Gibbon paints a huge picture for the reader about how events both near and far away from the Bosporus affected the fortunes for both good and ill of the New Rome. And in recounting the history of the city of Rome throughout the Middle Ages, a reader sheds a tear with Gibbon about the loss of the monuments of both Republic and Empire due to the necessity or vanity of the people of Rome after for the fall of the Western Empire.
The majority of the 22 chapters deal with the rise of Islam and the resultant political and martial effects that would ultimately determine the fate of the Byzantine Empire. Although beginning with the Iconoclastic controversy that began the schism of the Christian church as the bishop of Rome rose to power in the West, Gibbon used those developments to launch into how Islam rose in Arabia then spread across not only areas once under Roman control but also their long-time Persian rivals in the aftermath of the reconquests of Heraclius. While detailing the internal struggle within the Caliphate period, Gibbon reveals how Emperors attempted to combat this new faith and military force to increasing little effect has time went on.
The thorough retelling of the numerous political changes throughout Asia that affect the fortunes of the Byzantine Empire shifted the focus away from the ‘Roman’ world to locations as far east as China, but revolutions of people in these areas would play into the fortunes of Constantinople. Also playing into fate of Byzantine was the barbarian Christian West that the Emperors called for aid not only from kings but the Pope as well. Unfortunately the resulting Crusades and mercenary arms that went East would inflict a mortal wound to the Empire in 1204 thus beginning a centuries long death spiral that only lasted as long as it did because of internal revolutions with the growing Ottoman Empire until 1453. This dreary recounting of the end of Byzantium is mirrored by Gibbon in his recounting of the history of the city of Rome itself throughout the Middle Ages until the fall of the New Rome in the East.
This finale volume of Gibbon’s life consuming work revealed the struggle of the Eastern Empire of Byzantium to continue against a succession of Islamic powers and its ultimate demise thus completing the fall of the Roman Empire. Yet in retelling the eventual fall of Constantinople, Gibbon paints a huge picture for the reader about how events both near and far away from the Bosporus affected the fortunes for both good and ill of the New Rome. And in recounting the history of the city of Rome throughout the Middle Ages, a reader sheds a tear with Gibbon about the loss of the monuments of both Republic and Empire due to the necessity or vanity of the people of Rome after for the fall of the Western Empire.
August 17, 2016
Thus ends the first half of Gibbon's extraordinary narrative with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Following the repeated campaigns of Alaric culminating in his sack of Rome in 410, the emerging boldness of Attila and his unification of the Huns, the sweeping victories of Genseric and the Vandals in Africa culminating in his own sack of Rome in 455, the West truly fell. While the barbarians were at the gates, the ridiculous political infighting and absurd thinning of Roman military power contributed greatly to the success of these competing factions. An excellent read as always and a great edition from Everyman, on to the East!
April 5, 2018
What an amazing ride Edward Gibbon has been. Who would have guessed that a book written over 200 years ago could still be so relevant and so entertaining. It is enough that I am apt to forgive his comments (while in Parliament) speaking ill of those "upstart colonists" who would dare to make revolution against King and country.
If you're going to be a child of the Enlightenment, you absolutely must read this history by THE Historian of the Enlightenment.
If you're going to be a child of the Enlightenment, you absolutely must read this history by THE Historian of the Enlightenment.
December 3, 2016
The so-called “Age of Reason,” is long over, but the ruling class never fully lost the mindset of this time. Then again, the Age of Reason ushered in the philosophy of the ruling class. Christianity had already destroyed the notion that strength alone should determine who should rule. But the “Enlightenment” idea that man was the maker and organizer of society rather than God created the intellectual justification for meritocracy, and basis for every bourgeois state, from liberal democracies to communist dictatorships. It was not until our current age when rule based on brute strength, in the form of ethnic superiority, returned to legitimacy.
The intellectual class has never really departed from Gibbon’s mindset. The intelligentsia of Gibbon’s age is always in the temple of the world, protected by its buttresses yet free and clear of the idols and shrines those buttresses were meant to protect. Gibbon finished his masterpiece in the sweet age when materialism ruled, yet before 1789, when materialist ideology had to fail in practice. Much of Volume III of Decline and Fall reads like a hypothesis proved wrong. This materialism was evident in the first two volumes, but in Volume III Gibbon’s cynicism and materialism finally give way to rancidity.
Again, Gibbon’s analysis is tainted by his lack of philosophy. His chapters on Christianity once again display almost no ability for theological thought. This is not necessarily a problem—Gibbon does not need to concern himself with theological matters if he doesn’t want to. The problem with Gibbon’s analysis, as with so much analysis from deists and materialists, is that he believes his other analysis is improved by his lack of theological understanding. Many an ignorant Christian has made a fool out of himself by claiming knowledge he doesn’t have. But materialists are the only people who think their ignorance makes them wiser. Gibbon elides theology, and is left with only his scabrous wit in discussing the iconoclasm and the eastern schism. This is inadequate for anyone interested in the subjects.
Most marring is Gibbon’s treatment of the Mohammadan heresy. Though Gibbon employs his skepticism against the sects of Mahmoud and Ali, no objective reader can fail to see Gibbon’s sharpest daggers are directed towards the Church, not the mosque.
Why is Gibbon so sympathetic, in comparison, to Mohammad’s heresy? The doctrine of the 73 celestial virgins is met with an understanding smirk. Given the fact that Christian kings were yet protecting the welfare of the Voltaires and Gibbons of the world, it was not likely fear of jihadists. (The same cannot be said for Hans-Friedrich Mueller, the unctuous editor of the newest Gibbon truncation, who takes the bravely attacks Bush’s Iraq war, mocks Christianity, and announces he is adopting a more reverent spelling Mahomet’s name.) Islam offers a weaker theology and a stronger legal system. The theology of Islam is secondary to the demands of temporal rule and conquest. No social scientist could envision a better creator of social capital than a submission.
Christianity is a religion of middle ground and contradiction. It is not a pacifist religion—however much scoffers like Gibbon might like to dishonestly suggest—yet it is also not a bellicose religion, since converts must be won by the cross, not the sword. Christianity proposes grand principles, but no formal code for civil life. In these senses—by its own looseness, Christianity can claim to be truly catholic. Islam is mind-numbingly simple by comparison. The scimitar is Islam’s transmission tool. Sharia is Islam’s law. Islam’s simplicity creates adherents of great myopic fervor. There is even a Christian way to drink alcohol (see Ecclesiasticus 31, rightly stripped from the Bible by Puritans). Insofar that Gibbon will approve of Christianity, it is in the Islamified, dumbed-down and yet more strident form of Zwingli and Luther. Why does Gibbon speak more kindly of rigid protestantism than liberal Catholicism? Because it is easier to ignore. Similarly, Islam is simple. No alcohol, four wives, conversion or death. Islam’s most imposing feature is extrinsic to the philosophy itself—the violence of its adherence. But the philosophy itself is merely a system of government, and can be relegated to the outskirts, so long as its adherents can be relegated to the outskirts as well.
These are theological subtleties which do not interest Gibbon. Modern readers cannot be indifferent to the continued takeover of Europe and America by Islamic forces—not sensible ones, at least. The freedom which Islam presented to philosophes like Voltaire and Gibbon was purely negative—the hollow mockery of Mohammad’s realm limited the power of the Church, which guarded sensible people from their empty scoffing.
All this might simply be a matter of philosophical differences. Yet Gibbon’s desire to harm the Church perverts all his other senses. See in Chapter LXX, when the popes gain temporal power over much of Italy. “The barons forgot the arms and factions of their ancestors, and insensibly became the servants of luxury and government.” Their ancestors? These ancestors had been dead for fifteen centuries. The brief revolts of Rienzi created no true spirit of liberty which might be eulogized by Gibbon. Marius and Caesar killed the spirit of liberty in the Romans, not the popes. Or in the final chapter, Gibbon decries the fortifications of St. Peter’s, aphorizing: “Whatever is fortified will be attacked; and whatever is attacked may be destroyed.” This is blather from liberals of the 21st Century, not the 18th. Gibbon has deranged himself so thoroughly by this point against the Church that all logic and philosophy must find their subordinated places in the hierarchy of Gibbon’s prose.
Gibbon lauds Plato without seeming to ever had read him. The Church may have appropriated Plato for purposes Gibbons dislikes, but at no point does Gibbon make any critique of the Church’s Platonism or even acknowledges the Church’s debt to the Greeks. Gibbon’s summary writing-off of Augustine becomes embarrassing when this is considered. His complete elision of Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas is just as embarrassing—he mentions Peter Abelard only to note that his ideas may have been heretical to the Church, all without mentioning the ideas or the heresy! When the libraries of Constantinople are burned, he expresses some pleasure in the destruction of reams of theology
Let us keep an imperfect score of where this disdain has taken him. He has sympathized with a terrorist regime that would kill such an irreverent man as him, he has suggested the popes were responsible for the servitude of the Romans rather than Rome’s millennium-plus of servitude; he has lambasted and lauded the destruction of Christian theology without seeming to know anything about it. Perhaps the popes of the Middle Ages appear faint compared to the Antonines, but certainly after hundreds of pages of squalor Gibbon knows the mean average Emperor was much more corrupt than these popes!
Gibbon does not quite adhere to the conceit that allows this third volume to exist. Of course, the Western Empire was dead in the fifth century, and to justify his sojourns away from the East, Gibbon must turn his eyes to Charlemagne’s empire. The Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1807, when Napoleon destroyed it. By then, it was both more amazing and more pathetic than the foundering Byzantine Empire, a product of its own deceits more than any actual connection with the Tarquins and Caesars. Yet at its height, it would have had to earn Gibbon’s praise as a truly orthodox empire which was responsible for modern Europe’s glory and the propagation of liberal ideals to the Americas. In a sense, Charlemagne’s empire was more astounding than Caesar’s; its “decay,” after all, brought not squalor and misery but the modern West.
The schism between the Western and Eastern churches gets perfunctory treatment. While filioque may seem a small matter to the oblivious Gibbon, it once again replays the scenes of Arianism in which the divinity of Christ is disparaged. To any believer, this is no little issue; an entire cosmology may depend on this little word. Gibbon cannot understand this; like all materialists, he cannot begin to comprehend what he cannot understand.
After two-plus centuries, does Gibbon have anything to teach us? The Roman Empire could appeal to a man of Gibbon’s time, where material advancements and protestantized theology created an environment unknown since pagan times. The steam engine made a new European empire necessary simply so it could be put to use. Guttenberg made it feasible that the literary greatness of Cicero and Pliny—if not Plato and Demosthenes—might against flourish across this empire. Yet now technology more than leaders or events has enslaved us. The modern Western empire has no outside adversaries, not really. The Persians and Germanics which posed a perpetual threat to Rome could be disposed of at the push of a button. The technology which made the fortress of Gibbon’s Europe impenetrable has now turned it into a slave state, fatally corrupted by wanton vice and sloth.
Since 1517, the moral has been eaten away by Protestant heresy. The illogical and anarchic impulses which come from rejecting truth had their most pernicious effects on the soul (and the bodies of those killed in the Thirty Years’ War, etc.). The span between 1789 and 1945 was the war of materialism. The Christianity of William Blake was really not so different from Nietzsche’s atheism. Thoreau's mourning the fact that average workers could not make deities of themselves is only an Americanized (i.e. softened) version of the nihilists. Zarathustra and Luther differed only in that Luther was too cowardly to follow through with his thoughts. 1789 proved that Martin Luther had already won. The change was that the spiritual world was now transformed into mad rush for material prospects. The emblem of this is the British Empire, which was always Locke and Bacon and almost nothing of Chaucer and Shakespeare. The British Empire was a materialist empire.
The coin flipped again. Materialism no longer had an intellectual role in Western history. The wants of the affluent nations were met, were so greatly exceeded that no economy could function without the principle of conspicuous waste. Warfare was obsolete in an age where no nuclear power could reasonably attack another, and any barbarian nemesis continued to exist only by the benevolence or apathy of the First World. The American Empire is recognized only tacitly by the ruling class. Its boundaries are spiritual and intellectual, not physical. It is spread by technology and ambivalence.
We lack any true intellectual justification for rule. More than anything, this is what is necessary for a happy society. Raw power justifies all acts. Our rights have been completely divorced from right, and therefore are only a matter of being grandfathered into them. The “Dark Ages” elided by Gibbon were not really so dark. The material necessities of life decayed, but the light of man and the light of God shone still. The light of reason has been snuffed out of public light, and we now only have disputes over raw power—over race and sex.
Reading Gibbon is to read one of the greatest works of a revolution that failed. The story of collapse of the empire Gibbon envisioned will not be written for another millennia, if anyone still exists to write it.
The intellectual class has never really departed from Gibbon’s mindset. The intelligentsia of Gibbon’s age is always in the temple of the world, protected by its buttresses yet free and clear of the idols and shrines those buttresses were meant to protect. Gibbon finished his masterpiece in the sweet age when materialism ruled, yet before 1789, when materialist ideology had to fail in practice. Much of Volume III of Decline and Fall reads like a hypothesis proved wrong. This materialism was evident in the first two volumes, but in Volume III Gibbon’s cynicism and materialism finally give way to rancidity.
Again, Gibbon’s analysis is tainted by his lack of philosophy. His chapters on Christianity once again display almost no ability for theological thought. This is not necessarily a problem—Gibbon does not need to concern himself with theological matters if he doesn’t want to. The problem with Gibbon’s analysis, as with so much analysis from deists and materialists, is that he believes his other analysis is improved by his lack of theological understanding. Many an ignorant Christian has made a fool out of himself by claiming knowledge he doesn’t have. But materialists are the only people who think their ignorance makes them wiser. Gibbon elides theology, and is left with only his scabrous wit in discussing the iconoclasm and the eastern schism. This is inadequate for anyone interested in the subjects.
Most marring is Gibbon’s treatment of the Mohammadan heresy. Though Gibbon employs his skepticism against the sects of Mahmoud and Ali, no objective reader can fail to see Gibbon’s sharpest daggers are directed towards the Church, not the mosque.
Why is Gibbon so sympathetic, in comparison, to Mohammad’s heresy? The doctrine of the 73 celestial virgins is met with an understanding smirk. Given the fact that Christian kings were yet protecting the welfare of the Voltaires and Gibbons of the world, it was not likely fear of jihadists. (The same cannot be said for Hans-Friedrich Mueller, the unctuous editor of the newest Gibbon truncation, who takes the bravely attacks Bush’s Iraq war, mocks Christianity, and announces he is adopting a more reverent spelling Mahomet’s name.) Islam offers a weaker theology and a stronger legal system. The theology of Islam is secondary to the demands of temporal rule and conquest. No social scientist could envision a better creator of social capital than a submission.
Christianity is a religion of middle ground and contradiction. It is not a pacifist religion—however much scoffers like Gibbon might like to dishonestly suggest—yet it is also not a bellicose religion, since converts must be won by the cross, not the sword. Christianity proposes grand principles, but no formal code for civil life. In these senses—by its own looseness, Christianity can claim to be truly catholic. Islam is mind-numbingly simple by comparison. The scimitar is Islam’s transmission tool. Sharia is Islam’s law. Islam’s simplicity creates adherents of great myopic fervor. There is even a Christian way to drink alcohol (see Ecclesiasticus 31, rightly stripped from the Bible by Puritans). Insofar that Gibbon will approve of Christianity, it is in the Islamified, dumbed-down and yet more strident form of Zwingli and Luther. Why does Gibbon speak more kindly of rigid protestantism than liberal Catholicism? Because it is easier to ignore. Similarly, Islam is simple. No alcohol, four wives, conversion or death. Islam’s most imposing feature is extrinsic to the philosophy itself—the violence of its adherence. But the philosophy itself is merely a system of government, and can be relegated to the outskirts, so long as its adherents can be relegated to the outskirts as well.
These are theological subtleties which do not interest Gibbon. Modern readers cannot be indifferent to the continued takeover of Europe and America by Islamic forces—not sensible ones, at least. The freedom which Islam presented to philosophes like Voltaire and Gibbon was purely negative—the hollow mockery of Mohammad’s realm limited the power of the Church, which guarded sensible people from their empty scoffing.
All this might simply be a matter of philosophical differences. Yet Gibbon’s desire to harm the Church perverts all his other senses. See in Chapter LXX, when the popes gain temporal power over much of Italy. “The barons forgot the arms and factions of their ancestors, and insensibly became the servants of luxury and government.” Their ancestors? These ancestors had been dead for fifteen centuries. The brief revolts of Rienzi created no true spirit of liberty which might be eulogized by Gibbon. Marius and Caesar killed the spirit of liberty in the Romans, not the popes. Or in the final chapter, Gibbon decries the fortifications of St. Peter’s, aphorizing: “Whatever is fortified will be attacked; and whatever is attacked may be destroyed.” This is blather from liberals of the 21st Century, not the 18th. Gibbon has deranged himself so thoroughly by this point against the Church that all logic and philosophy must find their subordinated places in the hierarchy of Gibbon’s prose.
Gibbon lauds Plato without seeming to ever had read him. The Church may have appropriated Plato for purposes Gibbons dislikes, but at no point does Gibbon make any critique of the Church’s Platonism or even acknowledges the Church’s debt to the Greeks. Gibbon’s summary writing-off of Augustine becomes embarrassing when this is considered. His complete elision of Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas is just as embarrassing—he mentions Peter Abelard only to note that his ideas may have been heretical to the Church, all without mentioning the ideas or the heresy! When the libraries of Constantinople are burned, he expresses some pleasure in the destruction of reams of theology
Let us keep an imperfect score of where this disdain has taken him. He has sympathized with a terrorist regime that would kill such an irreverent man as him, he has suggested the popes were responsible for the servitude of the Romans rather than Rome’s millennium-plus of servitude; he has lambasted and lauded the destruction of Christian theology without seeming to know anything about it. Perhaps the popes of the Middle Ages appear faint compared to the Antonines, but certainly after hundreds of pages of squalor Gibbon knows the mean average Emperor was much more corrupt than these popes!
Gibbon does not quite adhere to the conceit that allows this third volume to exist. Of course, the Western Empire was dead in the fifth century, and to justify his sojourns away from the East, Gibbon must turn his eyes to Charlemagne’s empire. The Holy Roman Empire lasted until 1807, when Napoleon destroyed it. By then, it was both more amazing and more pathetic than the foundering Byzantine Empire, a product of its own deceits more than any actual connection with the Tarquins and Caesars. Yet at its height, it would have had to earn Gibbon’s praise as a truly orthodox empire which was responsible for modern Europe’s glory and the propagation of liberal ideals to the Americas. In a sense, Charlemagne’s empire was more astounding than Caesar’s; its “decay,” after all, brought not squalor and misery but the modern West.
The schism between the Western and Eastern churches gets perfunctory treatment. While filioque may seem a small matter to the oblivious Gibbon, it once again replays the scenes of Arianism in which the divinity of Christ is disparaged. To any believer, this is no little issue; an entire cosmology may depend on this little word. Gibbon cannot understand this; like all materialists, he cannot begin to comprehend what he cannot understand.
After two-plus centuries, does Gibbon have anything to teach us? The Roman Empire could appeal to a man of Gibbon’s time, where material advancements and protestantized theology created an environment unknown since pagan times. The steam engine made a new European empire necessary simply so it could be put to use. Guttenberg made it feasible that the literary greatness of Cicero and Pliny—if not Plato and Demosthenes—might against flourish across this empire. Yet now technology more than leaders or events has enslaved us. The modern Western empire has no outside adversaries, not really. The Persians and Germanics which posed a perpetual threat to Rome could be disposed of at the push of a button. The technology which made the fortress of Gibbon’s Europe impenetrable has now turned it into a slave state, fatally corrupted by wanton vice and sloth.
Since 1517, the moral has been eaten away by Protestant heresy. The illogical and anarchic impulses which come from rejecting truth had their most pernicious effects on the soul (and the bodies of those killed in the Thirty Years’ War, etc.). The span between 1789 and 1945 was the war of materialism. The Christianity of William Blake was really not so different from Nietzsche’s atheism. Thoreau's mourning the fact that average workers could not make deities of themselves is only an Americanized (i.e. softened) version of the nihilists. Zarathustra and Luther differed only in that Luther was too cowardly to follow through with his thoughts. 1789 proved that Martin Luther had already won. The change was that the spiritual world was now transformed into mad rush for material prospects. The emblem of this is the British Empire, which was always Locke and Bacon and almost nothing of Chaucer and Shakespeare. The British Empire was a materialist empire.
The coin flipped again. Materialism no longer had an intellectual role in Western history. The wants of the affluent nations were met, were so greatly exceeded that no economy could function without the principle of conspicuous waste. Warfare was obsolete in an age where no nuclear power could reasonably attack another, and any barbarian nemesis continued to exist only by the benevolence or apathy of the First World. The American Empire is recognized only tacitly by the ruling class. Its boundaries are spiritual and intellectual, not physical. It is spread by technology and ambivalence.
We lack any true intellectual justification for rule. More than anything, this is what is necessary for a happy society. Raw power justifies all acts. Our rights have been completely divorced from right, and therefore are only a matter of being grandfathered into them. The “Dark Ages” elided by Gibbon were not really so dark. The material necessities of life decayed, but the light of man and the light of God shone still. The light of reason has been snuffed out of public light, and we now only have disputes over raw power—over race and sex.
Reading Gibbon is to read one of the greatest works of a revolution that failed. The story of collapse of the empire Gibbon envisioned will not be written for another millennia, if anyone still exists to write it.
May 12, 2014
In my Victorian edition, this third volume stretches from the fall of Rome itself to the conquests of the Islamic empire under the first caliphs and the early Umayyads. In other words, the original Book IV and first few chapters of Book V. I don't know if it's just me getting used to his style, or maybe reflects a difference in his sources, but it seems to me that in this volume Gibbon is looser, more vivid, more willing to tell stories; there is plenty of excitement and fun here.
The first 2/3rds or so is dominated by the figure and reign of Justinian: the factions and controversies and scandals of his long life, the reconquest of the West by his generals Belisarius and Narses, his wars with the Persians, his legal and religious reforms and consolidations, his building program. Thanks to Procopius, who wrote both sober, eyewitness-based history and outrageous, tabloid-style scandal reporting, Gibbon has plenty of material. He professes to be skeptical of the Secret History, saying "a lover of truth will peruse with a suspicious eye the instructive anecdotes of Procopius...Ambiguous actions are imputed to the worst motives, error is confounded with guilt, accident with design, and laws with abuses; the partial injustice of a moment is dextrously applied as the general maxim of a reign of thirty-two years," all of which sounds exactly like blogs and online comment threads today. But in fact Gibbon allows himself to be swayed by Procopius's malice, and he never misses a chance to mock and belittle the emperor who takes up so much of his book. It's funny to read, for example, the account of the conquest of Italy, which Gibbon consistently credits only to the generals (not the "timid" emperor who never took the field) while his own narrative suggests that the skillful diplomacy and artifice of Justinian and Theodora were just as important. (Gibbon does not even really pretend to scruples about Theodora, a figure so fascinating to us today, or her frenemy Antonina, the wife of Belisarius.)
Overall the Justinian chapters are magnificently fascinating, though I admit I struggled through the long chapter on his legal code and the history of Roman law in general. (It did have, in my edition, the closest equivalent yet to the wonderful squabbling footnotes of chapters 15 and 16; Reverend Milman brought a legal scholar in to correct Gibbon, adding even more length and boredom.) After Justinian, there is less detail, but great vividness--I feel like there has to be a bleak but exciting revenge movie/TV series about Justinian II, who survived deposition, exile, having his nose cut off, attempted assassination, and near-shipwreck, to return to Constantinople at the head of a barbarian army to get bloody revenge on basically the entire empire. During the war between Khosrau and Heraclius (who lost Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to the Persians, won them back in an insanely bold campaign, and then lost them again forever to the Muslims), Gibbon even puts in some wonderful foreshadowing: Khosrau recieves a letter from some guy down south called Mohammed, urging him to recognize the one true God, which he impatiently tears up and tosses away as an irrelevant distraction from the war.
That guy down south turns out to be one of Gibbon's favorites; like Julian the Apostate, he lingers on his virtues, and throws in some faults mostly to avoid the appearance of bias. (By contrast, he is completely uninterested in and dismissive of Charlemagne.) Gibbon is very sympathetic to Islam, even more than to iconoclasm, both of which better fit his Enlightenment Deism than the orthodox Catholics do. (The uncomfortably racist/prejudiced chapter is not on Islam, but on the various small Christian churches of the East such as the Copts and Nestorians.) Early Muslim heroes in general get plenty of admiration from Gibbon: not just Mohammed but Ali, Tariq, Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaidah, and especially Khalid, "the Sword of God". I'm sure more accurate Western accounts of the early Caliphs have been written since Gibbon, but I doubt whether any of them are more evenhanded, which to me is remarkable.
I'm three-quarters of the way through now, and my enthusiasm is undiminished. Can't wait to read the last volume! I will add more to the list of my favorite Gibbonian construction. Here are a few highlights of it from this volume: "that thankless island", "that ambitious princess", "that virtuous patriot", "that exiled nation", "that useful animal", "that meritorious service", "that Gallic adventurer", "that flagitious minister", "that rambling jeweller", "that skillful botanist", "that delicious territory". I never get tired of these. What will I do when the book is over, and there are no more to look forward to?
The first 2/3rds or so is dominated by the figure and reign of Justinian: the factions and controversies and scandals of his long life, the reconquest of the West by his generals Belisarius and Narses, his wars with the Persians, his legal and religious reforms and consolidations, his building program. Thanks to Procopius, who wrote both sober, eyewitness-based history and outrageous, tabloid-style scandal reporting, Gibbon has plenty of material. He professes to be skeptical of the Secret History, saying "a lover of truth will peruse with a suspicious eye the instructive anecdotes of Procopius...Ambiguous actions are imputed to the worst motives, error is confounded with guilt, accident with design, and laws with abuses; the partial injustice of a moment is dextrously applied as the general maxim of a reign of thirty-two years," all of which sounds exactly like blogs and online comment threads today. But in fact Gibbon allows himself to be swayed by Procopius's malice, and he never misses a chance to mock and belittle the emperor who takes up so much of his book. It's funny to read, for example, the account of the conquest of Italy, which Gibbon consistently credits only to the generals (not the "timid" emperor who never took the field) while his own narrative suggests that the skillful diplomacy and artifice of Justinian and Theodora were just as important. (Gibbon does not even really pretend to scruples about Theodora, a figure so fascinating to us today, or her frenemy Antonina, the wife of Belisarius.)
Overall the Justinian chapters are magnificently fascinating, though I admit I struggled through the long chapter on his legal code and the history of Roman law in general. (It did have, in my edition, the closest equivalent yet to the wonderful squabbling footnotes of chapters 15 and 16; Reverend Milman brought a legal scholar in to correct Gibbon, adding even more length and boredom.) After Justinian, there is less detail, but great vividness--I feel like there has to be a bleak but exciting revenge movie/TV series about Justinian II, who survived deposition, exile, having his nose cut off, attempted assassination, and near-shipwreck, to return to Constantinople at the head of a barbarian army to get bloody revenge on basically the entire empire. During the war between Khosrau and Heraclius (who lost Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to the Persians, won them back in an insanely bold campaign, and then lost them again forever to the Muslims), Gibbon even puts in some wonderful foreshadowing: Khosrau recieves a letter from some guy down south called Mohammed, urging him to recognize the one true God, which he impatiently tears up and tosses away as an irrelevant distraction from the war.
That guy down south turns out to be one of Gibbon's favorites; like Julian the Apostate, he lingers on his virtues, and throws in some faults mostly to avoid the appearance of bias. (By contrast, he is completely uninterested in and dismissive of Charlemagne.) Gibbon is very sympathetic to Islam, even more than to iconoclasm, both of which better fit his Enlightenment Deism than the orthodox Catholics do. (The uncomfortably racist/prejudiced chapter is not on Islam, but on the various small Christian churches of the East such as the Copts and Nestorians.) Early Muslim heroes in general get plenty of admiration from Gibbon: not just Mohammed but Ali, Tariq, Abu Bakr, Abu Ubaidah, and especially Khalid, "the Sword of God". I'm sure more accurate Western accounts of the early Caliphs have been written since Gibbon, but I doubt whether any of them are more evenhanded, which to me is remarkable.
I'm three-quarters of the way through now, and my enthusiasm is undiminished. Can't wait to read the last volume! I will add more to the list of my favorite Gibbonian construction. Here are a few highlights of it from this volume: "that thankless island", "that ambitious princess", "that virtuous patriot", "that exiled nation", "that useful animal", "that meritorious service", "that Gallic adventurer", "that flagitious minister", "that rambling jeweller", "that skillful botanist", "that delicious territory". I never get tired of these. What will I do when the book is over, and there are no more to look forward to?
July 1, 2023
I finally completed my 6 month journey of reading Gibbon's masterpiece. I would say that this is one of the most important historical works (in history ;) ). Essentially a history of Europe and the world from Commodus to the Renaissance, I feel like I learned a great deal here and will need some months to process it. Any leader would benefit from reading this in order to avoid making the same mistakes as the emperors of Rome.
Some parts really put into perspective the summation of one's life and achievements and the risk required to have one's name rescued from oblivion. Here's my favorite quote: "In a composition of some days, in a perusal of some hours, six hundred years have rolled away, and the 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." Gibbon is funny as hell in his footnotes too. I love how he absolutely eviscerates incompetent historical figures in the most eloquent of english. Would recommend this if you want to win your next bar trivia challenge.
Some parts really put into perspective the summation of one's life and achievements and the risk required to have one's name rescued from oblivion. Here's my favorite quote: "In a composition of some days, in a perusal of some hours, six hundred years have rolled away, and the 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." Gibbon is funny as hell in his footnotes too. I love how he absolutely eviscerates incompetent historical figures in the most eloquent of english. Would recommend this if you want to win your next bar trivia challenge.
May 31, 2023
This is a terrific read, if you like 18th century English and have a few years to spare. (It took me almost 10 years.) Really...I thought it was great, but like most books I read, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone...
August 15, 2022
A monument of Enlightenment: elegant, learned, ironic, secular, liberal, cosmopolitan.
Read
January 31, 2023And so, we say goodbye to the western empire and move decisively east to Constantinople.
May 10, 2022
This third volume of Edward Gibbon’s The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Folio Society edition) begins with the accession of Julian in 361 AD to the death of Theodosius I in 395 AD.
— Julian
As stated in its introduction, this volume formally marks the end of the decline and start of the fall (the reign of Valens).
There is some semblance to the Boston Massacre in the story of Rome’s collapse, for it was during the reign of Valens that the Huns (Anglicans) routed the Goths (Pilgrims) to Thrace (Massachusetts) where they were accommodated by the grace of the Roman (British) government only to be oppressed and abused by their supposed benefactors. And just as in Boston, “their patience was now exhausted, the townsmen, the soldiers, and the Goths were soon involved in a conflict of passionate altercation and angry reproaches” which led to the “first blood that was spilt in this accidental quarrel [that] became the signal of a long and destructive war.” Valens himself, as well as two-thirds of the Roman army, would perish at the Battle of Hadrianople, a Gothic victory.
Alaric, King of the Visigoths, who “acquired, in the school of Theodosius, the knowledge of the art of war which he afterwards so fatally exerted for the destruction of Rome,” makes his first appearance in this volume. Like a menacing specter he moves across the pages with an inevitable force to his destiny.
This volume ends with the final destruction of paganism under Theodosius.
It’s clear that Gibbon must have had greater access to primary sources for this time period judging by the abundance of quotations. Volume I and II lacked in that regard. The illustrations in this volume are also some of the best. I would post some of them here if I knew how. Four stars because, again, it wasn’t as good as the first.
“Believe me, the Roman republic, which formerly possessed such immense treasures, is now reduced to want and wretchedness.”
— Julian
As stated in its introduction, this volume formally marks the end of the decline and start of the fall (the reign of Valens).
There is some semblance to the Boston Massacre in the story of Rome’s collapse, for it was during the reign of Valens that the Huns (Anglicans) routed the Goths (Pilgrims) to Thrace (Massachusetts) where they were accommodated by the grace of the Roman (British) government only to be oppressed and abused by their supposed benefactors. And just as in Boston, “their patience was now exhausted, the townsmen, the soldiers, and the Goths were soon involved in a conflict of passionate altercation and angry reproaches” which led to the “first blood that was spilt in this accidental quarrel [that] became the signal of a long and destructive war.” Valens himself, as well as two-thirds of the Roman army, would perish at the Battle of Hadrianople, a Gothic victory.
Alaric, King of the Visigoths, who “acquired, in the school of Theodosius, the knowledge of the art of war which he afterwards so fatally exerted for the destruction of Rome,” makes his first appearance in this volume. Like a menacing specter he moves across the pages with an inevitable force to his destiny.
This volume ends with the final destruction of paganism under Theodosius.
It’s clear that Gibbon must have had greater access to primary sources for this time period judging by the abundance of quotations. Volume I and II lacked in that regard. The illustrations in this volume are also some of the best. I would post some of them here if I knew how. Four stars because, again, it wasn’t as good as the first.
September 2, 2025
Usually I can barely make it through a book of nonfiction, so it is sort of a miracle that I made it to the end of this 2,000+ page work. If I wasn’t so interested in the Roman empire I definitely would not have finished. Overall, Gibbon’s prose was flawless and his facts were pretty solid (later research has shown that he did get a couple details wrong). But I feel like he unfairly bashed the Byzantine empire in the last volume. He called the Greeks “decadent”, “superstitious”, and “effeminate” I don’t know how many times and hardly acknowledged their superior moments. He also liked to mention a lot that the hot climates turned the people of the southern regions into fanatics, which I guess is sort of based on a theory about the air affecting people’s dispositions held during his time, but still it sounded a little condescending. Perhaps he was also a little too skeptical at times and biased in his praise, but overall he did an amazing and thorough job of chronicling Roman history.
January 22, 2024
i liked the analysis in the last chapter. i hope 4-6 have more of that.
October 9, 2024
Similar to Volumes 1 and 2, excellent content, but tough to read. Do not care for his writing style.
July 28, 2025
Gibbons the decline and fall of the Roman Empire volume 3
Alaric is hard not to respect specially, considering that his honor had been merged after the battle of Adrianople, by the Roman forces Gibbons says the armies were overstretched. They had just come out of a Civil War and they were packed having a spot in the east so the army in the east basically was unable to prevent him from sacking Athens, and then the armies in the west were in the Iberian Peninsula dealing with 30,000 troops that had crossed the Rhine river. So basically, there were no defenses for the city of Rome, and more over the city of Rome had become a sprawling metropolis with like 1 million people. So it wasn’t even more difficult City to defend but granted the reason it fell is because someone ultimately betrayed the Romans and just opened the gate so it’s potentially possible that they are really in walls may have actually ended up protecting Rome in the long run.
I started reading Edward Gibbons the decline and followed the Roman empire because I’m just curious if we can draw parallels to the decline of the United States. This wasn’t the only emotes for starting to read it. It’s because I was in a Shakespeare club and we were reading the Roman trilogy of Shakespeare plays and we just wrapped up Julius Caesar and I had read a couple other books on Roman but I wanted to hold holistic history of Roman history and besides, it was something that had been on my list for a long time and it’s nice that it’s sort of a easy breezy read and it’s not in translation. I would consider it or compare it similar to tool stories more in peace because it’s long but it’s also pretty readable so I’m enjoying it quite a bit I think that the tipping factor was that I was reading a summary of the books that the German philosopher Rego read and evidently this was one of the books that he had access to and that makes sense because they were published pretty close to his time, and I think it might have informed or at least it’s reasonable to infer that it would’ve informed his conception of the philosophy of history quite a bit.
Returning to the parallels of whether it’s helpful to interpret Rome in life of the United States, or of the British empire or even of the historic German empire or other imperial projects it’s nonetheless of fascinating read very well written, and frankly quite a bit of fun. I would say a lot of the fun is that I know a lot of these bits and pieces, but I haven’t put the pieces together Yet in my life, but of course I know individuals such as Alaric and different emperors.
I honestly think it’s a pretty accurate description. All things considered. I know some of the numbers are a little bit off here and there, but it’s because those are ancient sources that he’s basically relying on. For example, in the first volume, he mentions in a footnote that 1.7 million. People crossed the Hellespont during the Persian invasion of Greece, but that doesn’t seem to be right, and I think he even mentioned it somewhat in a skeptical tone, but it’s still nonetheless is maybe an example of there’s just no other resources that we could potentially have and it’s hard to come up with a firm line and things of that nature so I think that’s where a large amount of criticism comes, but I think from the overall narrative who is emperor the timeline I think of that nature even archaeological evidence has it to my knowledge substantially changed things too much.
regarding the overall picture he did not change history quite substantially in the sensitive used to put notes and cited all sources and I know he has a personal player and I mean that’s fine. I mean, I think we can identify what the Personal player is and I totally get that but even modern Roman history books have a personal player and they admitted readily like I read this book by Mary Beard and she says that she admits that she focuses on the history of women in Rome because the societal interests of our time have changed quite a bitso I think it makes sense that people will say that Gibbons has a Personal flair but so do people of our own era and I think that’s just reflective of the time that we live in.
I mean, I would say any historian even once were attempting to be honest I do have some sort of spin I mean, it’s just who we are and what the world we live in is. We have different morals and different ways of interpreting things so even someone who attempts to be very Non-biased ultimately will be biased in my opinion. And indeed it’s probably better to have those opinions out in the open and I think modern historians like Mary Bear do that very well and so did Edward Gibbons you know exactly what his opinion is on Christianity and he’s not a fan of Christianity and you know his opinions on various emperors. For example, he loves Julianthe apostate and thinks he shouldn’t be called Julian the apostate and he wasn’t that big a fan of Constantine and has a lot of things to say about all the crimes that Constantine conducted.
The debates among Christian denominations is fascinating as well.
What are the mysterious events that led to the independence of Britain? Is there any truth to Arthurian legends? He briefly mentions a British having a Pendragon leading them.
It’s interesting reading about the dichotomy so Christian and their debates are this history in the Roman empire because sort of suggest that they are really just not that important for the base but they are ways that people can hide political action within faction of religion. Such perspectives seem fairly modern. But it makes sense of these opinions came from the enlightenment.
In that same vein I enjoy historical figures such as John Chyrsotom who Gibbons writes highly of. Likewise, in the same perspective it makes sense with the history of the Roman empire around this time period is effectively the history of Christianity as well.
Could anything have stopped Alaric and Atilla?
One thing that’s curious all throughout is Gibbon‘s reference to events, for example in volume one he mentions Peru and earlier in this volume, he mentioned the Spanish and Charles the fifth of the holy Roman empire, and when he’s talking about Attila, the Hun, he mentions Tamberlane as well, so it’s sort of not exactly chronologically on par or at the same time with The events of the Roman Empire that he is discussing, but it makes sense for an enlightenment audience reading this text to have references to those events or one could assume that such an audience would have knowledge of those events. I think it peppers Gibbons is writing a bit and makes it more fun and exciting because if you don’t know who some of these individuals are or if you’re just curious in general, it encourages one to go to an encyclopedia and look things up such as I have done frequently and not just for Those types of individuals but just getting a map of the schematics of a specific battle or looking at the different types of invasions that might’ve occurred or looking at the different battles that until the Hunt might’ve engaged in. I suppose you could say that about any book that makes references outside of itself but I enjoy Gibbbons a bit for this reason in that he encourages the reader to at least take delight in references that the reader may know or if the reader doesn’t know to go look things up until further detail.
One thing that makes a reader sad even in the enlightenment error I can imagine her nowadays is that there’s such a lack of evidence from the perspective outside of Rome such as at the hunt. Frankly, all the sources we have unless it’s archaeological resources or at least a majority the large majority of these resources come from Roman perspectives which is fine and interesting. It’s it’s fascinating to study of the Roman perspective, but it would be interesting as well to have seen a large massive historical documents that came from Attila of the Hunt Court and it doesn’t seem like we simply have that. And certainly it would be interesting to see what Attila the hon himself might’ve thought about himself not that we necessarily have that about a lot of the Roman emperors. Certainly, Trajan had a lot of letters that went back-and-forth with Pliny.
Gibbons seems to suggest that Atilla’s invasion allowed the Merovingian dynasty starting with Clovis to first rise to power in this volume. I suppose that makes sense the Merovingians would have time to organize themselves against invasions when the Roman armies could not. Moreover it seems like a good reason for gaining independence.
The sacks city of Rome 410 455. The first one it only lasted three days was more of a symbolic shock and it was not as at least to the record that we have one 455 was incredibly violent and also went to the looting of the city. One thing that is often not really considered is that the capital had already moved to Ravenna and Constantinople. That is to say respectively the western and the eastern Roman Empire but the thing is turned into a trolling suburban wasn’t able to defend much of the city in the first 410 the city was Not a permanent somebody open the doors to the walls of the season 455 was a siege that they broke through the walls. It’s not entirely clear to me as to why they have other than that resources stretched in Iberia and another provinces of the forces attack when they were not defended. But I don’t think you can describe one specific reason other than that immediate cause of the force is not being present to assist in defense.
Alaric is hard not to respect specially, considering that his honor had been merged after the battle of Adrianople, by the Roman forces Gibbons says the armies were overstretched. They had just come out of a Civil War and they were packed having a spot in the east so the army in the east basically was unable to prevent him from sacking Athens, and then the armies in the west were in the Iberian Peninsula dealing with 30,000 troops that had crossed the Rhine river. So basically, there were no defenses for the city of Rome, and more over the city of Rome had become a sprawling metropolis with like 1 million people. So it wasn’t even more difficult City to defend but granted the reason it fell is because someone ultimately betrayed the Romans and just opened the gate so it’s potentially possible that they are really in walls may have actually ended up protecting Rome in the long run.
I started reading Edward Gibbons the decline and followed the Roman empire because I’m just curious if we can draw parallels to the decline of the United States. This wasn’t the only emotes for starting to read it. It’s because I was in a Shakespeare club and we were reading the Roman trilogy of Shakespeare plays and we just wrapped up Julius Caesar and I had read a couple other books on Roman but I wanted to hold holistic history of Roman history and besides, it was something that had been on my list for a long time and it’s nice that it’s sort of a easy breezy read and it’s not in translation. I would consider it or compare it similar to tool stories more in peace because it’s long but it’s also pretty readable so I’m enjoying it quite a bit I think that the tipping factor was that I was reading a summary of the books that the German philosopher Rego read and evidently this was one of the books that he had access to and that makes sense because they were published pretty close to his time, and I think it might have informed or at least it’s reasonable to infer that it would’ve informed his conception of the philosophy of history quite a bit.
Returning to the parallels of whether it’s helpful to interpret Rome in life of the United States, or of the British empire or even of the historic German empire or other imperial projects it’s nonetheless of fascinating read very well written, and frankly quite a bit of fun. I would say a lot of the fun is that I know a lot of these bits and pieces, but I haven’t put the pieces together Yet in my life, but of course I know individuals such as Alaric and different emperors.
I honestly think it’s a pretty accurate description. All things considered. I know some of the numbers are a little bit off here and there, but it’s because those are ancient sources that he’s basically relying on. For example, in the first volume, he mentions in a footnote that 1.7 million. People crossed the Hellespont during the Persian invasion of Greece, but that doesn’t seem to be right, and I think he even mentioned it somewhat in a skeptical tone, but it’s still nonetheless is maybe an example of there’s just no other resources that we could potentially have and it’s hard to come up with a firm line and things of that nature so I think that’s where a large amount of criticism comes, but I think from the overall narrative who is emperor the timeline I think of that nature even archaeological evidence has it to my knowledge substantially changed things too much.
regarding the overall picture he did not change history quite substantially in the sensitive used to put notes and cited all sources and I know he has a personal player and I mean that’s fine. I mean, I think we can identify what the Personal player is and I totally get that but even modern Roman history books have a personal player and they admitted readily like I read this book by Mary Beard and she says that she admits that she focuses on the history of women in Rome because the societal interests of our time have changed quite a bitso I think it makes sense that people will say that Gibbons has a Personal flair but so do people of our own era and I think that’s just reflective of the time that we live in.
I mean, I would say any historian even once were attempting to be honest I do have some sort of spin I mean, it’s just who we are and what the world we live in is. We have different morals and different ways of interpreting things so even someone who attempts to be very Non-biased ultimately will be biased in my opinion. And indeed it’s probably better to have those opinions out in the open and I think modern historians like Mary Bear do that very well and so did Edward Gibbons you know exactly what his opinion is on Christianity and he’s not a fan of Christianity and you know his opinions on various emperors. For example, he loves Julianthe apostate and thinks he shouldn’t be called Julian the apostate and he wasn’t that big a fan of Constantine and has a lot of things to say about all the crimes that Constantine conducted.
The debates among Christian denominations is fascinating as well.
What are the mysterious events that led to the independence of Britain? Is there any truth to Arthurian legends? He briefly mentions a British having a Pendragon leading them.
It’s interesting reading about the dichotomy so Christian and their debates are this history in the Roman empire because sort of suggest that they are really just not that important for the base but they are ways that people can hide political action within faction of religion. Such perspectives seem fairly modern. But it makes sense of these opinions came from the enlightenment.
In that same vein I enjoy historical figures such as John Chyrsotom who Gibbons writes highly of. Likewise, in the same perspective it makes sense with the history of the Roman empire around this time period is effectively the history of Christianity as well.
Could anything have stopped Alaric and Atilla?
One thing that’s curious all throughout is Gibbon‘s reference to events, for example in volume one he mentions Peru and earlier in this volume, he mentioned the Spanish and Charles the fifth of the holy Roman empire, and when he’s talking about Attila, the Hun, he mentions Tamberlane as well, so it’s sort of not exactly chronologically on par or at the same time with The events of the Roman Empire that he is discussing, but it makes sense for an enlightenment audience reading this text to have references to those events or one could assume that such an audience would have knowledge of those events. I think it peppers Gibbons is writing a bit and makes it more fun and exciting because if you don’t know who some of these individuals are or if you’re just curious in general, it encourages one to go to an encyclopedia and look things up such as I have done frequently and not just for Those types of individuals but just getting a map of the schematics of a specific battle or looking at the different types of invasions that might’ve occurred or looking at the different battles that until the Hunt might’ve engaged in. I suppose you could say that about any book that makes references outside of itself but I enjoy Gibbbons a bit for this reason in that he encourages the reader to at least take delight in references that the reader may know or if the reader doesn’t know to go look things up until further detail.
One thing that makes a reader sad even in the enlightenment error I can imagine her nowadays is that there’s such a lack of evidence from the perspective outside of Rome such as at the hunt. Frankly, all the sources we have unless it’s archaeological resources or at least a majority the large majority of these resources come from Roman perspectives which is fine and interesting. It’s it’s fascinating to study of the Roman perspective, but it would be interesting as well to have seen a large massive historical documents that came from Attila of the Hunt Court and it doesn’t seem like we simply have that. And certainly it would be interesting to see what Attila the hon himself might’ve thought about himself not that we necessarily have that about a lot of the Roman emperors. Certainly, Trajan had a lot of letters that went back-and-forth with Pliny.
Gibbons seems to suggest that Atilla’s invasion allowed the Merovingian dynasty starting with Clovis to first rise to power in this volume. I suppose that makes sense the Merovingians would have time to organize themselves against invasions when the Roman armies could not. Moreover it seems like a good reason for gaining independence.
The sacks city of Rome 410 455. The first one it only lasted three days was more of a symbolic shock and it was not as at least to the record that we have one 455 was incredibly violent and also went to the looting of the city. One thing that is often not really considered is that the capital had already moved to Ravenna and Constantinople. That is to say respectively the western and the eastern Roman Empire but the thing is turned into a trolling suburban wasn’t able to defend much of the city in the first 410 the city was Not a permanent somebody open the doors to the walls of the season 455 was a siege that they broke through the walls. It’s not entirely clear to me as to why they have other than that resources stretched in Iberia and another provinces of the forces attack when they were not defended. But I don’t think you can describe one specific reason other than that immediate cause of the force is not being present to assist in defense.
April 6, 2023
At the end of the third volume, we stand at the desolate pavements of Rome whose claims and privileges as the capital of the Western empire were cruelly ripped off by the terrible arms of the barbarians. This volume includes chapters 26 to 36, which begins narration with the ascent of Gratian, successor of Valentinian I, in 367 CE and ends with the deposing of Romulus in 476 CE in which year the Germanic prince Odoacer ends the royal line and starts ruling in his own name. This century saw not merely the eclipse of the western half, but the growth of barbarians first as servants, then allies and finally masters of the empire. At the height of the empire’s growth, a vast multitude of people with all possible variations of culture came under its ambit. The citizens and officials of the metropolitan state then indulged in luxury and leisure, leaving the hard areas of governance, including waging wars against neighbours, to trusted servants who happen to be those very same barbarians who had been defeated and tamed only a few decades back. Over time, the barbarians learn the skills of their masters and excel on the military front. The empire is then never safe from the neighbours or their mercenaries in the empire’s own legions who are ironically tasked with the duty to protect its borders. We read about Rome being sacked many times in this period, beginning with Alaric in 410 CE. We also see in the successful spread of the barbarians the germination of the future nations of Europe. At the end of this volume, the Western Empire is extinguished for all practical purposes and the Eastern half begins its precarious existence till 1453 CE.
Since Rome’s eclipse took place at the behest of the barbarians, Gibbon starts the volume with a survey of the nomadic way of life. Scythians and Tartars are taken as the examples to identify a common framework on which the society is organized. The camp, and not the soil, is the native country of the genuine Tartar. Within the precincts of the camp, his family, companions and property were always included. This helps the nomad to surround himself with the objects which are dear and valuable to him even in the most distant marches. Their migrations were in search of a more plentiful subsistence or a less formidable enemy. Agriculture was not widely practiced by the nomads, making pastoral life the preferred career that was undoubtedly ideal as compared to farming or manufactures. The Tartars assigned their captives to servile and assiduous duties. The shepherd’s leisure was devoted to hunting either for killing or to tame and train the strong and serviceable breed of horses.
The author is usually harsh on religious practices and worship which do not benefit the society. By the time Volume 3 starts, Christianity had become the religion of the emperor and most of the aristocracy.After paganism was subdued, fanatics among the Christian clergy targeted heretical sects among their own co-religionists. For the next century we see persecution and counter persecutions by the Arians and Orthodox/Catholic Christianity. The major schism of the Christian faith which we observe today had not come into being. Emperor Theodosius inaugurated the era of persecution of heretic Christian sects by the state with the declared aim to root out Arian heresy. The heretical teachers were excluded from the privileges and emoluments so liberally granted to Orthodox clergy. Prohibition of building places of worship was also in place. On the practice of religion involving mysteries and miracles, the old customs took on a new form. The progress of Christianity had silenced the oracles of Delphi and Dodona. In their stead, Christian monks turned to prophesy. John of Lycopolis in Egypt dwelt for fifty years on the summit of a lofty mountain in a crude cell. He never opened the door and lived without seeing the face of a woman and without tasting any food that was prepared by fire or any human art. Five days of the week he spent on prayer and on Saturdays and Sundays he opened a small window and gave audience to the crowd of supplicants. Paganism’s downfall is linked to the lack of organisation and concerted action. The obstinate zeal to stand by their gods was not congenial to the loose and careless temper of polytheism. The violent and repeated strokes of the Orthodox princes were broken only by the soft and yielding substance and ready obedience of paganism. Instead of asserting or maintaining the superiority of their gods, they desisted with a ‘plaintive murmur’ from the use of those sacred rites which their sovereign had condemned. Chapter 28 is an enlightening piece on how Christianity overwhelmed the traditional religion which provides some illuminating lessons on what happened in some parts of India from the modern representatives of the same religion. So rapid was the fall of paganism that only 28 years after the death of Theodosius, its minutest vestiges were no longer visible.
We have seen fortune’s wheel turn to transform Christianity from the role of the persecuted to that of the religion of the emperor. With this advent of spiritual power, clergy began to intervene in civil affairs of the state over which they had no moral or sacerdotal duty or obligation. Ambrose was the archbishop of Milan who was greatly revered by the flock as well as Emperor Theodosius who afforded every civil measure of the government to exalt the position of the bishop. But Ambrose was a fanatic too who claimed that the toleration accorded to the Jewish community in itself was a persecution of the Christian religion. The birth of anti-Semitism thus occurred in the Roman empire. Ambrose boldly intervened in political disputes and succession struggles also. When Eugenius usurped the Western throne by killing young Valentinian, Ambrose stoutly denied him the glories of sovereignty. He rejected the gifts of Eugenius, declined his correspondence and withdrew from Milan till the usurper was killed by Theodosius in battle.
So, what caused the downfall of Rome and the victory of their barbarian neighbours? Gibbon does not disclose the answer in a simple sentence or paragraph or even a chapter, but his idea permeates the book which become legible once the reader applies his mind to look at the direction various hints are pointing to. The loss of martial spirit was the single reason caused by enervation that set in following a life of luxury and well-regulated freedom. The more secure and established the rule of law, the less likely that the citizens care to take up arms, be it for the empire or for their own safety. The barbarians too readily succumbed to the mentally corrosive indulgence of civilization over time. But the empire slowly lost its power to diffuse its culture and enroll more of them as citizens before they came in hordes to overwhelm the metropolis. Pusillanimous indolence and relaxation of discipline accelerated the downfall. The citizen soldiers complained about the weight of armour and obtained permission for laying aside their cuirasses and helmets. This made them very vulnerable to archers in battle which was the specialty of barbarians such as the Goths, Huns and Alani. The emperors could not even enforce discipline and punishment over those barbarians recruited for imperial service. Alaric the Goth invaded the province of Greece and robbed the citizens of their riches, but he was quickly forgiven with impunity and was made the master-general of Illyricum and king of the Visigoths by the Emperor of the East.
The sack of Rome in 410 CE by Alaric is graphically described. Even though Rome was not the centre of the Sovereign’s residence, it still commanded great respect in the whole of the empire. The life inside the city on the face of the long siege prior to its capture is given special attention. The description of the enormous wealth accumulated in the city over the ages deeply impresses the readers of the high level of trade and commerce. The nominal emperor watched the proceedings from Ravenna, situated on the other side of Italy’s long coast. However, the Goths of Alaric were intent only to negotiate a treaty with the emperor rather than usurping him. Once this was achieved, they cheerfully vacated Rome with their captured treasures and entered into imperial service. In fact, the barbarians were in de facto total control of Italy and the provinces when the Western empire was finally extinguished.
We read about the great pioneers of Christian spirituality in this volume with the likes of Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours, John Chrysostom of Antioch, Leo of Rome and several others. All of them came into contact with the empire and either got persecuted or was offered the most reverent submission of the ruler. The Arian sect still exerted its defiant influence, often at the irritation of the Orthodox/Catholic faith. Gibbon’s treatment of the Mongols presents an amusing fact to Indian readers. While narrating the upheaval and influx of barbarian hordes, the Mongols play a prominent role, but Gibbon calls them Moguls which in the strictest sense must be addressed to the Muslim dynasty that ruled India for two centuries and claimed their descent from the Mongols. In the eighteenth century when this book was first published, both these terms must have seemed ambiguous to scholars.
The book is highly recommended.
Since Rome’s eclipse took place at the behest of the barbarians, Gibbon starts the volume with a survey of the nomadic way of life. Scythians and Tartars are taken as the examples to identify a common framework on which the society is organized. The camp, and not the soil, is the native country of the genuine Tartar. Within the precincts of the camp, his family, companions and property were always included. This helps the nomad to surround himself with the objects which are dear and valuable to him even in the most distant marches. Their migrations were in search of a more plentiful subsistence or a less formidable enemy. Agriculture was not widely practiced by the nomads, making pastoral life the preferred career that was undoubtedly ideal as compared to farming or manufactures. The Tartars assigned their captives to servile and assiduous duties. The shepherd’s leisure was devoted to hunting either for killing or to tame and train the strong and serviceable breed of horses.
The author is usually harsh on religious practices and worship which do not benefit the society. By the time Volume 3 starts, Christianity had become the religion of the emperor and most of the aristocracy.After paganism was subdued, fanatics among the Christian clergy targeted heretical sects among their own co-religionists. For the next century we see persecution and counter persecutions by the Arians and Orthodox/Catholic Christianity. The major schism of the Christian faith which we observe today had not come into being. Emperor Theodosius inaugurated the era of persecution of heretic Christian sects by the state with the declared aim to root out Arian heresy. The heretical teachers were excluded from the privileges and emoluments so liberally granted to Orthodox clergy. Prohibition of building places of worship was also in place. On the practice of religion involving mysteries and miracles, the old customs took on a new form. The progress of Christianity had silenced the oracles of Delphi and Dodona. In their stead, Christian monks turned to prophesy. John of Lycopolis in Egypt dwelt for fifty years on the summit of a lofty mountain in a crude cell. He never opened the door and lived without seeing the face of a woman and without tasting any food that was prepared by fire or any human art. Five days of the week he spent on prayer and on Saturdays and Sundays he opened a small window and gave audience to the crowd of supplicants. Paganism’s downfall is linked to the lack of organisation and concerted action. The obstinate zeal to stand by their gods was not congenial to the loose and careless temper of polytheism. The violent and repeated strokes of the Orthodox princes were broken only by the soft and yielding substance and ready obedience of paganism. Instead of asserting or maintaining the superiority of their gods, they desisted with a ‘plaintive murmur’ from the use of those sacred rites which their sovereign had condemned. Chapter 28 is an enlightening piece on how Christianity overwhelmed the traditional religion which provides some illuminating lessons on what happened in some parts of India from the modern representatives of the same religion. So rapid was the fall of paganism that only 28 years after the death of Theodosius, its minutest vestiges were no longer visible.
We have seen fortune’s wheel turn to transform Christianity from the role of the persecuted to that of the religion of the emperor. With this advent of spiritual power, clergy began to intervene in civil affairs of the state over which they had no moral or sacerdotal duty or obligation. Ambrose was the archbishop of Milan who was greatly revered by the flock as well as Emperor Theodosius who afforded every civil measure of the government to exalt the position of the bishop. But Ambrose was a fanatic too who claimed that the toleration accorded to the Jewish community in itself was a persecution of the Christian religion. The birth of anti-Semitism thus occurred in the Roman empire. Ambrose boldly intervened in political disputes and succession struggles also. When Eugenius usurped the Western throne by killing young Valentinian, Ambrose stoutly denied him the glories of sovereignty. He rejected the gifts of Eugenius, declined his correspondence and withdrew from Milan till the usurper was killed by Theodosius in battle.
So, what caused the downfall of Rome and the victory of their barbarian neighbours? Gibbon does not disclose the answer in a simple sentence or paragraph or even a chapter, but his idea permeates the book which become legible once the reader applies his mind to look at the direction various hints are pointing to. The loss of martial spirit was the single reason caused by enervation that set in following a life of luxury and well-regulated freedom. The more secure and established the rule of law, the less likely that the citizens care to take up arms, be it for the empire or for their own safety. The barbarians too readily succumbed to the mentally corrosive indulgence of civilization over time. But the empire slowly lost its power to diffuse its culture and enroll more of them as citizens before they came in hordes to overwhelm the metropolis. Pusillanimous indolence and relaxation of discipline accelerated the downfall. The citizen soldiers complained about the weight of armour and obtained permission for laying aside their cuirasses and helmets. This made them very vulnerable to archers in battle which was the specialty of barbarians such as the Goths, Huns and Alani. The emperors could not even enforce discipline and punishment over those barbarians recruited for imperial service. Alaric the Goth invaded the province of Greece and robbed the citizens of their riches, but he was quickly forgiven with impunity and was made the master-general of Illyricum and king of the Visigoths by the Emperor of the East.
The sack of Rome in 410 CE by Alaric is graphically described. Even though Rome was not the centre of the Sovereign’s residence, it still commanded great respect in the whole of the empire. The life inside the city on the face of the long siege prior to its capture is given special attention. The description of the enormous wealth accumulated in the city over the ages deeply impresses the readers of the high level of trade and commerce. The nominal emperor watched the proceedings from Ravenna, situated on the other side of Italy’s long coast. However, the Goths of Alaric were intent only to negotiate a treaty with the emperor rather than usurping him. Once this was achieved, they cheerfully vacated Rome with their captured treasures and entered into imperial service. In fact, the barbarians were in de facto total control of Italy and the provinces when the Western empire was finally extinguished.
We read about the great pioneers of Christian spirituality in this volume with the likes of Ambrose of Milan, Martin of Tours, John Chrysostom of Antioch, Leo of Rome and several others. All of them came into contact with the empire and either got persecuted or was offered the most reverent submission of the ruler. The Arian sect still exerted its defiant influence, often at the irritation of the Orthodox/Catholic faith. Gibbon’s treatment of the Mongols presents an amusing fact to Indian readers. While narrating the upheaval and influx of barbarian hordes, the Mongols play a prominent role, but Gibbon calls them Moguls which in the strictest sense must be addressed to the Muslim dynasty that ruled India for two centuries and claimed their descent from the Mongols. In the eighteenth century when this book was first published, both these terms must have seemed ambiguous to scholars.
The book is highly recommended.
September 2, 2024
I did it!!!!!!!!!! There were parts that were 100% captivating and other parts that were quite boring. Obsessed with Gibbon’s high falutin prose. I also learned that if you want to bond with old men at a wedding rehearsal, this is a good book to be seen reading.
March 22, 2021
On the Ides of March, 2021, I closed this book having read the last words of the last volume. It is one of those works that genuinely merits the term ‘monumental’. I had begun reading Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on a trip to Ravello, near one of the houses of one of my favourite writers of my lifetime, Gore Vidal. He had played a key part in stimulating my desire to read this work. In his novel Burr, he says to a character that he must read Gibbon ‘to become civilised’. A couple of years earlier, at Dillon’s bookshop across the street from the University of London’s Student Union, I had come across a three-volume Modern Library edition. At the time I was strapped for cash, and it was cheaper than buying the six-volume Everyman edition, which faithfully reproduced the breakdown of the original six-volume publication. This was a serious blunder because the three volumes are unwieldy in a way the six volumes would not have been. This certainly contributed to the slow progress I made through Gibbon. Because -- and be prepared for your eyes to goggle -- that holiday in Ravello was taken in May 1986.
Yes, I have taken thirty-five years to read through Gibbon. It became a life’s ambition, and in the nature of those marked by the occasional lengthy hiatus. It is not the fault of Gibbon’s prose. His vocabulary is closer to a modern one than Shakespeare’s, so the problem isn’t one of meanings. However, it takes a little bit of effort to read one’s way into his cadence at the start, but it is quickly picked up and its rhythms are infectious. Vidal was quite right. To become civilised, one must read Gibbon simply in order to encounter his lovely turns of phrase.
That first sentence belongs with ‘Call me Ishmael’ as among those that should be memorable to secondary schoolers throughout the Anglosphere. ‘In the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind.’ Every assumption made in it is challengeable, but it expresses the confidence of Gibbon’s own age, when Europe had begun to perceive itself not only as the most advanced portion of humanity -- because of the Christian revelation and the way the Industrial Revolution was concentrating widespread wealth there -- but also had seen enough of the rest of the world to decide that the temperate weather of Western Europe and the Mediterranean were the most comfortable places to live. Its use is as a teaching moment -- all historians start from assumptions that the reader must question.
Gibbon’s great value to readers of all ages is his understanding of human nature. Just raiding the Goodreads’ compilation of quotes we find quite a few classics --
‘War, in its fairest form, implies a perpetual violation of humanity and justice.
‘During many ages, the prediction, as it is usual, contributed to its own accomplishment.
‘There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify the evils, of the present times.’
The last is one of my special favourites, even in this time of climate crisis. However, this next quote seems particularly apposite in the years we are moving through now, whatever country one makes one’s residence:
‘Stripped of the diadem and purple, clothed in a vile habit, and loaded with chains, he was transported in a small boat to the Imperial galley of Heraclius, who reproached him with the crimes of his abominable reign. "Wilt thou govern better?" were the last words of the despair of Phocas.’
Gibbon thought that second century of the Christian era to be the happiest of times. As the empire was built on the backs of millions of slaves, we can only assume Gibbon had some special knowledge that theirs was the happiest of slaveries. Be that as it may, he does in a rather scattered way, produce an explanation for the decline. He blames immigration, but only in the sense that the immigrants were not integrated into the society as peaceable settlers, but rather were incorporated into the armed service, treated quite meanly by local authorities and as a result preferred to reign in the locality rather than serve in the totality. In this he doesn’t attack the immigrants as alien, but as simply possessed of that same greed and avarice for more than the necessaries of life that infected the Romans. Greed is not good, to that eighteenth-century Englishman; it undermines institutions that are intended to serve the public interest, however narrowly that public is defined.
Gibbon also identifies a structural problem with the governance of the Roman Empire, as founded by Casear Augustus. Where Augustus pretended that he was simply a servant of the Senate and People of Rome, soon after the outset there were successors who sought to make the empire more like a monarchy and less like a republic. The hereditary principle was applied unevenly over the first two centuries of the empire, and even afterwards, and for Gibbon it was at moments of institutional instability that the people running things make blunders and compromises that irrevocably set a new course that leads to The Fall. Gibbon’s apparent lesson in this regard is that at certain moments we have to avoid expediency, and strive for objectivity in analysis and decision-making. Augustus appears to have intended that each emperor should negotiate with the Senate to nominate a mature successor -- the closest modern equivalent would be papal elections, perhaps. Problems for the empire arose at moments when this was ignored, as when Marcus Aurelius -- of all people! -- secured the succession for Commodus, thus precipitating the trajectory that launched the empire on the path of decline.
Without doubt, Gibbon assigns the most blame for the Fall of the Empire to Christianity, and its Roman/Orthodox versions in particular. On the face of it, this might seem odd. It is a religion of considerable structural strength for a ruling class insofar as it is accessible to all with little investment beyond time and alms, and promises that meekness on the Earth will lead to a great reward in Heaven. Gibbon’s target is not so much religious faith as priests and monks, especially the latter. The Church in the shape of its clergy is perceived as a parasite, draining wealth and energy from the already troubled institutional structure of the empire. By the time the Roman empire makes Christianity its official faith, the empire itself has, as a consequence of the ‘third century crisis’, been reconfigured into something very different from the regime of Augustus. For Gibbon, the Christians mimic this militarised structure but, instead of performing the useful service of the military in protecting the borders and engaging foreign enemies, they instead become an ‘enemy within’, allowing doctrinal disputes to poison the social fabric of empire even as it faces crises from without. (In contrast, Gibbon finds Islam more congenial, although he might look at modern Iran and Saudi Arabia somewhat askance.)
What is odd about Gibbon is that as the story progresses, the canvas on which he paints becomes larger and larger. The early chapters are focused on the emperors themselves and their empire’s near neighbours. By the time we get to the final chapters, Gibbon has taken us through the rise and conquests of Islam including Central Asia, the empires of Genghis Khan and Tamurlame and the rise of the Turkish empire. The justification for this is the fact that the lineal claim on the Roman empire only really ends with the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. This diffusion, while a blessing to those of us who enjoy his prose, means a sad loss of narrative focus. Gibbon thereby defines the empire along the lines of a dynastic state. The empire ends when there is a ruler who can no longer represent the civil and religious traditions that characterised the empire. Roman polytheism yielded to Christianity, but the Turkish Sultans displaced that from the official religion of the state. Thus, the Christianity Gibbon dislikes becomes a vital marker for identifying the end of the empire, and paradoxically religion becomes more important than geography. Conceptually, I find a lot of questions going begging here.
In terms of the study of history, the best part about Gibbon is in giving the lie to the idea that good history has to be objective. Quite to the contrary, Gibbon proves that good history is achieved by being honest about one’s prejudices. All my favourite history books are written by those who announce their standpoint clearly, which allow the reader to consider the evidence or argument in the light of that. As far as I am concerned, reading any or all of Gibbon would be well worth anyone’s time, even in little chunks over three decades.
Yes, I have taken thirty-five years to read through Gibbon. It became a life’s ambition, and in the nature of those marked by the occasional lengthy hiatus. It is not the fault of Gibbon’s prose. His vocabulary is closer to a modern one than Shakespeare’s, so the problem isn’t one of meanings. However, it takes a little bit of effort to read one’s way into his cadence at the start, but it is quickly picked up and its rhythms are infectious. Vidal was quite right. To become civilised, one must read Gibbon simply in order to encounter his lovely turns of phrase.
That first sentence belongs with ‘Call me Ishmael’ as among those that should be memorable to secondary schoolers throughout the Anglosphere. ‘In the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind.’ Every assumption made in it is challengeable, but it expresses the confidence of Gibbon’s own age, when Europe had begun to perceive itself not only as the most advanced portion of humanity -- because of the Christian revelation and the way the Industrial Revolution was concentrating widespread wealth there -- but also had seen enough of the rest of the world to decide that the temperate weather of Western Europe and the Mediterranean were the most comfortable places to live. Its use is as a teaching moment -- all historians start from assumptions that the reader must question.
Gibbon’s great value to readers of all ages is his understanding of human nature. Just raiding the Goodreads’ compilation of quotes we find quite a few classics --
‘War, in its fairest form, implies a perpetual violation of humanity and justice.
‘During many ages, the prediction, as it is usual, contributed to its own accomplishment.
‘There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify the evils, of the present times.’
The last is one of my special favourites, even in this time of climate crisis. However, this next quote seems particularly apposite in the years we are moving through now, whatever country one makes one’s residence:
‘Stripped of the diadem and purple, clothed in a vile habit, and loaded with chains, he was transported in a small boat to the Imperial galley of Heraclius, who reproached him with the crimes of his abominable reign. "Wilt thou govern better?" were the last words of the despair of Phocas.’
Gibbon thought that second century of the Christian era to be the happiest of times. As the empire was built on the backs of millions of slaves, we can only assume Gibbon had some special knowledge that theirs was the happiest of slaveries. Be that as it may, he does in a rather scattered way, produce an explanation for the decline. He blames immigration, but only in the sense that the immigrants were not integrated into the society as peaceable settlers, but rather were incorporated into the armed service, treated quite meanly by local authorities and as a result preferred to reign in the locality rather than serve in the totality. In this he doesn’t attack the immigrants as alien, but as simply possessed of that same greed and avarice for more than the necessaries of life that infected the Romans. Greed is not good, to that eighteenth-century Englishman; it undermines institutions that are intended to serve the public interest, however narrowly that public is defined.
Gibbon also identifies a structural problem with the governance of the Roman Empire, as founded by Casear Augustus. Where Augustus pretended that he was simply a servant of the Senate and People of Rome, soon after the outset there were successors who sought to make the empire more like a monarchy and less like a republic. The hereditary principle was applied unevenly over the first two centuries of the empire, and even afterwards, and for Gibbon it was at moments of institutional instability that the people running things make blunders and compromises that irrevocably set a new course that leads to The Fall. Gibbon’s apparent lesson in this regard is that at certain moments we have to avoid expediency, and strive for objectivity in analysis and decision-making. Augustus appears to have intended that each emperor should negotiate with the Senate to nominate a mature successor -- the closest modern equivalent would be papal elections, perhaps. Problems for the empire arose at moments when this was ignored, as when Marcus Aurelius -- of all people! -- secured the succession for Commodus, thus precipitating the trajectory that launched the empire on the path of decline.
Without doubt, Gibbon assigns the most blame for the Fall of the Empire to Christianity, and its Roman/Orthodox versions in particular. On the face of it, this might seem odd. It is a religion of considerable structural strength for a ruling class insofar as it is accessible to all with little investment beyond time and alms, and promises that meekness on the Earth will lead to a great reward in Heaven. Gibbon’s target is not so much religious faith as priests and monks, especially the latter. The Church in the shape of its clergy is perceived as a parasite, draining wealth and energy from the already troubled institutional structure of the empire. By the time the Roman empire makes Christianity its official faith, the empire itself has, as a consequence of the ‘third century crisis’, been reconfigured into something very different from the regime of Augustus. For Gibbon, the Christians mimic this militarised structure but, instead of performing the useful service of the military in protecting the borders and engaging foreign enemies, they instead become an ‘enemy within’, allowing doctrinal disputes to poison the social fabric of empire even as it faces crises from without. (In contrast, Gibbon finds Islam more congenial, although he might look at modern Iran and Saudi Arabia somewhat askance.)
What is odd about Gibbon is that as the story progresses, the canvas on which he paints becomes larger and larger. The early chapters are focused on the emperors themselves and their empire’s near neighbours. By the time we get to the final chapters, Gibbon has taken us through the rise and conquests of Islam including Central Asia, the empires of Genghis Khan and Tamurlame and the rise of the Turkish empire. The justification for this is the fact that the lineal claim on the Roman empire only really ends with the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453. This diffusion, while a blessing to those of us who enjoy his prose, means a sad loss of narrative focus. Gibbon thereby defines the empire along the lines of a dynastic state. The empire ends when there is a ruler who can no longer represent the civil and religious traditions that characterised the empire. Roman polytheism yielded to Christianity, but the Turkish Sultans displaced that from the official religion of the state. Thus, the Christianity Gibbon dislikes becomes a vital marker for identifying the end of the empire, and paradoxically religion becomes more important than geography. Conceptually, I find a lot of questions going begging here.
In terms of the study of history, the best part about Gibbon is in giving the lie to the idea that good history has to be objective. Quite to the contrary, Gibbon proves that good history is achieved by being honest about one’s prejudices. All my favourite history books are written by those who announce their standpoint clearly, which allow the reader to consider the evidence or argument in the light of that. As far as I am concerned, reading any or all of Gibbon would be well worth anyone’s time, even in little chunks over three decades.
June 16, 2012
Chapter XLVIII: Plan of last two volumes, and later Byzantine emperors
Chapter XLIX: Iconoclasm, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire
Chapter L: Mahomet
Chapter LI: the successors of Mahomet
Chapter LII: The limits of the early caliphate
Chapter LIII: The Byzantine Empire in the Tenth Century
Chapter LIV: The Paulicians and the Reformation
Chapter LV: The Bulgarians, the Hungarians and the Russians
Chapter LVI: Italy and the Normans
Chapter LVII: The Turks
Chapter LVIII: The First Crusade
Chapter LIX: The Later Crusades
Chapter LX: The Fourth Crusade
Chapter LXI: The Latin Empire, the Crusades and the Courtenays
Chapter LXII: the East in the later thirteenth century
Chapter LXIII: The East in the early 14th century
Chapter LXIV: Genghis Khan, and the return of the Turks
Chapter LXV: Tamerlane / Timour, and the Turks again
Chapter LXVI: The Eastern Empire and the Popes
Chapter LXVII: The Beginning of the End
Chapter LXVIII: The Fall of Constantinople
Chapter LXIX: Rome, 1100-1300
Chapter LXX: Rome, 1300-1590
Chapter LXXI: The End
Vindication
Chapter XLIX: Iconoclasm, Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire
Chapter L: Mahomet
Chapter LI: the successors of Mahomet
Chapter LII: The limits of the early caliphate
Chapter LIII: The Byzantine Empire in the Tenth Century
Chapter LIV: The Paulicians and the Reformation
Chapter LV: The Bulgarians, the Hungarians and the Russians
Chapter LVI: Italy and the Normans
Chapter LVII: The Turks
Chapter LVIII: The First Crusade
Chapter LIX: The Later Crusades
Chapter LX: The Fourth Crusade
Chapter LXI: The Latin Empire, the Crusades and the Courtenays
Chapter LXII: the East in the later thirteenth century
Chapter LXIII: The East in the early 14th century
Chapter LXIV: Genghis Khan, and the return of the Turks
Chapter LXV: Tamerlane / Timour, and the Turks again
Chapter LXVI: The Eastern Empire and the Popes
Chapter LXVII: The Beginning of the End
Chapter LXVIII: The Fall of Constantinople
Chapter LXIX: Rome, 1100-1300
Chapter LXX: Rome, 1300-1590
Chapter LXXI: The End
Vindication
May 11, 2017
Magnificent, majestic, and monumental. I’m actually pretty sad that I’m now done with the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire because I’m certain that few books will remotely compare. Seriously, don’t go through life without reading these books, there’s so many salient lessons to be learned and applied to our day and age. I think my favorite parts in Volumes Five and Six were the sections covering Genghis Khan; the Golden Horde; the Muslim conquests of North Africa and Western Asia and the resulting Crusades by the Latin kingdoms; the two sieges of Constantinople (first by the Crusaders from the Fourth Crusade in 1204 A.D. and later by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 A.D.); the breakup of the Byzantine Empire into the Empire of Trebizond, the Empire of Nicaea, and the Despotate of Epirus; the effect of gunpowder; and the analyses of the popes ruling both religious and civil life. I do wish that he spent more time on the Crusades, but I understand that at that point Gibbon believes the Western Empire is simply fragmented kingdoms that are in no way “Roman” anymore (which is why his focus remains on the Eastern Empire under the Byzantine Empire). I find it interesting, that to Gibbon at least, the very last remnant of the actual Roman Empire is really only the single city of Constantinople by 1453. I do think that there is a lot of attenuation at that point, even if the Byzantines referred to themselves as “Roman” and believed that they were still the “Roman Empire,” the culture, language, and anything else distinguishable about the Roman Empire was long extinct, but the history is enthralling nevertheless. One thing is certain: the Roman Empire left a deeper impression on Western (and arguable to some extent Eastern) Society than almost any other empire or society.
Gibbon summarizes the fall in its most basic terms with the following: “Of these pilgrims, and of every reader, the attention will be excited by an history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire; the greatest perhaps, and most awful scene in the history of mankind. The various causes and progressive effects are connected with many of the events most interesting in human annals: the artful policy of the Caesars, who long maintained the name and image of a free republic; the disorders of military despotism; the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity; the foundation of Constantinople; the division of the monarchy; the invasion and settlements of the Barbarians of Germany and Scythia; the institutions of the civil law; the character and religion of Mohammed; the temporal sovereignty of the popes; the restoration and decay of the Western empire of Charlemagne; the crusades of the Latins in the East; the conquests of the Saracens and Turks; the ruin of the Greek empire; the state and revolutions of Rome in the middle age.”
Gibbon summarizes the fall in its most basic terms with the following: “Of these pilgrims, and of every reader, the attention will be excited by an history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire; the greatest perhaps, and most awful scene in the history of mankind. The various causes and progressive effects are connected with many of the events most interesting in human annals: the artful policy of the Caesars, who long maintained the name and image of a free republic; the disorders of military despotism; the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity; the foundation of Constantinople; the division of the monarchy; the invasion and settlements of the Barbarians of Germany and Scythia; the institutions of the civil law; the character and religion of Mohammed; the temporal sovereignty of the popes; the restoration and decay of the Western empire of Charlemagne; the crusades of the Latins in the East; the conquests of the Saracens and Turks; the ruin of the Greek empire; the state and revolutions of Rome in the middle age.”
May 27, 2016
Still enjoying the prose and the odd relevance to current events. Gibbon is enlightened, even, and optimistic and it makes for wonderful narration.
“A long period of calamity or decay must have checked the industry, and diminished the wealth, of the people; and their profuse luxury must have been the result of that indolent despair, which enjoys the present hour, and declines the thoughts of futurity. The uncertain condition of their property discouraged the subjects of Theodosius from engaging in those useful and laborious undertakings which require an immediate expense, and promise a slow and distant advantage.”
“The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed; and near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator, whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice.”
“A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.”
“The ignorant vulgar, whose minds are still agitated by the blind hopes and terrors of superstition, will be soon persuaded by their superiors to direct their vows to the reigning deities of the age; and will insensibly imbibe an ardent zeal for the support and propagation of the new doctrine,”
“But we may surely be allowed to observe, that a miracle, in that age of superstition and credulity, lost its name and its merit, since it could scarcely be considered as a deviation from the ordinary and established laws of nature.”
“But the fair Honoria had no sooner attained the sixteenth year of her age, than she detested the importunate greatness which must forever exclude her from the comforts of honorable love; in the midst of vain and unsatisfactory pomp, Honoria sighed, yielded to the impulse of nature, and threw herself into the arms of her chamberlain Eugenius. Her guilt and shame (such is the absurd language of imperious man) were soon betrayed by the appearances of pregnancy”
“In every just government the same penalty is inflicted, or at least is imposed, for the murder of a peasant or a prince.”
“Since the first discovery of the arts, war, commerce, and religious zeal have diffused, among the savages of the Old and New World, these inestimable gifts: they have been successively propagated; they can never be lost. We may therefore acquiesce in the pleasing conclusion, that every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race.”
“A long period of calamity or decay must have checked the industry, and diminished the wealth, of the people; and their profuse luxury must have been the result of that indolent despair, which enjoys the present hour, and declines the thoughts of futurity. The uncertain condition of their property discouraged the subjects of Theodosius from engaging in those useful and laborious undertakings which require an immediate expense, and promise a slow and distant advantage.”
“The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed; and near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator, whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice.”
“A nation of slaves is always prepared to applaud the clemency of their master, who, in the abuse of absolute power, does not proceed to the last extremes of injustice and oppression.”
“The ignorant vulgar, whose minds are still agitated by the blind hopes and terrors of superstition, will be soon persuaded by their superiors to direct their vows to the reigning deities of the age; and will insensibly imbibe an ardent zeal for the support and propagation of the new doctrine,”
“But we may surely be allowed to observe, that a miracle, in that age of superstition and credulity, lost its name and its merit, since it could scarcely be considered as a deviation from the ordinary and established laws of nature.”
“But the fair Honoria had no sooner attained the sixteenth year of her age, than she detested the importunate greatness which must forever exclude her from the comforts of honorable love; in the midst of vain and unsatisfactory pomp, Honoria sighed, yielded to the impulse of nature, and threw herself into the arms of her chamberlain Eugenius. Her guilt and shame (such is the absurd language of imperious man) were soon betrayed by the appearances of pregnancy”
“In every just government the same penalty is inflicted, or at least is imposed, for the murder of a peasant or a prince.”
“Since the first discovery of the arts, war, commerce, and religious zeal have diffused, among the savages of the Old and New World, these inestimable gifts: they have been successively propagated; they can never be lost. We may therefore acquiesce in the pleasing conclusion, that every age of the world has increased, and still increases, the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue, of the human race.”
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews