decline and fall of the roman empire folio society

Its main thesis is ultimately about the pernicious effects of tyranny on men and states-a triumphal victory lap for the freedom and science of the 18th century, as well as an investigation into their origins. Gibbon and his work are products of the Enlightenment in every way: liberty and reason, optimism, the 'dark ages' and how they eventually set the stage for the modern world. In our age of specialization there is virtually nothing with the kind of scope and ambitious vision that are realized in the Decline and Fall. His sources are our sources, he always went for the primary ones, and in the broad strokes he made no serious errors.

And we have certainly gotten better at critically examining the sources: 1 when Gibbon talks about armies of 400,000 on each side it is probably safe to divide those numbers by 10. He was biased against Christianity and the Byzantines. Why read something old and outdated when you can read contemporary historians? Gibbon did not have access to archaeological discoveries, placing him at a severe disadvantage. Combining the features of the philosopher and the antiquarian, Gibbon can simultaneously present systematic theories of history, draw upon his vast knowledge to check them against the evidence, and impose order and coherence on an absurd amount of source material. It covers a singular subject, ranging over 14 centuries and half the globe, in a grand unified narrative centered around its main theme. Above all, the Decline and Fall is monumental-in size, scope, ambition, and style. Even after experiencing these improbable productions at first hand, one still questions whether they really exist. Like the Iliad, like the pyramids, the Decline and Fall has an air of unreality. In the conduct of those monarchs we may trace the utmost lines of vice and virtue the most exalted perfection and the meanest degeneracy of our own species.

Decline and fall of the roman empire folio society