Talk:Fall of the Western Roman Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed change in "Underlying causes"[edit]

I would like to make a change to this paragraph: Edward Gibbon gave a classic, but now outdated and incomplete, formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He gave great weight to internal decline, as crippling the empire's ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline. He also felt that "the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire..." This, with his incredulity of miracles and his cautious estimation of the actual number of Christian martyrs, was immediately attacked and continues to arouse opposition. His ideas on the Fall have been a foundation for later discourse, and for modern synthesis with the results of archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, and genetic science, using diverse historiographical models. Alexander Demandtenumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell. and more ideas have been produced since.

IMO, it doesn't really explain Gibbon's views. It doesn't give Gibbon enough credit. It focuses too much on "Christian" objection - as if religionists are the only ones who disagree with Gibbon - and religion the only cause of disagreement. This is both inappropriate and incorrect in view of current scholarship - and a bit "weasle-ly" - and in fact, this paragraph never actually says what current scholarship on Gibbon is. A more thorough discussion of Gibbon's views was removed and replaced with this weasel worded paragraph some time back, and this has been left to stand in its place.

Perhaps a compromise could improve the situation. I have placed the initial Christian response in a note, as it seems less significant than current scholarship. I have left out detail on his various views on monarchy and the value of war. I have focused on views of the fall, period.


In 1776, historian Edward Gibbon published his landmark work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. It quickly became the standard view of the fall of empire, and remained so for over 200 years.[1][2] Glen Bowersock describes Gibbon's "celebrated opinion, expressed at an early stage of his work" as stating that barbarism and Christianity were the primary causes of the end of the empire.[3] Gibbon also gave great weight to internal decline from wealth and decadence, the empire's declining ability to respond to attacks from outside the Empire, and to the failure of military discipline.[4][note 1] According to Gibbon, the end took place with the removal of the man he referred to as "the helpless Augustulus" in 476.[10]

Challenges began in the twentieth century with Arnaldo Momigliano who argued that Roman Empire did not end in 476. The emperor after Augustulus was German, but rulers from other parts of the Roman empire outside Italy were not new. As Bowersock states, "Hadrian had come from Spain, Severus from Africa, Elagabalus from Syria and Maximinus from the Balkans".[10] The Ostrogoths considered themselves in line with Augustulus as a part of Roman Empire, the Eastern Empire went from "strength to strength", and no one of the time wrote of the empire as "fallen".[11]

Gibbon's long history is an eloquent acknowledgment that Rome did not fall in the fifth or sixth centuries. It changed and multiplied itself. Its centers of power and administration moved. It may have been a chameleon, but it was certainly no phoenix, because there were no ashes. A clear and decisive end, such as that which the Turks inflicted on the Byzantine Empire, or the Bolsheviks on the Empire of the Czars, or the Allies on the Third Reich, never came to the Empire of Rome. Gibbon understood this, and that is why a work entitled The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire comes to an end in 1453, with the capture of Constantinople".[12]

Gibbon's ideas are no longer accepted in totality, but they have been foundational to later discourse and the modern synthesis with archaeology, epidemiology, climatic history, genetic science,[13] and the many other new sources of history beyond the documentary sources that was all that was available to Gibbon.[14][15] Alexander Demandt has enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell[16][17] and more ideas have been produced since.

This is just one possibility, but whatever is decided, please, let's do improve what is currently there.


I like your text, but I'm not sure that it belongs in the section on Underlying causes. On your first paragraph above, the present text mentions Gibbon only as providing a foundational discourse, and in slight detail in so far as his ideas are still stimulating modern publication and annoyance. I suggest that's appropriate here - much as I love his prose, his ideas are indeed outdated and incomplete. I feel that we should leave out of this section those of his ideas that are still approximately current, and take our summary from a modern synthesis - we currently use Kyle Harper's work and that feels right to me. We do already link to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire which interested readers may follow if they wish. On your second section, I really like your text and the quotation from Bowersock 1996, but I wonder if most of it can more appropriately be worked into the section presently entitled From 476: Last Emperor, rump states? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Richard, it's good to hear from you. I expected a response from you here and am glad of it. I agree that the present text mentions Gibbon as foundational. I also agree it is perfectly legitimate to do so, and to include Gibbon as the first to list causes of the fall. That's history, and whether his "causes" are currently accepted or not is not really an important point. I would simply list them, and leave it, given my way. Then I would go on and list others.
My complaint is that the current paragraph does not actually list Gibbon's five major causes. It does, however, discuss one 200 year old reaction, implying that religious reaction was the only critique Gibbon received. It mentions no other critiques, and there have been many. Why is this one there? Causes of the fall need to be discussed, but religious reaction to Gibbon's book isn't really part of that. How is it pertinent? Religious reaction was not foundational to Gibbon's claims, nor to acceptance of his views, and it forms no part of current scholarship on either him or his views. The paragraph is vague and non-specific and doesn't even discuss that lone reaction from a scholarly perspective. It comes across like a personal feeling. It's not encyclopedic. Surely you can see this is just not a good paragraph.
I suggest that contemporary scholarship about him is not based in annoyance. I suggest it's based in the expanded sources unavailable to him. Let's use that at any rate, and discuss different views of different causes - or let's not - but what is there now is half way in and half way out. It is not consistent with the quality of the rest of this article. It needs removing, or replacing with something, and if that is not my compromise, that's fine, but then it needs something more to the point. Let's discuss Gibbon's causes, or let's not, but this paragraph is neither one or the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, at this edit I have inserted a slightly-tweaked version of your second paragraph. I'll await comments before I do anything else. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aarrggh! I wish you hadn't. I have worked up another option for you that actually discusses Gibbon's causes. It needs some polishing, but I will bring it - here - for everyone to comment on before doing anything with it. Would you consider reverting yourself until we can all come to some kind of consensus agreement? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command... Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! If only!! I appreciate the sentiment and the action. What I have now written in place of this is too long to post here I'm afraid. I am just inserting it, and if you or anyone else hates it, or any part of it, I have no objection to reverting any of it accordingly. We can edit by selective removal as you see fit. Thank you for your cooperation Richard. It's a pleasure to work with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Keatinge So look it over. I've been moving stuff around like crazy trying to get all causes in one place for readers to find easily. I am going to work on the red references next. What the heck happened here?! It was not this way when I left it a year ago! This was a beautiful tightly focused erudite little article! We must return it to its previous quality Richard. It's too important to leave a mess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have curled up in a corner and tried hard to find a place where your recent changes would improve this encyclopedia. With all respect to you, Edward Gibbon, and whatever demon has been advising you of late, I feel strongly that they would be more suitable elsewhere, perhaps in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, as a section on modern uses of Gibbon's ideas. This article should not be structured by outdated ideas, they should be mentioned only in passing, even if they are historiographically foundational. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I seem to regularly do that to you no matter what I write! What demon? Why your friend Pazuzu of course! Don't get discouraged with me dearheart, I am quite willing to accommodate you, but I do think Gibbon has a place historically and should be included. No one else has ever had as much influence, and his continues to be felt. Please note I refrained from any contemporary evaluation because it is off topic, but including him and his causes is right on target for this article and should be somewhere. Wait. Have we switched sides?!? I am arguing in favor of Gibbon and you want to exclude him! The world is rotating backwards!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned briefly here yes, included in detail elsewhere... in this article, he, and the details and afterlife of his ideas, are pretty much useless blather; they detract from focus and erudition. I do hope you will revert. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Keatinge I am going to have to start calling you Captain Picard if you keep making decisions assuming your own authority is sufficient to "make it so". You need to offer some kind of explanation for why this article would have a section on causes and then not actually discuss them, and why that would be a good thing, because I am not seeing it. When I was writing Biblical criticism, I included an entire section on its history, and I noted that some historical ideas look pretty whacked now. I felt no need to evaluate them or exclude them on that basis and did not do so. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to write and cite. We just present the information; evaluation is usually OR. If you can't come up with another reason beyond your personal evaluation of Gibbon's views as blather for excluding him, I would say that's not a valid reason Richard. I am willing to work with you, but not on the basis of OR.
The reasons for including Gibbon here in this particular article are multiple. First, Gibbon is historical. Second, his ideas remain foundational. Third what was in the article seriously needed replacing. Yes Gibbon's ideas are dated, and we don't agree with a lot of it anymore - for reasons that have nothing to do with religious bias, please note - which the first version implied was the sole basis for rejecting his views. So it needed replacing with something that actually reflects its title accurately and neutrally. It now has that. I don't get how that's not a good thing.
Fourth, it seems fair to say that one cannot make a "brief mention" of Gibbon's ideas without actually listing or explaining what his ideas were, and deem that encyclopedic. I seem to recall you saying that my referring to something in Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire and failing to explain it sufficiently, in a similar manner as here, was "a good way to mislead and confuse our readers". Do I misremember? I accepted your standard there - leave it out or explain it, but don't mention and leave readers hanging - and I made that change. Now this is my standard as well. What has changed so that the standard you applied to me does not apply here?
Last, any actual discussion of causes must include Gibbon, and that's my Captain Picard opinion. Gibbon was the first, it stood for 200 years, people still refer to him, people have built on his foundation, giant edifices of reasoning about what happened in Late Antiquity, all because of Gibbon. Our obsession with the Fall began in the 18th century with Gibbon. Not mentioning him would be worse than an article on the American Revolution without George Washington. I don't see how anyone can see it otherwise, least of all you, a fan. I'm confused Richard. What is going on?
I vote that we let our readers have the facts and sort out for themselves what is "blather" and what isn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a disagreement. The use you have made of Gibbon and Gibboniana is analogous to inserting an extended discussion of reviews of Bernard Bailyn's work in the article American Revolution. It is, simply, the wrong article. Your text could, and I hope will, be useful in Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire. But here, it has very little to offer (there are some felicitous bits which I hope to excise and rescue). Not only are Gibbon's specific ideas dated, so are his social paradigms and assumptions, and it's absolutely inappropriate to discuss him at length here. Again, please rethink. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are, but why are we having this disagreement Richard? It is a fact that "Gibbon's ideas are dated, and so are his social paradigms and assumptions", but that does not - ever - exclude any scholar from his place in history. You know that. I know that you know that. So where is this coming from? On what basis is this the wrong article? Simply saying it doesn't explain what you mean by that. This article is on the Fall, and it has a section on causes, and Gibbon was the first to speculate on both of those things. That is irrefutable fact.
Your analogy - dearheart - if your article on the American Revolution had a section on causes, or mentioned ideology, then failing to include a summary of Bailyn's theories would in fact be wrong. And that is in spite of the fact that he has not had the kind of impact that Gibbon has, does not have the weight of a Gibbon, nor has his theory ever formed the hegemony of an entire field of study for 200 years. Gibbon is still being read, he is still studied, his theories - and his causes - are still used - 200 years later! Who else can claim that? He has both historical and contemporary pertinence to the topic of the section he is now in. The sources used are not reviews, they are exegesis. There is a difference.
I will attempt to cut it down as much as possible, but without a better reason than "he is outdated", I won't agree to cut him out entirely. Post a request for a third opinion, or an RFC, or whatever you feel led to do. If you can't explain to me why it is "absolutely inappropriate" to discuss him - and this is not a lengthy discussion of Gibbon - then perhaps you can explain it to someone else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Richard Keatinge look above here under Gibbon Redux, we had this same disagreement a year ago, and you were the one to resolve it by adding something on Gibbon back then. Someone else must and come along since then replacing your good edits with the garbage that was there in its place. I have shortened everything I wrote on Gibbon, removed it entirely in one place, and I do not like your last edit and don't accept your made-up reason - but I will let it stand. I will even go so far as to say that if you want to rewrite something - that accurately reflects Gibbon - and replace what I wrote with your own words, I won't even object to that. But he needs to be there. Put him back where he belongs, include the modern view somewhere, and I will trust you to do an honest and fair job. You're a good editor. Don't let Pazuzu stir up emotions that just get in the way of good sense. I will leave you to it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jordan 1969, p. 83, 93–94.
  2. ^ Gibbon 1906, pp. 279, 312.
  3. ^ Bowersock 1996, pp. 30–31.
  4. ^ Chapter 38. "General Observations On The Fall Of The Roman Empire In The West". Fall In The West – The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717
  5. ^ A Vindication of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon. London: J. Dodsley, 1779. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/gibbon/decline/files/vndctn/intro.htm
  6. ^ Foster, S.P. (2013). Melancholy Duty: The Hume-Gibbon Attack on Christianity. Springer. pp. 16–17. ISBN 978-9401722353.
  7. ^ Noonkester, Myron C. (2011). "Gibbon and the Clergy: Private Virtues, Public Vices". Harvard Theological Review. 83 (4): 399. doi:10.1017/S0017816000023865. S2CID 164294191. Of course, Gibbon was, on occasion, a polemicist.
  8. ^ Craddock, Patricia (1988). "Historical Discovery and Literary Invention in Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall'". Modern Philology. 85 (4): 582. doi:10.1086/391664. JSTOR 438361. S2CID 162402180.
  9. ^ Brown, Peter (1977). "Gibbon's Views on Culture and Society in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries". In Bowersock, G. W.; Clive, John; Graubard, Stephen R. (eds.). Edward Gibbon and the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (illustrated ed.). Harvard University Press. pp. 44–45. ISBN 9780674239401.
  10. ^ a b Bowersock 1996, p. 31.
  11. ^ Bowersock 1996, pp. 30–35.
  12. ^ Bowersock 1996, p. 32.
  13. ^ Drancourt, M.; Raoult, D. (November 2016). "Molecular history of plague". Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 22 (11): 911–915. doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2016.08.031. PMID 27615720.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rebenich in Rousseau was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Rives, James B. (2010). "Graeco-Roman Religion in the Roman Empire: Old Assumptions and New Approaches". Currents in Biblical Research. 8 (2): 250. doi:10.1177/1476993X09347454. S2CID 161124650.
  16. ^ Demandt, Alexander. 210 Theories., quoting Demandt, A. (1984). Der Fall Roms. p. 695.
  17. ^ Galinsky 1992, pp. 53–73.

Fall of roman empire[edit]

Please give 150 words note on this topic 2407:D000:F:B785:798E:39A7:8232:7106 (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account or exegesis of Gibbon[edit]

At this edit, having reread the above and got advice from literate friends, I have removed the exegesis of Gibbon - how Gruman analyzes what Gibbon wrote -and replaced it with a straightforward account of what Gibbon actually wrote. An exegete re-analyzing Gibbon is not desirable here, though I have moved their work to Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, where it may be considered useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Indi 102.249.4.74 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2023[edit]

“Creeds were developed, but Christianity has never agreed upon an official version of its Bible or its doctrine; instead it has had many different manuscript traditions.”

This does not accurately reflect the cited source, and takes away from the larger topic at hand. Bias is present, and this passage should be removed. 2600:1700:AFE0:4C50:D9B1:7:9AE8:197 (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 13:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_the_Western_Roman_Empire&oldid=1222759981"