Talk:The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Zoroastrianism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Zoroastrianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History High‑importance History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Low‑importance Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 4.

No mention of modern scholarship

I think the article should mention a little bit more that Gibbon's work has fallen out of favor, and is not really considered an accurate work of history. The way it currently reads may give off the impression that it is. Rousillon (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be rewritten by a historian who does not have a religious ax to grind.

I just finished reading Decline and Fall. It took years, but I enjoyed it. I had been told, before I started, that Gibbon said that Christianity caused the Fall. I did not find that anywhere in the book I read. Rather, it seems to me that Gibbon is critical of all religion, that he (like many modern historians) considers stories of miracles to be fables, and considers the constant quarrels within a religion and between religions to be the cause of many of the problems faced by the Roman Empire, particularly toward the end. Further, this belief seems to me obviously correct.

One reading of Gibbon does not give me the expertise to edit this article, but I would like to see an edit by a serious historian who does not focus on either attacking or defending Christianity. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...

It's not often that I criticize an article in its entirety. This evening I decided to dip into the famed tomes for the first time and came here to see what I might expect. What I didn't expect was a torrent of mealy-mouthed, one-sided sniping from the gallery. Having been an editor on WP for 14 years, it's easy for me to recognise a decently-written and reffed article, even if it doesn't have a a gold star or a green plus, and this certainly ain't one of them. This is what happens to articles about Palestine or Serbia if they are not protected: it's an excellent candidate for WP:Blow it up and start over. It's been a while since I was so disappointed by an article about a well-known work of literature or history. Quite frankly, what a load of old wank. MinorProphet (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

O.S. ?

The Everyman edition has useful footnotes from an editor calling himself O.S. But the volume does not identify O.S. Any idea? Thanks. 205.189.187.4 (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]