What are the best books on the decline and collapse of the Roman

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

>>2706953
no

>>2706953
nope

>>2706950
HBO's Rome

>>2706953
yes

>>2706950
>it's a someone uses Thomas Cole's The Course of Empire as a representation of ancient Rome episode

>>2706953
This. OP ignore the jackasses deriding Gibbon's work, every bit of his piece deserves our attention and inquiry.

Like all books, it's a product of its time, and should be read critically. Just because some Christians are miffed about his explanation, doesn't mean his monumental work isn't among the greatest books of western history.

Just remember this is a work from 200+ years ago; far more accurate books have been written in times closer to our own, by scholars privileged with far more information than Gibbon had available. A lack of total historical accuracy doesn't cause us to throw away our bibles and works of Herodotus, for a large amount of wisdom are still contained in their pages.

Gibbon is uniquely held to a much higher standard of criticism than many other past historians. If Eusebius of Caesarea was held to the same standard as Gibbon, people here would be screaching for special clemency

>actually I'm pretending to be an atheist right now, and even I'm miffed about his portrayal of Christianity

>>2707203
People shit on Gibbon so much because he massively popularised a lot of dumb misconceptions about Roman history to the point where normies are still buying it. It's not just his portrayal of Christianity that's wrong, basically everything he hypothesised about was wrong.

>>2707211
Name one.

>>2707214
...name one what? Things he got wrong? Alright

>Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire
>the eastern Roman Empire doesn't count because Greeks are racially inferior to Italians
>the eastern Roman Empire doesn't count because they had Empress Regnants sometimes
>propogated myths about "effeminacy" and "degeneracy" in the Late empire when it was actually probably the most conservative period in Roman history besides the Pax Augusta
>thought that Germans culturally dominated the Romans instead of the other way around
>completely ignored the Fabricae system and the greater integration of the state into the Roman military
>says the Late Roman military became smaller and weaker when it was actually the largest it had ever been and continued to win the vast majority of battles it fought
>treats everything Vegetius wrote as gospel
>thought that the Romans were atheistic
My biggest problem with him is how he just straight up leaves out historical facts that don't support his argument. That's not just the mark of a bad historian, it's the mark of a dishonest thinker.

Also he totally ignores archaeology, which even at the time was a profoundly stupid thing to do.

It's a good work of literature, but it's not a good work of history.

>>2706950
The world of Late antiquity.

>>2707277
Cite every single one of your baseless and absurd accusations with page number.