I consider Gibbons conclusions as actually detrimental to both the study of the Roman Empire and to the west I'm general as this above extract is used by numerous Mohammedans to criticize Christianity
bkmk
Gibbon’s work is colored by an Enlightenment-era skepticism toward organized religion, particularly Catholicism, which he often portrays as superstitious, dogmatic, and detrimental to the Roman Empire’s stability:
Gibbon argues that Christianity undermined the Roman Empire by promoting pacifism, otherworldliness, and a rejection of civic virtues (e.g., Volume 1, Chapter 15). He suggests that the Church diverted resources and loyalty from the state to ecclesiastical concerns. This oversimplifies the complex socio-political factors of Rome’s decline—such as economic instability, barbarian invasions, and internal corruption—while scapegoating Christianity.
Historians, like Christopher Dawson (The Making of Europe), argue that the Church preserved Roman culture through its institutions, monasteries, and legal traditions, fostering continuity rather than collapse.
Gibbon romanticizes pagan Roman culture, implying that Christianity supplanted a vibrant religious system (Volume 1, Chapter 2). In reality, paganism was already declining due to internal inconsistencies and lack of institutional cohesion, as noted by scholars like Peter Brown (The World of Late Antiquity).
Gibbon’s deistic leanings lead him to view miracles and divine providence with skepticism, dismissing accounts in Christian sources like Eusebius or Lactantius as fabrications (Volume 1, Chapter 15). Catholic theology, rooted in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, holds that divine intervention is compatible with historical events. Gibbon’s rejection of the supernatural distorts his analysis of Christianity’s appeal and influence.
Gibbon’s focus on the Western Roman Empire’s fall overlooks the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, where Christianity and imperial authority coexisted for centuries. This omission undermines his thesis, as the Eastern Church’s integration with the state, as described by scholars like John Meyendorff (Byzantine Theology), suggests Christianity was not inherently destructive to empire.
Gibbons is pretty good at reconstructing the dynamics at work in the Roman Empire but some of his conclusions are a bit off.
Not sure that Christianity weakened the empire as much as he claims but it did add one further division into an already collapsing system and the pure Christianity of the time was badly at odds with the violence and warfare of the pagan world at the time.
Christianity prevailed, but at a high cost
Western Civilization was the end result of this process and it worked out pretty good until we destroyed it
I have heard archeologists say that Gibbons is considered worthless as far as his conclusions but very valuable for his collection of historical references, which he ignored in drawing his conclusions.
We have an ancestor mentioned during the crusades in the collection so I bought a set.
I think it is still relevant, but not in every way as you rightly point out.
BTW, IIRC, Gibbons was a raging Tory and was not in any way friendly to the American Revolution, but I know he was a man of his time in England.
It is a useful book, though, but shouldn’t be swallowed wholly...anymore. It once was.
It’s still essential reading, if only for its literary merit, which is unsurpassed.
Not sure who said every great library includes a full set of Gibbons - unread.
The people who cherry pick one of his descriptions and debate whether he was right or wrong are wasting our time.
Gibbons Decline is the greatest history and the greatest description of the human condition ever written.
It’s massive and covers approx. 1500 years of history. Therein he unleashes hundreds of truisms on behavior.
If he discussed religion as a contributing factor to the fall of Rome, he also discussed it softening the fall.
As for using him to defend Islam, that would be extremely difficult for anyone who reads the history of Islam in his massive work.
Decline is endlessly full of human and epic stories and you read and can’t imagine they haven’t been turned into great movies.
The EurAsian horse tribes are rarely mentioned in connection with the fall of both the Western Roman Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire a thousand years later.
These horse tribes coming out of the Steppe had an enormous impact on all of Europe’s history, constantly pillaging Eastern and Central Europe, not unlike the rampages of the Vikings in the West a thousand years later.
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.
mark
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.
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.
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.