I've heard about Gibbons being unreliable because of his "agenda" in regards to Roman history. What was his "agenda"???

Without actually having read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" I can say his agenda was to blame Christianity for the fall of Rome. He believed that the passive virtues of Christianity were not conducive with running an empire. This theory can be discredited by the fact that subsequent Christian nations would have no difficulties in creating and running empires because of anything having to do with Christian virtue.

He's right to argue that an inherently militarist society didn't mesh well with Christianity, which is based on love, peace and the worth of the human being; those three values conflict with nationalist superiority, imperialism and conscription, respectively.

But yes, Gibbons saw himself as part of the Enlightenment and wanted to eliminate religion through intellectualism. I would say that this was his agenda.

He's right to argue that an inherently militarist society didn't mesh well with Christianity, which is based on love, peace and the worth of the human being; those three values conflict with nationalist superiority, imperialism and conscription, respectively.

But yes, Gibbons saw himself as part of the Enlightenment and wanted to eliminate religion through intellectualism. I would say that this was his agenda.

England, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, U.S.A., ect. were all Christian empires that had absolutely no qualms with nationalist superiority, militarism, imperialism and conscription.

I believe Gibbons' point was that the Roman Empire fell because of the decline of the military ability of its citizens, who became decadent and did not work.

I believe Gibbons' point was that the Roman Empire fell because of the decline of the military ability of its citizens, who became decadent and did not work.

Are you serious? Decline of morality led to the fall of the Roman Empire? If this was true America would have fall in 1969...

Are you serious? Decline of morality led to the fall of the Roman Empire? If this was true America would have fall in 1969...

Not morality but unwillingness to work/serve in the military. Also pointing out this was Gibbons' point and not mine.

Not morality but unwillingness to work/serve in the military. Also pointing out this was Gibbons' point and not mine.

I think that it is true for most societies, crumbling or not, that people have a general unwillingness to serve in the military.

He's right to argue that an inherently militarist society didn't mesh well with Christianity, which is based on love, peace and the worth of the human being; those three values conflict with nationalist superiority, imperialism and conscription, respectively.
There didn't seem to be much of a conflict in that for the later Imperial Christian churches. Since the Emperor was God's Vice-Gerent on Earth, and the Empire was said to be the vehicle through which Christianity spread, it was almost not all that much of a turnaround from earlier days when either there was a divine emperor cult or the emperor was the pontifex maximus. Oh, and 'nationalism' and 'conscription' didn't exist in the Empire. :p

Well, if people follow Christianity to the word they won't be building any empires, but obviously that's never bothered many people in the past.

@Camikaze: Many cultures have actually venerated military service throughout history. Hell, good propaganda gets many people to think of it as fantastic to this day.

@TI: Sounds like the exact same reason Livy gave for Hannibal's defeat. He too had a blatant disregard for facts and an agenda.

@Camikaze: Many cultures have actually venerated military service throughout history. Hell, good propaganda gets many people to think of it as fantastic to this day.

Even so, I wouldn't of thought it to be a good reason for an empire to crumble. Sure some societies venerate military service, but it is a clear fallacy to think that a society will fail if it doesn't have a net willingness to serve in the military.

Even so, I wouldn't of thought it to be a good reason for an empire to crumble. Sure some societies venerate military service, but it is a clear fallacy to think that a society will fail if it doesn't have a net willingness to serve in the military.
Depends on the society I suppose. Poland might have lasted longer if the military life was worshipped like a phallic symbol on Summerisle.

England, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, U.S.A., ect. were all Christian empires that had absolutely no qualms with nationalist superiority, militarism, imperialism and conscription.
They were all very poor Christians, though, and "Not at all like your Christ", as Gandhi put it. Perhaps the early Christians of the Roman period were different.

Not that I agree with that argument, of course, I'm just saying. Personally, I doubt any Christian in authority has ever been much like Christ.

Perhaps the early Christians of the Roman period were different.
Minutes of a meeting by Senators in the home of praefectus praetorio Glabrio Faustus, recited by the Senators at the presentation of the Codex Theodosianus, Christmas Day, 438:

"Augusti of Augusti, the Greatest of Augusti!" (repeated 8 times)
"God gave You to us! God save You for us!" (repeated 27 times)
"As Roman Emperors, pious and felicitous, may You rule for many years!" (repeated 22 times)
"For the good of the human race, for the good of the Senate, for the good of the State, for the good of all!" (repeated 24 times)
"Our hope is in You, You are our salvation!" (repeated 26 times)
"May it please our Augusti to live forever!" (repeated 22 times)
"May You pacify the world and triumph here in person!" (repeated 24 times)

Bolding is mine. Source is Matthews, Laying Down the Law by way of Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Gibbon thought the Romans were responsible for the decline and fall of Rome. The loss of their cvic and martial virtues, aggravated by the other-worldliness of Christianity, etc etc.
We moderns know this kind of thinking to be hopelessly naive. Catastrophism is the proper way to understand history: Climate change, meteors, plagues. Plague was an early favorite, but climate is gaining ground and the search for the meteor continues. What was good enough for the dinosaurs is surely good enough for the Romans.

England, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, U.S.A., ect. were all Christian empires that had absolutely no qualms with nationalist superiority, militarism, imperialism and conscription.

They survived as Christian nations in spite of these things. It is untrue that there were "absolutely no qualms".

Minutes of a meeting by Senators in the home of praefectus praetorio Glabrio Faustus, recited by the Senators at the presentation of the Codex Theodosianus, Christmas Day, 438:

"Augusti of Augusti, the Greatest of Augusti!" (repeated 8 times)
"God gave You to us! God save You for us!" (repeated 27 times)
"As Roman Emperors, pious and felicitous, may You rule for many years!" (repeated 22 times)
"For the good of the human race, for the good of the Senate, for the good of the State, for the good of all!" (repeated 24 times)
"Our hope is in You, You are our salvation!" (repeated 26 times)
"May it please our Augusti to live forever!" (repeated 22 times)
"May You pacify the world and triumph here in person!" (repeated 24 times)

Bolding is mine. Source is Matthews, Laying Down the Law by way of Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Tertullian was undoubtedly turning in his grave.

We moderns know this kind of thinking to be hopelessly naive. Catastrophism is the proper way to understand history: Climate change, meteors, plagues. Plague was an early favorite, but climate is gaining ground and the search for the meteor continues. What was good enough for the dinosaurs is surely good enough for the Romans.
Climate change as cause for the Roman decline was largely debunked starting in the 1950s by Tchalenko et al., who found that agricultural productivity actually increased during the relevant time period. The references to the agri deserti turn out to not have been referencing lands, once-productive, that were claimed by the desert but merely territory that wouldn't have been used for agriculture in the first place.

Plague certainly helped, but IMHO it was mostly a Malthusian check on excessive population growth when it hit hard during the reign of Marcus Aurelius; the next really big one was the plague of Ioustinianos I, which actually did have a somewhat catastrophic impact on the Eastern Empire, but not an apocalyptic one (certainly not as much as the successive catastrophes of the Persian and Arab wars).
Tertullian was undoubtedly turning in his grave.
Why? I'm not as familiar with him as I should be...

Why? I'm not as familiar with him as I should be...

Have a look at De corona militis (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.toc.html).

To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it.

Even with his agenda, Gibbon should be credited as one of the first true modern historians. He laboriously poured over countless primary and secondary sources to produce a narrative that, while heavily editorialized, managed to provide much more accuracy and depth than most historical works that came before.

Though if you think Christianity got the short end of the stick in his works, you should see how he handled the Byzantines.

"...marks the final estabishment of the empire of the East, which, from the reign of Arcadius to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, subsisted one thousand and fifty-eight years in a state of premature and perpetual decay. The sovereign of that empire assumed and obstinately retained the vain, and at length fictitious, title of Emperor of the Romans"

"Constantinople adopted the follies, but not the virtues of ancient Rome.."

The guy may have single-handedly set back serious western scholarship of the Byzantine empire more than a century. His rants do get worse. I don't really see how an empire could 'perpetually decay' for a thousand years, that seems fairly hard to do without actually falling. And its not like they didn't have powerful rivals around them...they were completely surrounded by them.

Personally I think an apology and thank you letter is in order. Their mere existence for a thousand years was enough to buy Europe the time to crawl back out of their Dark Age caves and stand on their own feet again. What sort of chance would Dark Age Europe have stood if the initial Muslim conquests had taken out the Byzantines?

If you're really interested in this topic, you should have a look for the following article, which I came across the other day:

Frend, W. “Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) and early Christianity” in The journal of ecclesiastical history 45 1994

Frend is one of the leading authorities on the history of the early church, so his assessment of Gibbon is pretty interesting. Basically, Gibbon's agenda is that, like most eighteenth-century self-styled enlightened intellectuals, he approves of some aspects of religion - such as its moral structure and critical attitude to society and culture - but disapproves of others - such as what he regards as its superstitious doctrines. He singles out certain Christians, such as Gregory of Nazianzus or some of the Arians, for praise because he thinks they exemplify the "good" aspects of religion, but regards the history of the church after Constantine as involving mostly the rise of the "bad" aspects and the decine of the "good" ones. So his agenda is not as simple as a bias against Christianity - it's more a bias against certain elements of Christianity.

Frend is one of the leading authorities on the history of the early church, so his assessment of Gibbon is pretty interesting. Basically, Gibbon's agenda is that, like most eighteenth-century self-styled enlightened intellectuals, he approves of some aspects of religion - such as its moral structure and critical attitude to society and culture - but disapproves of others - such as what he regards as its superstitious doctrines. He singles out certain Christians, such as Gregory of Nazianzus or some of the Arians, for praise because he thinks they exemplify the "good" aspects of religion, but regards the history of the church after Constantine as involving mostly the rise of the "bad" aspects and the decine of the "good" ones. So his agenda is not as simple as a bias against Christianity - it's more a bias against certain elements of Christianity.

Seems interesting. But is there some way to get it without having to buy the paper? I don't have access to any library subscribing that particular journal, and absolutely oppose financing this kind of business.

University should have it - any one with a Theo dept. that is. Like Auckland :D

Seems interesting. But is there some way to get it without having to buy the paper? I don't have access to any library subscribing that particular journal, and absolutely oppose financing this kind of business.

Well, academic journals do tend to be found only in academic libraries. They are usually subscription-only and pretty pricey. Although your tone suggests that you have some kind of ideological objection to paying for them, quite apart from a wish to avoid the high costs - unless I misunderstand?

The same applies to academic monographs, which also tend to be ludicrously expensive - because of course only libraries would buy them, so the publishers have to recoup their costs somehow.

Many people at the moment are saying that the age of the printed journal is drawing to a close, and that within a couple of decades all academic journals will be on-line. No doubt they will require subscriptions to read, but perhaps these will be lower than the current subscriptions, given that the costs of production will be much lower. I have to say I'm rather dubious of these claims.

Well, academic journals do tend to be found only in academic libraries. They are usually subscription-only and pretty pricey. Although your tone suggests that you have some kind of ideological objection to paying for them, quite apart from a wish to avoid the high costs - unless I misunderstand?

No, you are right. I don't know what happens with the journals covering social sciences, but with the ones I know best (biology, chemistry, physics, etc) neither authors nor reviewers get paid by the publishers. Authors even have to pay to cover the alleged costs of publishing in many journals (sometimes they still get a printed copy - sometimes! But even when they don't they still have to pay more for colored pictures, for example - go figure why a color picture in digital media costs more than a black and white one...). And yet, despite that, they charge what I can only call extortionate subscription prices for access to those publications, and they take control of copyright over the paper and forbid the authors from making it publicly available.

This may once have been justified for the work of organizing and publishing, in paper, all that information. Now it's theft - taking advantage from old habits to keep the old prices despite the much lower costs, and at the same time hindering the dissemination of knowledge, the opposite of what academic journals were originally intended to do.

Forgive me the rant, it's obviously not directed at you, or anyone here, I'm just taking the opportunity to protest against this situation we still have to live with...


Many people at the moment are saying that the age of the printed journal is drawing to a close, and that within a couple of decades all academic journals will be on-line. No doubt they will require subscriptions to read, but perhaps these will be lower than the current subscriptions, given that the costs of production will be much lower. I have to say I'm rather dubious of these claims.

It is, at least in those fields I know.And good riddance. In physics and in computer sciences, for example, many authors are dropping the old commercial publications in favor of newer journals which do not take the copyright over the paper, nor charge for access to the information. Free online archives, and even rules demanding that all publicly funded projects are made freely available (the Internet supplies the technology necessary, the costs are virtually zero) are finally squeezing the old publishers.

And their reaction, unfortunately, has been to closely guard those "assets" (their "intellectual property") which they "own" and keep charging for their archives. Socially damaging behaviors, just to extract further rents on material which they never produced in the first place, which they already milked for money during the past years (more than paying the cost or archiving, and every academic library has innumerable volumes archived also), and which would now be archived and made available online by multiple institutions and even individuals for free, were it allowed.

Without actually having read "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" I can say his agenda was to blame Christianity for the fall of Rome. He believed that the passive virtues of Christianity were not conducive with running an empire. This theory can be discredited by the fact that subsequent Christian nations would have no difficulties in creating and running empires because of anything having to do with Christian virtue.

Well, this has "idiotic" written all over it. You haven't read the book and yet you know all about it? Well, let me tell you. I have read part of the book and that is simply not the case, thus far.

Well, this has "idiotic" written all over it. You haven't read the book and yet you know all about it? Well, let me tell you. I have read part of the book and that is simply not the case, thus far.


Sorry about that but that's what my history professors always interpreted. I really should read the book and come up with my own conclusions.

Well, this has "idiotic" written all over it. You haven't read the book and yet you know all about it? Well, let me tell you. I have read part of the book and that is simply not the case, thus far.
He spent a solid chapter as well as some other portions of the book editorializing about that very thing actually.

Yes, Gibbon is frequently mentioned by historians as having this sort of view of Christianity. For example, iirc, "A Concise History of Byzantium" by Treadgold mentions, in passing, that the Christian Eastern Roman seemed to be counter-example against the Gibbon's Christianity negative influence on a state's survival, given that the Byzantines' survived against numerous enemies for near a thousand more years after the Western empire's fall. The abridged Gibbon that I read seems to indicate Gibbon did believe Christianity was, at best, not helpful for an nation's earthly success.

Well, this has "idiotic" written all over it. You haven't read the book and yet you know all about it? Well, let me tell you. I have read part of the book and that is simply not the case, thus far.
I've never watched The Princess Diaries, but I know all about it. It sucks more than a car-wash vaccuum, and the result isn't as pleasant. It's possible to know about something without reading it, it just helps to reach one's own conclusions, rather than parroting someone else's. Even if that someone is right.

Yes, Gibbon is frequently mentioned by historians as having this sort of view of Christianity. For example, iirc, "A Concise History of Byzantium" by Treadgold mentions, in passing, that the Christian Eastern Roman seemed to be counter-example against the Gibbon's Christianity negative influence on a state's survival, given that the Byzantines' survived against numerous enemies for near a thousand more years after the Western empire's fall. The abridged Gibbon that I read seems to indicate Gibbon did believe Christianity was, at best, not helpful for an nation's earthly success.

It's perfectly fair to make the case that the civil conflicts between the Christians and the Pagans were partially responsible for the fall of Rome--that I don't disagree with, and Gibbon does fairly well at analyzing that conflict. The part where he loses me is where he starts claiming the new Romans were wimps and had lost their moral fortitude and are effeminate and on and on...sounds like something out of Pat Robinson's mouth.

It's perfectly fair to make the case that the civil conflicts between the Christians and the Pagans were partially responsible for the fall of Rome--that I don't disagree with, and Gibbon does fairly well at analyzing that conflict.
:confused: You lost me.

It's perfectly fair to make the case that the civil conflicts between the Christians and the Pagans were partially responsible for the fall of Rome--that I don't disagree with, and Gibbon does fairly well at analyzing that conflict. The part where he loses me is where he starts claiming the new Romans were wimps and had lost their moral fortitude and are effeminate and on and on...sounds like something out of Pat Robinson's mouth.

I see it the other way around: the romans did turn their backs on government, and all that it requires. Or rather, were led to do it. After the empire abandoned the militia army for a professional one, italians were slowly replaced by people from other provinces, and later romans (roman citizenship having been extended to the whole empire) replaced by mercenary barbarians.
Politics followed the same course: first the comitia (imperfect democracy though they were) were weakened and later abolished, then the senate was subordinated to the emperor, finally some emperors started rising from among generals outside the senatorial class altogether. So first the plebians were pushed out of politics, and supplied with the appropriate beliefs that they should just let themselves be governed by "their betters". Later even the wealthy elites started abandoning politics and public live - and that occurred long before christianity spread - Rome followed the pattern which had also played out in old greek city states as those decayed into irrelevance, and even imported the passive/pessimistic philosophies of stoics and epicureans...

The new religion of christianity caused no civil wars. It was used in some, but caused none - disputes for the imperial title were the cause, christianity a convenient tool. Rome had prospered during even more destructive wars in the late Republic, it wasn't that which brought it down. It was the divorce between those who ruled and those who were ruled. Once the citizens of the empire became no more than subjects, and worse, servants attached to a particular region, what possible motivation did they had to preserve the empire? Why should they care about who ruled in Rome, or it wherever the imperial capital happened to be (another sign of decline)? Christianity, like those other philosophies (on which it drew important inspiration) was only a symptom of the decadence of the empire, not the cause.

I see it the other way around: the romans did turn their backs on government, and all that it requires. Or rather, were led to do it. After the empire abandoned the militia army for a professional one, italians were slowly replaced by people from other provinces, and later romans (roman citizenship having been extended to the whole empire) replaced by mercenary barbarians.
The extent of this is vastly overrated, or at least the 'mercenary barbarians' element. (The replacement of Italians by provincials seems to me to be a good thing, actually...expansion of manpower base and all that, growth of 'Romanized' regions...)

Also I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'turn their backs on government', unless it's the flight of the curials, again a greatly overemphasized phenomenon. The loss of the decurion class did occur, but at a period far later in time (much of them were wiped out by the plague of Ioustinianos) than would have a heavy impact on the decline and collapse of the Western Roman state.

The extent of this is vastly overrated, or at least the 'mercenary barbarians' element. (The replacement of Italians by provincials seems to me to be a good thing, actually...expansion of manpower base and all that, growth of 'Romanized' regions...)

Also I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'turn their backs on government', unless it's the flight of the curials, again a greatly overemphasized phenomenon. The loss of the decurion class did occur, but at a period far later in time (much of them were wiped out by the plague of Ioustinianos) than would have a heavy impact on the decline and collapse of the Western Roman state.

I agree with that, recruiting provincials was a necessary thing. But it did let to a separation between the army and the population. Unlike what had happened during most of the Republic, the citizens ceased to be part of the army. The plebeians never were (until Marius), but the "middle" classes, those citizens with some land or other property, drafted to the army were still quite numerous and capable of diluting the power of the top senatorial class. They played an important political role: directly through the comitia centuriata, and indirectly shoring up the comitia tributa (or at least that both were essentially abolished at the same time leads me to believe so).

During the imperial period the only active political role for the soldiers in the army was to support their generals in civil wars. And with their services for sale (they supported their generals because they expected payment back from them, after all) the empire never got rid of the civil wars. They were no longer citizens with interest or a voice in the politics of the whole empire, they no longer could elect the roman magistrates or legislate. And when they did care enough to place emperors in the throne it was only to satisfy their own interests as soldiers, not as citizens. Once the army could be bought it could be used to put an end to the ancient forms of democracy. Once it was more loyal to its commander than to some political idea it could be used to break apart the empire, as the hired barbarian generals eventually did.

But I guess that there was no other way things could have played out. The democracy of the city state could not work in a large empire.