This is still the most impressive work of history

amazing writing skills gibbon had

It's a good work of literature but as a work of history it's totally worthless

Nah. Only in an anglo-centric world.
>The History of Rome (German: Römische Geschichte) is a multi-volume history of ancient Rome written by Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903). Originally published by Reimer & Hirsel, Leipzig, as three volumes during 1854–1856, the work dealt with the Roman Republic.
> The work was specifically cited when Mommsen was awarded the Nobel Prize in literature.
It is basically the only non-fictional work that ever received a Nobel Prize in literature.

Can anyone tell me what parts of his work have been discredited, and why?

I always hear that it's not really fashionable with historians today but not really why.

>>2637434
Well that's a slight exaggeration. It still says that a lot that it is regularly quoted as a useful secondary source by most modern scholars of Late Antiquity. The only real problem was Gibbon's obsessions with /pol/-tier causal links like "muh degeneracy" and his use of sources that turned out to be fake like Ossian. He is still highly regarded for good reason, the Decline and Fall is a fucking monument in book form.

It isn't worth reading without his "footnotes" though. They're half of the fun.

>>2636450
It's impressive as a work of historiography because it established the modern precedent for the kind of exhaustive citation that defines academic history

It's also impressive as an epic poem and a work of prose, which is perhaps what gives it enduring popularity as it remains eminently readable even to modern audiences

However, it was also written in the entrenched biases of its day, so before Gibbon even sat down to pen the book he had it in his mind that he was going to prove how the Roman Empire was a high point of European history before declining thanks to Continental Catholicism and Anglo Protestant society is its one true successor.