Basically every single shitty pop-history take about Roman history today is the fault of this fat fuck.
>>18511627anglo enlightenment thinkers who gloat ancient rome were some of the biggest "we wuzzers"
You're not Roman, Papadopoulis.
He was based and also one of the funniest writers of his age
>>18511634What are you talking about, schizo?
He because a Mason shortly before starting the book.
>>18511627Modern Historians love to trash him as inaccurate but his narrative structure is still used by these same Historians. What they mean by inaccurate is that he doesn't try to shoehorn progressive ideology into his arguments.
>>18512117>What they mean by inaccurate is that he doesn't try to shoehorn progressive ideology into his arguments.Yes he does. Gibbon is the epitome of a Whig historian. He constantly and shameless injects his own biases into the narrative.
>>18511627Not really, Mommsen did even worse damage even if his name isn't as known in the English speaking world
>>18512117>him as inaccurate but his narrative structure is still usedNo?
>>18512117>he doesn't try to shoehorn progressive ideology into his arguments.Progressive ideology like Christinity not being a blight upon the world.
>>18512859I don't know what version you read but in mine he makes a deliberate connection between Christianity and the decline in honor and discipline that led to Rome's collapse, and also downplays the persecution of Christians under Nero, to the point where entire pages are filled with footnotes from the editors seething about it.
>>18512864Yes that's what I'm saying
>>18512307/ourguy/ Gibby was a turbochud> Anna Comnena repeatedly protests, that, besides her personal knowledge, she had searched the discourses and writings of the most respectable veterans: and after an interval of thirty years, forgotten by, and forgetful of, the world, her mournful solitude was inaccessible to hope and fear; and that truth, the naked perfect truth, was more dear and sacred than the memory of her parent. Yet, instead of the simplicity of style and narrative which wins our belief, an elaborate affectation of rhetoric and science betrays in every page the vanity of a female author. The genuine character of Alexius is lost in a vague constellation of virtues; and the perpetual strain of panegyric and apology awakens our jealousy, to question the veracity of the historian and the merit of the hero.
>>18512864in such fairness he never outright says Christianity killed the RE because England at the time still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books
>>18512117His work was literally the 1700s version of a Reddit post. If anything later histories of Rome were less pozzed by libtard shit.
>>18511627Only byzabootards and christoids hate him.
>>18513343>Only byzabootardsWhich is funny because Gibbon's history was exceptional (even today) for actually taking the history of the Roman Empire to 1453 instead of ending it in late antiquity
>>18513588Yes but he did it very spitefully. Like>Ugh... I can't believe I should even mention this shit...
>>18513590He says candidly (and correctly) that there is no way to concisely summarize the last 600 years to an audience without boring the reader to death, and that it was such a shitshow it doesn't deserve to be focused on over the rise of the HRE and the Ummah
>>18511627It's a great read. You're supposed to recognize his biases, consider them, and either reject his conclusions or accept them.
>>18511645Beavers are based
