The Death of Tolerance

@Mikey Zee Agreed. Besides knowledge, Look at SOME of the everyday technology of the Roman world...aquaducts, amazing durable road system, running water and fountains, baths, indoor plumbing, etc etc. all lost in Dark Ages...
Additionally, most of the internal Roman world was at peace, save for the borders where the Legions were stationed...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Then you are shooting yourself in your own feet mi amigo.

Edward Gibbon during his contemporary time was a pioneer in his field. But history taught at the universities today is not what it was during Edward’s time.

Like for instance books on the history of Denmark from 1800’s until 1940’s states that the supposedly superior white race’s origin is traced in Denmark. That is laughable and none sane person with a decent education will believe such thing today.

Edward Gibbon’s book is also laughable as he portrays some of his stupid theses as facts when they in facts are speculative assumptions, and some time he directly contradicts himself.

If you want to know how people viewed Ancient Rome before 1950 then Edward Gibbon is a god choice. But if you want lucid academic treatise about the topic there are far better books available and which actually are written by modern scholars which indeed have better tools to provide answers to us than Gibbon ever had. – But if I was you I would not throw Gibbon’s works out as it would be waste, rather I would use his books as toilet paper to wipe my ass with. Here Edward Gibbon’s books obviously would be more useful.

Otherwise I would like to repeat myself one more time for last time: When I had Roman history as subject in my university as student of history, Edward Gibbon was not a part of our curriculum. All our Roman curriculum books and various scientific articles were in English. Even our adjunct professor in Roman history was Briton himself. – Yes, Gibbon's works are outdated and flawed.

 

I have to agree with this.....

 

Western Europe did regressed and went into a sort of “Dark Ages” due to the Migration Period that ultimately ended the Western Roman Empire. None decent historians would reject that picture.

However the vast historians would reject that portraying of Europe that supposedly was in a stationary process throughout 500-1500. It was not because the barbarian groups ultimately adopted some Roman features and became civilized, and as they made various progressions in the fields of agriculture, philosophy, architecture and science. – And around 1000CE or 1200CE Western Europe reached somehow the same level as Byzantine or the Arabs, and even surpassed Ancient Rome in term of technology.

But the notion about a supposedly Dark Ages entirely over a thousand year of span is rejected today among the historians. – Go and ask any student of history.

 

I would think reading Gibbon today has more to do with antiquarianism than history. For modern treatments on the subject try Bryan Ward-Perkins The fall of Rome and Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians.

I highly recommend both. And that's not to say Gibbon has no value today!

 

It's not like I don't know anything about the ancient world, I took two classes in college about ancient Rome, & I do have a lot of books on the ancient world. However, I have never read this particular series and I've always wanted to undertake the behemoth task of actually sitting there and reading it all the way through. I know his book is outdated but that doesn't mean that within all flawed and outdated information, there aren't many good bits of information that can be gleaned from reading it. I will take what I read with a grain of salt, as any skeptical person should, and compare it to other materials on the subject.

It may come as a surprise to some of you that I actually majored in other things far more useful than law. My undergraduate degrees where history and international relations. Unfortunately, you can't make a living in either field so I had to settle for law.

 

Thanks for the suggestions. It's been quite a few years since I've read a book on ancient Rome, so I'm looking for new material to read and study. Collecting ancient coins has kind of rekindled my passion for antiquity, something I disregarded since I went to law school.

 

We have also to agree that there are many theories in every science, especially in History. BTW.. Physics, Chemistry and biology among others are called exact sciences. They're more objective. All theories deserve to be respected, whatever our points if view are, with regards to these theories. Hope I'm not totally mistaken.

 

I definitely agree with both 'V' and Sallent about this aspect of Gibbons, having read it through a few years ago....and still retain my 'copy' .

As one who also has the same academic background as Sallent, minus the Law degree, I have always been interested in History and the 'revisionist' arguments that come to light over time. The 'evidence' often resulting in a reconsideration of previously held opinions or convictions----just as it should be.

 

This thread has gotten badly off topic.(Not calling any one person out, I am also to blame)
I created this thread to talk about and discuss Late Roman Silver, Hypatia and Orestes, and the decline of tolerance in the Roman Empire. NOT revisionist history nor Gibbon nor the Middle Ages.
I would be grateful if the Mods would lock it.
Cheers.

 

Gibbon as considered over he hill when I took Ancient History in the 1960's. We did read the Cambridge Ancient History but the biggest thing we learned is that today's correctness is tomorrows antiquated and erroneous. I suspect Law School covered the need for critical reading and the mutation of interpretation. Learning facts requires learning the difference between facts and correctness. I still like Dennison's (previously discussed here) Twelve Caesars but wish he had used even more notes referencing which source provided the rumor he references. Four people witnessing the same current event can provide five different stories so our chances for absolute truth 2000 years ago is unlikely.

'Exact Science' is not as exact as I once naively believed. What my grandson is learning in 8th grade science hardly relates to what I was taught in 1959 8th grade science. My mother was taught that Neptune was the farthest planet from the sun. My daughter was taught the same thing (because she was in school when Pluto was inside of Neptune for a short period). My grandson is taught that one word answers usually require footnote that can run into several pages. I feel as outmoded as Pluto.

 

Cheers.. LOL

 

How many siliquae do you have so far MagMax?

 

Sorry MM Cheers!!

 

Not enough

 

Although the discussion may have gone off on a tangent, it has remained respectful and very informative. No need to lock it.

The point I was trying to make (possibly controversial to some but hopefully thought-provoking to many) is that the relationship between Christianity and the late Empire is more complicated and layered than had been previously taught.

I wrote about a another late Roman coin (Eugenius, ruled AD 392-394) and this very subject in a thread a few years back:

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/eugenius-numismatists-getting-the-evidence-wrong.238532/


By the way, I would also like to recommend Adrian Goldsworthy's
"How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower."

 

Politics makes strange bedfellows, that is why Eugenius was a pagan "sympathizer". His power base was in the still largely Pagan Italian peninsula, very much like Magnus Maximus a few years earlier.

 

The thread has gone off subject, and since the ancient coin section has been doing an excellent job in their classifications and related studies of different eras and coinage, it is somewhat detrimental for future searches by new members. The off subject material for the most part was low level, so I will close it before it goes farther. Although it might not help, authors might add a clause in the original post to "please stay on the specific subject as it is intended as a reference piece." But on topic discussion should be acceptable. Jim