Teeninvestor
Warlord
I've heard about Gibbons being unreliable because of his "agenda" in regards to Roman history. What was his "agenda"???
Gibbons' Agenda?????
- Thread starter Teeninvestor
- Start date
dannyshenanigan
Emperor
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
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.
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.
dannyshenanigan
Emperor
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.
Teeninvestor
Warlord
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...
Teeninvestor
Warlord
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.
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.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
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.
@TI: Sounds like the exact same reason Livy gave for Hannibal's defeat. He too had a blatant disregard for facts and an agenda.
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.
Sharwood
Rich, doctor nephew
Depends on the society I suppose. Poland might have lasted longer if the military life was worshipped like a phallic symbol on Summerisle.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
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.
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.
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
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.
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.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
They survived as Christian nations in spite of these things. It is untrue that there were "absolutely no qualms".
Tertullian was undoubtedly turning in his grave.
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).
Why? I'm not as familiar with him as I should be...Plotinus said:
EnlightenmentHK
Emperor
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,479
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?
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?
Similar threads
