Rating: 
Summary: Still relevant. The font of late Roman and medieval history
Review: Historians love revision. It's why so few histories of the 19th century endure; new evidence and interpretations render them useless. Even Carl Sandburg's superb biography of Abraham Lincoln sags under the weight of new research.Why, then, is The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire timeless? The author wasn't a post-modernist man trapped in an Enlightenment body; Gibbon had no conception of social history or archeology, his 18th century idea that climate affects morality is long out of date, and his analyses of the Middle East are hampered by his reliance on second-hand sources. But in 200 years no one has seriously challenged the framework Gibbon used to explain the fall of the empire. In fact, contemporary histories of Rome still owe a great deal to him. Why? One reason is his careful use of documents. Decline and Fall relies mostly on writers like Ammianus and Sidonius, who tried to be impartial. Another is Gibbon's almost superhuman objectivity; while individual characters are berated for this and that, the author is usually sympathetic to human foibles, and always tells his tales with as much complexity as the sources will allow. Which is one reason the work's alleged hostility to Christianity is overstated; Gibbon said the religion played a role (not "the" role) in the fall of Rome, and even praises the new faith for breaking "the violence of the fall, and mollify(ing) the ferocious temper of the conquerors." There's one stumble, and that's the section on the various heresies and religious controversies of the 300s. Duty required Gibbon to analyze the niggling and sometimes incomprehensible arguments over Christ's nature (and he confessed he didn't understand the passions behind them), but the historian gets bogged down in theological jargon and never makes it clear what role those heresies played in the fall until the end of Volume III. By then you've forgotten the details. That's a small scratch in the masterpiece. In two centuries no one has challenged his famous conclusion: "The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long." Today we have more details, but the trajectory Gibbon plotted has never been recalculated. Decline and Fall is also a great read, and one of the best narratives in the English language. War, idealism, corruption, droll asides and the clash of civilizations fly along a brisk stream of prose. If you've got the time, try the unabridged version -- it's 3,000 pages, but the work moves faster than books a tenth its size. The work reflects the best concertos of its time, where a supporting background built themes, and a soloist expanded those ideas in clear, simple notes. So it is with Decline and Fall; Gibbon weaved numerous histories into a harmonious whole, and his asides and analyses deepened our understanding of the whole epoch. Mozart would have applauded.
Rating:
Summary: Still relevant. The font of late Roman and medieval history
Review: Historians love revision. It's why so few histories of the 19th century endure; new evidence and interpretations render them useless. Even Carl Sandburg's superb biography of Abraham Lincoln sags under the weight of new research. Why, then, is The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire timeless? The author wasn't a post-modernist man trapped in an Enlightenment body; Gibbon had no conception of social history or archeology, his 18th century idea that climate affects morality is long out of date, and his analyses of the Middle East are hampered by his reliance on second-hand sources. But in 200 years no one has seriously challenged the framework Gibbon used to explain the fall of the empire. In fact, contemporary histories of Rome still owe a great deal to him. Why? One reason is his careful use of documents. Decline and Fall relies mostly on writers like Ammianus and Sidonius, who tried to be impartial. Another is Gibbon's almost superhuman objectivity; while individual characters are berated for this and that, the author is usually sympathetic to human foibles, and always tells his tales with as much complexity as the sources will allow. Which is one reason the work's alleged hostility to Christianity is overstated; Gibbon said the religion played a role (not "the" role) in the fall of Rome, and even praises the new faith for breaking "the violence of the fall, and mollify(ing) the ferocious temper of the conquerors." There's one stumble, and that's the section on the various heresies and religious controversies of the 300s. Duty required Gibbon to analyze the niggling and sometimes incomprehensible arguments over Christ's nature (and he confessed he didn't understand the passions behind them), but the historian gets bogged down in theological jargon and never makes it clear what role those heresies played in the fall until the end of Volume III. By then you've forgotten the details. That's a small scratch in the masterpiece. In two centuries no one has challenged his famous conclusion: "The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long." Today we have more details, but the trajectory Gibbon plotted has never been recalculated. Decline and Fall is also a great read, and one of the best narratives in the English language. War, idealism, corruption, droll asides and the clash of civilizations fly along a brisk stream of prose. If you've got the time, try the unabridged version -- it's 3,000 pages, but the work moves faster than books a tenth its size. The work reflects the best concertos of its time, where a supporting background built themes, and a soloist expanded those ideas in clear, simple notes. So it is with Decline and Fall; Gibbon weaved numerous histories into a harmonious whole, and his asides and analyses deepened our understanding of the whole epoch. Mozart would have applauded.
Rating: 
Summary: The Shakespeare of History
Review: How can you not love Edward Gibbon? Master of the one-liner, the backhanded compliment, the passing zinger, who else could have remarked famously of Gordian, a relatively obscure 3rd century emperor, that his enormous library and twenty-two acknowledged concubines were both "for use rather than ostentation." Gibbon is known to be no fan of Christianity's influence on Rome, nor is he a friend of Byzantium. Yet these prejudices are more than just pet hates: they reflect the fact that he, more than any other historian of the Englightenment, was prepared to cast aside the received wisdom of recent generations and delve back to the source to give an authentic view of history. Not only does he rank as a writer of Shakespearean proportions, he is one of historiography's most successful revisionists.
Rating: 
Summary: Overrated
Review: I enjoyed this book, but some of the praise for it ("the best history book ever written in the English language!!") is over the top. It is no coincidence that intellectuals have embraced this history of the Roman empire above all others - the author is openly skeptical of Christianity and sympathetic to barbarians. Gibbon's writing skills are also overrated in my opinion. Using 20 words to express a point that could be expressed in 10 words is, in my book, bad writing. For example, instead of writing "XYZ is true", Gibbon will write "It would not be incorrect for an observer to note that XYZ is true". This gets exhausting after a few hundred pages. He also overuses certain words, such as 'insensibly'.
Rating:
Summary: Is really the Fall of Rome?
Review: Read this book originally publish in 1776. Its the history of the United States before the United States had history
Rating:
Summary: Traditional Standby on Rome's Prehistory
Review: Remarkable how Gibbon's captures details that could with a
little imagination reflect governments of today. For tradition
resource on Roman Empire, this is a good pick. However, if you
want to take a sci-fi mind-ride, try Tempesta's "Damsel in the Rough" It's a time-travel fantasy with a modern female's
view of Ancient Rome and Greece.
Rating:
Summary: Astounding
Review: There are few other words which better describe Gibbon's sprawling masterpiece, starting in the Augustan Age of the Early Empire and Climaxing nearly 1400 years later with a vivid description of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, Gibbon's work will most likely never be eclipsed. Recent historians chide Gibbon for his poetic style and "non-objective" view point, but I rather say that those are the same reasons that make his definitive work stand above all others. Gibbon's provides not only a richly detailed history, full of intrigues and good story telling, by also relates the attitudes in the governing and the governed at each period of time, telling as much a tale of history as one of declining values and a slide from the pinnacle of rome power to a morass of decadence and selfishness that tears the empire apart in the years to come. Gibbon does not shy from calling wrong wrong and right right, much in the tradition of greek moralist historians that came before him, and it his strong viewpoint and this undercurrent of the loss of the roman and moral self that allows him to so sucessfully tie this epic together. This is a long book, so don't go into it lightly, but it is certainly rewarding. I thoroughly enjoyed this so much, that I plan to reread it again in the future, which for me is an astounding occurence. I also realise I am not reading the original, as much of Gibbon's work on the later Empire is marred by inaccuracies, but still at nearly a thousand pages, it is still a dense tome. In all my readings, I have never come across so impressive a text as this one, and don't believe I shall again.
Rating:
Summary: Great War Stories
Review: This book was an excellent companion for a tour of Western Europe. It contains a wealth of stories about many of the places one can visit. Keep in mind that this book was written in 1776 and uses "old English" grammar. That is, he uses words you wouldn't normally hear today, and uses at least 6 commas per sentence. I found an atlas of world history helpful to understanding the geographical locations of events. The one I used was "The Anchor Atlas of World History Vol 1". Gibbon's explanation of Christianity is somewhat tiring and overly detailed. While his exploration of the Barbarians is surprising favorable, it is too brief. Read this book and you will have a good understanding of Roman life, war, and decline.
Rating:
Summary: The writing/grammar is both superior and inviting. Bravo!
Review: This book would be worth every penny if purchased solely for David Womersley's introduction. The introduction is written so beautifully that it effortlessly carries the reader through every facet of the life of Edward Gibbon. I intended but to scan only a few pages of the introduction. Candidly, I expected it to be at best irrelevant and at worst tiresome. I was struck at once by how thoroughly Gibbon's life was recounted. My imagination was launched into flights of fancy at the sharp contrasts between Gibbon's classic European education and my decidedly less useful American public indoctrination. Gibbon spent time with major philosophers and these interactions helped to shape an intellect that was uniquely able to see 'truth', especially through religious dogma. The introduction provides the reader with invaluable insight and, dare I say, a device that may grant the reader a greater understanding and likely a greater appreciation of this classic work. Womersley has wisely chosen to abridge only the number of chapters while not `blending' chapters. Womersley explains that the beauty of Gibbon's writing is best viewed in the arc of a complete chapter and therefore 'blending chapters' would be a horrible injustice. I liken Gibbon's writing to that of a non-fictional Shakespeare. Shakespeare helped us see truth in fictional stories as Gibbon does so in a non-fictional format. This is THE book to buy about the Roman Empire. Bravo - Sir Womersley!
Rating:
Summary: Overrated
Review: This work has often been called, and rightly I believe, the most significant historical text ever written in the English language. Even in abridged form this work is spectacular, but as a whole this treatise on the fall of Rome is nothing short of monumental. In fact, the whole work covers a period of history not only concerning the fall of the Roman Empire, but also some ten centuries after the barbarian invasion of Rome, encompassing not only the events which led to the ruin of the empire but also every significant occurrence concerning the land, people, or allies of the fallen kingdom. Gibbon easily could have ended his history with the fall of the western empire, but instead he chose to continue a work to which he dedicated a great portion of his life, and for which the world will be forever in his debt.
Because the work spans such a large portion of civilized European history, it is fairly easy to abridge. The most important information concerning the decline of the center of civilization can be condensed into one rather large volume, and the rest (concerning Huns, Saracens, and the like) can be summed up in a matter of pages. The abridgement is concise in many ways, yet severely wanting in others. As is always the case with an abridgement of a great work, much that is valuable has been spliced and omitted. Despite the problems with this abridgement, however, this work is a great joy to read. More importantly, it is packed with pertinent information about the fall of the Roman empire. If one of the ultimate goals of history is to learn from the past, there is much we can learn from Gibbon's work.
| 
