Is Gibbon’s “The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire” Still Relevant?

The collector ^ | 21st July 2025 | Jessica Suess

[Ndorfin]

Anything by ZZ Topp is relevant!

[hinckley buzzard]

The focus on the Roman empire is natural due to its central place in the history of western civilization; but the fact is, all empires rise and fall, so Rome is not extraordinary in this respect. A more stable federal form of government of the provinces would have helped, and a systematic provision for succession as well.
Hard to remain strong when you have to have civil strife every time the emperor dies.

[Bigg Red]

mark

[Retain Mike]

Gibbon’s books had one important value for the US. Toward the end of the Revolution after Yorktown but before the peace treaty, George Washington’s officers in March 1783 were determined to confront the Continental Congress with a list of truly legitimate, morally imperative grievances this body had ignored.

Washington opposed this initiative, which for him was brought into focus by publication in 1776 of the first volume of Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He foresaw in this undertaking an outcome similar to successful generals of the empire leading their legions to Rome to prevent any meaningful expressions of the Roman Republic. The officers agreed at least to assemble to hear him once more.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Interesting

[Williams]

Very interesting. Thank you.

[PerConPat]

But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long.

Every time I read Gibbon's general exposition of causes for Rome's decline, I experience discomfort as to America's prospects. Our conquests have largely been in the world marketplace and global political intrigues.. But these have no less led to resentment from abroad.

Meanwhile, we are increasingly occupied with internal factionalism... Madison's great fear...I am feeling more uneasy now than I did as a kid during the hide-under-your-desk drills at school.

[Varda]

I’m not of the opinion that all history is lies or propaganda. Some people chronicle what arounds them better than others through their own cultural lens but some are not interested in facts at all. They are more interested in making non evidence based assertions. Researchers I respect say Gibbons was in the latter camp. It has occured to me that the culture of his time may not have been interested in facts either.

I have never been of the opinion that Gibbons’ tome was important to an “ educated person” .
There are many works that would be much more informative.

[ek_hornbeck]

Your quote from Gibbon was a strong influence (directly or indirectly) on later thinkers such as Carlyle, Adams, Nietzsche, and Spengler. All of them concluded that at their height, cultures are defined by a belief in hierarchy, the martial virtues, and social order, while civilizations in collapse abandon these in favor of egalitarian ideologies that protect or even favor the marginalized, the sick, and the weak.

There is little doubt that early Christianity in Rome, i.e. Pauline Christianity that taught the innate worth of every human being, no matter how despised and practically useless, was quite alien to the ethos of the Romans. It's for this reason that this aspect of Christian teachings had to be downplayed once Constantine adopted it as the religion of the empire, i.e. when it became the faith not just of the slaves and the poor, but of the nobility as well.

[Retain Mike]

Washington’s great biographer James Thomas Flexner relates what happened at the meeting.

“The commander in chief expressed ‘disapprobation of such disorderly proceedings’ (ad hoc mass meeting of officers) as the illegally called meeting. He summoned a meeting of his own for the following Saturday, March 15, 1783. This was probably the most important single gathering ever held in the United States. Supposing, as seemed only too possible, Washington should fail to prevent military intervention in civil government?

As he looked at his command, Washington appeared ‘sensibly agitated.’ For the first time since he had won the heart of the army at Cambridge, Washington saw in the faces of his officers not affection, not pleasure in his being present, but resentment, embarrassment, and in some cases anger.

‘If my conduct,’ Washington said, ‘heretofore had not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country; as I have never left your side one moment but when called from you on public duty; as I have been the common companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits; as I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army; as my heart has ever expanded with joy when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has risen when the mouth of distraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests.’ Washington paused to examine the faces before him: they were unmoved.

Washington then assured his hearers that it was ‘My decided opinion’ that Congress entertained ‘exalted sentiments of the services of the army’ and would, despite the slowness inherent in deliberative bodies, act justly. He urged the officers ‘ not to open the floodgates of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood…..you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of this glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, ‘had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.’

Washington had finished his speech, but the chill in the Temple had not thawed. He reached in his pocket for a letter from a member of Congress that showed what the body was trying to do…..The officers stirred impatiently in their seats, and then suddenly every heart missed a beat. Something was the matter with His Excellency. He seemed unable to read the paper. He paused in bewilderment. He fumbled in his waistcoat pocket. And then he pulled out something that only his intimates had seen him wear, a pair of glasses. With infinite sweetness and melancholy, he explained, ‘Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown grey but almost blind in service to my country.’

This simple statement achieved what all Washington’s rhetoric, and all his arguments had been unable to achieve. The officers were instantly in tears, and, from behind shining drops, their eyes looked with love at the commander who had led them so far.

Washington had saved the United States from tyranny and civil discord. As Jefferson was later to comment, The moderation and virtue of a single character probably prevented this Revolution from being closed, as most others had been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to establish’.”

[Cronos]

There is no such thing as Pauline Christianity. Paul taught what Jesus did.

Proof in point, the St Thomas Christian’s of south India have the same beliefs as the west.

The idea that paul created a different Christianity is something that Mohammedans use to disparage christianity

[ek_hornbeck]

Proof in point, the St Thomas Christian’s of south India have the same beliefs as the west

As Nestorians, the South Indian Thomasine Christians have very different beliefs about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ than the Western Christianity that grew out of the Council the Chalcedon (never mind the doctrinal differences that later emerged between Catholics and Orthodox). The Monophysite Churches of Ethiopia and the Middle East have their own interpretation distinct from both Western Christianity and the Thomasine Church of India.

So to claim that Christianity is monolithic among cultures and through time is simply false - beliefs and practices change with time, place, and culture. By Pauline Christianity, I'm referring specifically to Christianity as it was interpreted by its earliest believers in the Roman Empire, as opposed to its practice and interpretation as the official religion of the ruling class of that empire or in medieval kingdoms. Most of the early Christians were poor people on the margins of society, including slaves, so certainly their interpretation and use of the faith is different from Constantine's, never mind Charlemagne's centuries later.