Is reading Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" still worth it

its outdated in the sense that it's not up to date on modern scholarship sure


but as a literary work, its one of the greatest of the english language, Gibbon was a master writer

>>1773424
this

Considering almost all literature about the time period is based off his work, yeah it's worth reading.
>t. Someone reading it

not worth it for the history (or -ography)
worth it as a piece of history

The book is itself history and an interesting read, though if you want a super serious objective analysis of the roman empire you shouldn't take it too seriously.

>>1773419
worth it as literature, outdated as science.

>>1773419
>We modern historians can change what happened in the past if we meme hard enough.

>>1773419
>tfw modern fashion makes double chins look even worse

>>1773419
It's still worth reading, but only with the fantastic "footnotes" which make it god tier. It does use fake sources like Ossian though, so be cautious. It's a very rhetorical and in many ways, horribly flawed traipse through much of Roman history, which introduced the idea of degeneracy into Enlightenment scholarship, but it's still a classic for a reason.

It's an amazing piece of literature that is accurate in everything it says. Only papal payed shills will say otherwise.

>>1775319
Gibbon uses both De Situ Britanniae and the poetry of Ossian, both confirmed hoax sources. He is not accurate. And that is ignoring his many, many historical biases.

>>1773424
>its outdated in the sense that it's not up to date on modern scholarship sure
IIRC his description of things/timeline is generally right, it's just that his fedoralord conclusions (CHRISTIANITY CAUSED THE MORAL DEGRADATION OF THE EMPIRE) aren't.

>>1773678
>super serious objective analysis of the roman empire

What should I read if I want this?