Paul was not a Roman Citizen.

[outhouse]

Please try to understand my skepticism, when I am told that it is impossible to conceive of Paul as a citizen.

I dont think one person here would put a dollar down that Paul wasnt a roman citizen.

They just think your arguements are flawed

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Gibbon has quite a reputation.

So does Newton. He is attributed with founding/inventing/discovering calculus (along with Leibniz). Much of 20th century mathematics is in dept to his work. Yet it was incomplete. Calculus revolves around limits, and we had to wait another 2 centuries for a usable formal definition. It's not that what Newton wrote about integration or derivatives was wrong, just inadequate and incomplete. And so much work has been done since his time, he isn't an authority.

who needs not a single, significant factual correction, despite the limitations he faced in 1776

Not a one. Mostly because all the factual problems have already been dealt with over and over again. For example: "As the advocate of the pagan Antonine age, Gibbon never misses an opportunity to point out the fatal weaknesses in the new state, and to excoriate the first Christian emperor. The new capitol, founded at Byzantium, is often regarded as the crowning political achievement of Constantine's reign, a stroke of genius that created the necessary preconditions for the survival of Rome in the East. Gibbon considers it the work of a pusillanimous emperor willing to sacrifice the old Rome in order to erect a monument to his own glory. The seperation of the military from the civil service--again considered a much needed reform--"relaxed the vigour of the state, while it secured the tranquility of the monarch" [quoted from Gibbon]. Constantine's distinction between the borderers, or frontier troops, and the palentines, or garrison troups, fatally undermined the military discipline of the Empire. For Gibbon all these reforms are "the mortal wound which had been so rashly or so weakly inflicted by the hand of Constantine" [quoted from Gibbon]. They sapped the strength and vitality of the Empire "till the last moment of its dissolution." [quoted from gibbon]. These judgments on Constantine's reforms are intemperate. His attack on the military reforms, for example, has little basis in fact."
from D. P. Jordan (1969) "Gibbon's 'Age of Constantine' and the Fall of Rome" History and Theory 8(1), pp. 76-77.

goes on to discard an authoritative historian like Gibbon, it does not compute.

Again, on what do you base the claim that Gibbon is considered authoritative?

 

[Pragmatist]

Again, on what do you base the claim that Gibbon is considered authoritative?

He is authoritative in this sense: I can quote his facts, and I have a reasonable assurance that his facts will be true. You seem to support me on this:

Not a one...

Not a single factual correction of a significant nature? Very impressive, for 1776. This is a paradigm setting masterpiece in its genre.

...Mostly because all the factual problems have already been dealt with over and over again.

This makes Gibbon even more impressive. It has been gone over in detail "over and over again," and still there are no errors?

Now, sir, I must sincerely thank you for an attempt at substantive criticism:

[...] "The new capitol, founded at Byzantium, is often regarded as the crowning political achievement of Constantine's reign, a stroke of genius that created the necessary preconditions for the survival of Rome in the East.

That sound accurate.

Gibbon considers it the work of a pusillanimous emperor willing to sacrifice the old Rome in order to erect a monument to his own glory.

That also sounds accurate. Human motivations are complex; why is it impossible to combine the two things in one human soul: political genius, sweeping foresight, on the one hand, and on the other, pusillanimous and selfish motives? People are complex. It sounds to me like your source (D. P. Jordan, "Gibbon's 'Age of Constantine' and the Fall of Rome") merely fills out the picture, and does not invalidate Gibbon at all.

The seperation of the military from the civil service--again considered a much needed reform--"relaxed the vigour of the state, while it secured the tranquility of the monarch" [quoted from Gibbon].

Excellent! Actual knowledge of the subject is demonstrated here, as opposed to "that's from 1776, so does not require my attention." I almost remember, through the cloud of a decade or more, Gibbon's picture of the tension between the civil and the military spheres, how this tension was at once the source of Rome's energy, and the ultimate cause of her downfall.

Constantine's distinction between the borderers, or frontier troops, and the palentines, or garrison troups, fatally undermined the military discipline of the Empire. For Gibbon all these reforms are "the mortal wound which had been so rashly or so weakly inflicted by the hand of Constantine" [quoted from Gibbon].

Very impressive.

Once again, I don't see any contradiction between the two positions; in fact, they compliment each other. Surely, this tension between the "palentines" and the frontier troops was very real.

As Edmund Burke famously observed, often politics is not a choice between the greater of two goods, but between the lesser of two evils. Gibbon draws the distinction with great clarity, and that makes him useful: Rome was faced with a choice, between the frontier, and the core. Which ever choice you make is a disaster, because each choice will set in motion an inexorable chain of disastrous events.

They sapped the strength and vitality of the Empire "till the last moment of its dissolution." [quoted from gibbon].

Are you saying that this vitality sucking factor was something unreal, something dreamed up by Gibbon? I doubt you are. You are only agreeing with the quoted author, who is saying that Gibbon exaggerated this factor, and made it out to be more important than it actually was. Perhaps this author is right, but, still, whether exaggerated or not, this factor was real. If a student wanted to learn about this frontier/core dynamic, The Decline And Fall would be a good place to start.

But you guys actually discourage reading of Gibbon. This paradigm setting authority has never made one single factual error, and still it asserted that to read him would be a waste of time. Why? Because it is old. At least Legion is actually quoting the author in his attack.

These judgments on Constantine's reforms are intemperate. His attack on the military reforms, for example, has little basis in fact."

I disagree that there is little basis for Gibbon's assertions in fact. If he was that free and careless with the facts, then there would be one or two serious factual errors that you guys would have already been thrown in my face. The fact that there are no such serious mistakes leads me to believe that Gibbon had great respect for the facts, and should be treated as an authority.

Perhaps it can be said that some of Gibbon's judgments are intemperate, but it should never be said that they are based on mistaken or made-up facts.

In fact, I think the authority of Gibbon, in relation to the field of historical research, should be rated no lower than Newton's, in relation to Physics. You seem to agree with this:

...He is attributed with founding/inventing/discovering calculus (along with Leibniz). Much of 20th century mathematics is in dept to his work. Yet it was incomplete. Calculus revolves around limits, and we had to wait another 2 centuries for a usable formal definition. It's not that what Newton wrote about integration or derivatives was wrong, just inadequate and incomplete. And so much work has been done since his time, he isn't an authority.

Yes, he is. Without Newton, there is no Physics in the modern sense. Without Gibbon, no modern History. Both are essential to an understanding of the subject. Hence, both are authorities.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Not a single factual correction of a significant nature? Very impressive, for 1776. This is a paradigm setting masterpiece in its genre.



This makes Gibbon even more impressive. It has been gone over in detail "over and over again," and still there are no errors?

You misunderstand me. All the errors in his book, large and small, have been dealt with beginning in Gibbon's own day, who reacted to critics at the time. Using Gibbon to understand Roman history is (again) like using Newton to understand Calculus.

Once again, I don't see any contradiction between the two positions; in fact, they compliment each other. Surely, this tension between the "palentines" and the frontier troops was very real.

You should read the whole quote through, as it is all one point: Gibbon's desire to "excoriate" Constantine led him not only to regard reforms generally considered today to have been anywhere from "good" or "needed" to "genius" as bad, but he also spent some time in his eloquent way and usual rhetorical flourish lambasting Constantine's decisions without reason (other than his distaste for Constantine and that period and his love for the earlier age). In what I quoted, Jordan mentions two such instances: the move to Byzantium and the military reforms, one considered a move which allowed the Empire to last (at least in the East) for a much longer period, the other a "much needed" decision. In both cases, Gibbon is at odds with modern historians, and Jordan's point is that the reason for his error here is his bias.

Without Newton, there is no Physics in the modern sense. Without Gibbon, no modern History.

Without Herodotus, there would probably be no modern history. Being a founder of a field, discipline, or sub-discipline is different than being an authority. Without guys like Frege, Boole, and Turing we wouldn't have modern computer science. That doesn't make them authorities, because computers weren't around during their day. An authority on a subject is somebody whose work and knowledge of the field today is recognized by that field. Everybody recognizes that people like Newton were essential to the development of modern physics. Nobody looks to such individuals as authorities. There work is simply to dated and too much work has been done since that time. We have a much, much, much, better understanding of what the Roman empire looked like at the macro and micro level than was possible in Gibbon's day. We know far more about religious movements, daily life, city life and local customs, etc., than was possible in Gibbon's day.

Both are essential to an understanding of the subject

No. Both WERE essential, and Newton's equations are still used (some of them). But they aren't essential anymore. How many physicists do you think read Newton? How many historians do you think actually use Gibbon to understand Roman history? The answer to that second question is: none. One could understand Roman history far better than Gibbon and never read a word he wrote. Same with Newton. They aren't essential to an understanding of their subjects, but to early influence. Relying on them now just undoes 200 years of scholarship/research.

 

[Pragmatist]

You should read the whole quote through, as it is all one point: Gibbon's desire to "excoriate" Constantine led him not only to regard reforms generally considered today to have been anywhere from "good" or "needed" to "genius" as bad, but he also spent some time in his eloquent way and usual rhetorical flourish lambasting Constantine's decisions without reason (other than his distaste for Constantine and that period and his love for the earlier age). In what I quoted, Jordan mentions two such instances: the move to Byzantium and the military reforms, one considered a move which allowed the Empire to last (at least in the East) for a much longer period, the other a "much needed" decision. In both cases, Gibbon is at odds with modern historians, and Jordan's point is that the reason for his error here is his bias.

It looks like I might have experienced some confusion when chopping your quote up into separate sentences. It is certainly a substantive critique. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it is something concrete (for a change).

Does Gibbon unfairly excoriate Constantine? I'm willing to admit the possibility. Was he moved by prejudice to criticize reforms that in hindsight actually deserve praise, was he carried away by his enthusiasm for eloquence and rhetorical flourishes? Perhaps. Even great scientists can suffer from prejudice.

It is a complex question. These kind of historical judgments are very problematic. It is difficult to decide on the wisdom and efficacy of certain policy decisions that are much less distant from us in time (the Vietnam War, Social Security, etc.), when we have much fresher information and many more sources to sift through. Sometimes it actually helps to let time pass, to let the party politics subside, to achieve a proper detachment. But I don't think this is one of those cases.

The party politics involved in this specific question will never subside. Everyone who critiques Gibbon's take on Constantine has to be, at least initially, suspected of a pro-Christian bias. Everyone, like me, who puts his faith in Gibbon's judgments, particularly these anti-Constantine ones, has to be suspected of some kind of anti-Christian bias. Gibbon himself falls under this cloud of suspicion.

I probably can't answer the question. I am reluctant to issue an opinion on a complex question concerning government policy (which always involves unintended consequences), until after a deep study of the problem.

I do know this, however: Gibbon has made a deep study of the problem. He was surely more informed on the subject than I can ever hope to be. You may assert that essential sources were not available in 1776, but I doubt you can claim that he was ignorant of the sources that were available.

And I am automatically skeptical of any claim that he asserted anything significant in any way, let alone a judgment on an important subject like this

"...without reason (other than his distaste for Constantine and that period and his love for the earlier age)."

I find it almost impossible to believe that Gibbon asserted anything "without reason," and more importantly, without an appeal to evidence-based reasoning. You could maybe assert that the reasoning is wrong, that the evidence is wrong, but certainly you cannot assert it is nonexistent. That's not the impression I carried away.

To further complicate the issue, these kinds of opinions and judgments on the decisions of government, even when they seem to conflict, they often simply reveal different aspects and nuances of the problem. Perhaps the move to Byzantium was indeed "the crowning political achievement of Constantine's reign, a stroke of genius that created the necessary preconditions for the survival of Rome in the East." But, that doesn't necessarily answer the question of Constantine's motives, which may still have been "the work of a pusillanimous emperor willing to sacrifice the old Rome in order to erect a monument to his own glory." I am inclined to trust Gibbon's reading of his character, but it is still possible he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, so to speak.

The military "reforms" seem very problematic to my poorly informed eye. If a result of the reform was a strengthening of "the borderers, or frontier troops" at the expense of "the palentines, or garrison troops," then I have to say, yes, on the face of it, Gibbon is right. I would expect these palentines to be better soldiers, more invested in the success of the Empire, with better discipline. The borderers sound a lot like mercenaries, and there will always be certain irreducible problems with the use of such troops.

This debate was not definitively closed by D. P. Jordan in 1969. It reminds me of the change-over in American foreign policy, which followed in the wake of Vietnam, from a draft army to an all-volunteer army. Personally, I think the wars of a republic should be fought by the rank and file citizenry, instead of professional military men. But, that is just my opinion, and Jordan's judgment on the military reforms of Constantine is also an opinion (just like Gibbon's).

Before making a more solid judgment, I would want to study the military campaigns of Rome, from both before and after the reform. I would like to know, when Jordan asserts that "[Gibbon's] attack on the military reforms... has little basis in fact," is he saying that Gibbon was ignorant of the military history of Rome? Did he misrepresent this history in any way, spin certain military successes as failures, just to make Rome's post-reform military performance look worse than it really was? Is there some important source of information on this performance which he overlooked, or deliberately passed over in silence? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I would expect the opposite: if one was seeking a deeper answer to this question, Gibbon would be an excellent place to begin, because I would imagine that he contains quotes or citations from all the relevant literary sources. I'd like you to name me one he missed.

Now, this post has already become disgustingly long, but I have to address our Newton analogy, and try to correct your somewhat mistaken idea of what constitutes an "authority" in a given field, and how these authorities are used. I am honestly grateful for these thoughtful, though erroneous, criticisms, because reflection on them helps me clarify my own position.

Okay, first of all, Newton. Newton maybe isn't much of an authority in mathematics, but he is absolutely an authority in Physics, arguably the central authority.

For example, to solve any problem in celestial mechanics, unless the velocities approach the speed of light, to even pose these problems, is to use the reasoning of Newton himself. Have the methods of calculation changed? Of course. Newton didn't use the basic Leibniz notation, let alone supercomputers. But the fundamental assumptions on which these calculations are based are exactly the same.

There is an important reason that a professional physicist, say a guy cranking out orbital trajectories on some computer at NASA, doesn't necessarily sit around reading Newton in his off time. The method described in Newton he already knows intimately and applies every day at work. Once again, I stress that he does not use the same method of calculation; that has changed radically. But the method of reasoning that controls these calculations has changed in no significant detail.

That doesn't mean there is something wrong with this NASA guy picking up Newton in his off time. How can it hurt him? He might even gain new insight from the old expression of the method. Einstein gained tremendously from his reflections on Newton, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he was familiar with Newton in the original Latin.

There is no central authority in historical reasoning that serves a function comparable to the role played by Newton in Physics. When I assert that Gibbon remains an authority, I do not mean to assert that he is a central, controlling authority across all the sub-fields of historical research, and it is deeply unfair to say that I am. I recognize the fact that these are completely different fields of thought. It seems to me that the historian's job is so varied that it is difficult to speak of a single, unified field at all. What is the connecting link between a battle historian like S.L.A. Marshal or Keith Nolan, the statistical analysis of a Fernand Braudel, or the "story telling" method of a Henry Adams or Gibbon--except that all seek to understand the past. There is no single, controlling methodology, let alone one authority.

It seems to me that the historian has a duty to read everything relevant on the subject. So, when I am actively told to avoid Gibbon, that I shouldn't base any of my thinking upon him (even though his facts are admitted to be accurate), I start to get suspicious.

There has been concern expressed that one could, for example, form an inaccurate opinion of Constantine's reforms, from reading Gibbon (the one solid criticism, so far). I'm sure the facts will be accurate, but the opinion based on those facts might be wrong; I admit it. An excellent way to find out would begin with a careful reading of Gibbon.

Take the specific question of the military reforms: were they "good" or "bad"? If they were bad, then I presume it was because they had a negative impact on military performance. Well, that is a question that could be looked into, and I would expect that Gibbon was intimately familiar with this subject (the military history of Rome), and his comments on it will be exhaustively and accurately sourced. There's your list of source material. I seriously doubt this list has any significant additions since 1776.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It looks like I might have experienced some confusion when chopping your quote up into separate sentences. It is certainly a substantive critique. I'm not saying that I agree with it

But on what basis would you agree or disagree with a critque of Gibbon? You claim his work is authoritative (but don't back up this assertion with references within modern classical or romanist scholarship) and ask anyone who disagrees to show where he errs. Only it isn't necessary for him to have made factual errors (he did) only for scholarship to have progressed so much since his day that his account is no longer relevant. That's why I used the analogy of Newton and calculus (not physics) because it isn't necessary for Newton to have been factually incorrect to make his work irrelevant for learning calculus today. There is just too much missing, too much work since his time. By citing Gibbon as authoritative, you are basically saying that classical/romanist/hellenistic scholarship hasn't progressed much in over 2 centuries. This is quite a claim, and you have yet to say on what your judgment is based.

The party politics involved in this specific question will never subside. Everyone who critiques Gibbon's take on Constantine has to be, at least initially, suspected of a pro-Christian bias.

Why? Again, quite a claim.

Everyone, like me, who puts his faith in Gibbon's judgments

And who among professional historians does this?

You could maybe assert that the reasoning is wrong, that the evidence is wrong, but certainly you cannot assert it is nonexistent.

I didn't. I quoted an article from a peer-reviewed journal by a modern scholar.

This debate was not definitively closed by D. P. Jordan in 1969.

What debate? You are the only one I've met who asserts that Gibbon's work should still be used to understand Roman history, rather than respected for the influential, groundbreaking work it was. The debate about Gibbon has long ago ceased to be about the accuracy of his work, and is now about the man and the work together. In other words, historians who deal with Gibbon treat him and his work as a relic of history; a subject for historical inquiry, not a source for history.

But the method of reasoning that controls these calculations has changed in no significant detail.

The "method of reasoning" was around before Newton.

It seems to me that the historian's job is so varied that it is difficult to speak of a single, unified field at all.

Yet there are many.

It seems to me that the historian has a duty to read everything relevant on the subject. So, when I am actively told to avoid Gibbon, that I shouldn't base any of my thinking upon him (even though his facts are admitted to be accurate), I start to get suspicious.

Gibbon is no longer relevant. Everything he wrote has been dealt with repeatedly since his day. No historian can read "everything ever written about rome" or even "everything since gibbon". There's too much. Luckily, they don't have to.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is the first time I've encounter a Gibbonite. I find myself recalling the no doubt unrelated fact that 'monkey chatter' is defined as ...

The noise that comes from a person's mouth when they go on and on about nothing or when a person simply seem to talk to hear their own voice. [source]​

 

[Pragmatist]

But on what basis would you agree or disagree with a critque of Gibbon?...

Good question. Errors of fact are specifically what I'm looking for. Certain kinds of error are inexcusable: quoting out of context, neglecting material that you are familiar with, just because it erodes your argument, instead of dealing with it directly like a man, etc.. If it could be shown that Gibbon made such an error, I would drop him like a hot potato.

Then there are more excusable errors. Material which you didn't have access to suddenly becomes available, but only years after your lifetime, and it invalidates your efforts. I've yet to hear one example of this type. If such an example could be provided, I would rethink my opinion. I wouldn't necessarily drop him completely; perhaps he could be relegated to an "entertaining work of literature," instead of what I truly believe him to be: a reliable sourcebook of historical facts, and a paradigm for the proper method of historical investigation.

I refuse to believe that Gibbon is as antiquated and useless as has been suggested, until someone can provide a solid example. Just one example, of intellectual dishonesty, of distortion of facts, of revolutionary new material that Gibbon did not have which now invalidates his thinking, just one thing, anything, and I would drop it.

Only it isn't necessary for him to have made factual errors (he did) only for scholarship to have progressed so much since his day that his account is no longer relevant.

What errors? Give me an example of such an error.

And by the way, what are these stunning developments in scholarship that invalidate his thought? Do you mean the fact that some guy in 1969 criticized Gibbon's opinion of Constantine? All that proves to me is that assertions of Gibbon were still being actively debated as recently as 1969, which almost invalidates the ridiculous idea that Gibbon is no longer "relevant" in the modern era.

What debate? You are the only one I've met who asserts that Gibbon's work should still be used to understand Roman history, rather than respected for the influential, groundbreaking work it was. The debate about Gibbon has long ago ceased to be about the accuracy of his work, and is now about the man and the work together. In other words, historians who deal with Gibbon treat him and his work as a relic of history; a subject for historical inquiry, not a source for history.

The debate I referred to was not about how "Gibbon's work should still be used to understand Roman history," but about Constantine's military reforms, and whether they were a good idea. You quoted some guy who said these reforms were good, in order to attack Gibbon's opinion of the reforms. I'm saying that Gibbon's opinion was right: the reforms were bad. The debate is primarily over the reforms, and only secondarily over the opinions of scholars like Gibbon and Jordan.

By the way, this reflexive dismissal of Gibbon reminds me of the reflexive inability to imagine Paul as a Roman citizen.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you have a point - beyond Gibbonphilia that is?

If not, I'm sure you could start a fan club thread in a more appropriate forum ... maybe The Arts or Entertainment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Gibbon has quite a reputation.

Unfortunately his reputation is not a good one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is the first time I've encounter a Gibbonite. I find myself recalling the no doubt unrelated fact that 'monkey chatter' is defined as ...

The noise that comes from a person's mouth when they go on and on about nothing or when a person simply seem to talk to hear their own voice. [source]​

Me too! :biglaugh:

One reason for this is that we are not living in the late 18th century.

 

[outhouse]

OK so heres a little twist.


"saul of Tarsus" is a roman/greek way of placing a jewish name


if he was a real jew, would he not use his given name and his fathers name, instead of the roman pronounciation, "Saul of Tarsus" and then changing his name even more greek going to Paul since he was mainly preaching to gentiles????????

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK so heres a little twist.


"saul of Tarsus" is a roman/greek way of placing a jewish name


if he was a real jew, would he not use his given name and his fathers name, instead of the roman pronounciation, "Saul of Tarsus" and then changing his name even more greek going to Paul since he was mainly preaching to gentiles????????

Paul never calls himself "Saul of Tarsus."

He doesn't even mention Tarsus at all in his epistles.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Good question. Errors of fact are specifically what I'm looking for. Certain kinds of error are inexcusable: quoting out of context, neglecting material that you are familiar with, just because it erodes your argument, instead of dealing with it directly like a man, etc.. If it could be shown that Gibbon made such an error, I would drop him like a hot potato.

Then you can't evaluate any "history," especially one as fanciful as Gibbon.

I refuse to believe that Gibbon is as antiquated and useless as has been suggested, until someone can provide a solid example. Just one example, of intellectual dishonesty, of distortion of facts, of revolutionary new material that Gibbon did not have which now invalidates his thinking, just one thing, anything, and I would drop it.

You simply have no argument here. Gibbon is more than 200 years old. That is antiquated.

What errors? Give me an example of such an error.

No. You are unqualified for such a discussion. I'll elect not to waste my time (and yours) on proving Gibbons wrong. Nobody else does that, and I'm not about to start.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It looks like I might have experienced some confusion when chopping your quote up into separate sentences. It is certainly a substantive critique. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but it is something concrete (for a change).

Does Gibbon unfairly excoriate Constantine? I'm willing to admit the possibility. Was he moved by prejudice to criticize reforms that in hindsight actually deserve praise, was he carried away by his enthusiasm for eloquence and rhetorical flourishes? Perhaps. Even great scientists can suffer from prejudice.

It is a complex question. These kind of historical judgments are very problematic. It is difficult to decide on the wisdom and efficacy of certain policy decisions that are much less distant from us in time (the Vietnam War, Social Security, etc.), when we have much fresher information and many more sources to sift through. Sometimes it actually helps to let time pass, to let the party politics subside, to achieve a proper detachment. But I don't think this is one of those cases.

The party politics involved in this specific question will never subside. Everyone who critiques Gibbon's take on Constantine has to be, at least initially, suspected of a pro-Christian bias. Everyone, like me, who puts his faith in Gibbon's judgments, particularly these anti-Constantine ones, has to be suspected of some kind of anti-Christian bias. Gibbon himself falls under this cloud of suspicion.

I probably can't answer the question. I am reluctant to issue an opinion on a complex question concerning government policy (which always involves unintended consequences), until after a deep study of the problem.

I do know this, however: Gibbon has made a deep study of the problem. He was surely more informed on the subject than I can ever hope to be. You may assert that essential sources were not available in 1776, but I doubt you can claim that he was ignorant of the sources that were available.

And I am automatically skeptical of any claim that he asserted anything significant in any way, let alone a judgment on an important subject like this



I find it almost impossible to believe that Gibbon asserted anything "without reason," and more importantly, without an appeal to evidence-based reasoning. You could maybe assert that the reasoning is wrong, that the evidence is wrong, but certainly you cannot assert it is nonexistent. That's not the impression I carried away.

To further complicate the issue, these kinds of opinions and judgments on the decisions of government, even when they seem to conflict, they often simply reveal different aspects and nuances of the problem. Perhaps the move to Byzantium was indeed "the crowning political achievement of Constantine's reign, a stroke of genius that created the necessary preconditions for the survival of Rome in the East." But, that doesn't necessarily answer the question of Constantine's motives, which may still have been "the work of a pusillanimous emperor willing to sacrifice the old Rome in order to erect a monument to his own glory." I am inclined to trust Gibbon's reading of his character, but it is still possible he did the right thing for the wrong reasons, so to speak.

The military "reforms" seem very problematic to my poorly informed eye. If a result of the reform was a strengthening of "the borderers, or frontier troops" at the expense of "the palentines, or garrison troops," then I have to say, yes, on the face of it, Gibbon is right. I would expect these palentines to be better soldiers, more invested in the success of the Empire, with better discipline. The borderers sound a lot like mercenaries, and there will always be certain irreducible problems with the use of such troops.

This debate was not definitively closed by D. P. Jordan in 1969. It reminds me of the change-over in American foreign policy, which followed in the wake of Vietnam, from a draft army to an all-volunteer army. Personally, I think the wars of a republic should be fought by the rank and file citizenry, instead of professional military men. But, that is just my opinion, and Jordan's judgment on the military reforms of Constantine is also an opinion (just like Gibbon's).

Before making a more solid judgment, I would want to study the military campaigns of Rome, from both before and after the reform. I would like to know, when Jordan asserts that "[Gibbon's] attack on the military reforms... has little basis in fact," is he saying that Gibbon was ignorant of the military history of Rome? Did he misrepresent this history in any way, spin certain military successes as failures, just to make Rome's post-reform military performance look worse than it really was? Is there some important source of information on this performance which he overlooked, or deliberately passed over in silence? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I would expect the opposite: if one was seeking a deeper answer to this question, Gibbon would be an excellent place to begin, because I would imagine that he contains quotes or citations from all the relevant literary sources. I'd like you to name me one he missed.

Now, this post has already become disgustingly long, but I have to address our Newton analogy, and try to correct your somewhat mistaken idea of what constitutes an "authority" in a given field, and how these authorities are used. I am honestly grateful for these thoughtful, though erroneous, criticisms, because reflection on them helps me clarify my own position.

Okay, first of all, Newton. Newton maybe isn't much of an authority in mathematics, but he is absolutely an authority in Physics, arguably the central authority.

For example, to solve any problem in celestial mechanics, unless the velocities approach the speed of light, to even pose these problems, is to use the reasoning of Newton himself. Have the methods of calculation changed? Of course. Newton didn't use the basic Leibniz notation, let alone supercomputers. But the fundamental assumptions on which these calculations are based are exactly the same.

There is an important reason that a professional physicist, say a guy cranking out orbital trajectories on some computer at NASA, doesn't necessarily sit around reading Newton in his off time. The method described in Newton he already knows intimately and applies every day at work. Once again, I stress that he does not use the same method of calculation; that has changed radically. But the method of reasoning that controls these calculations has changed in no significant detail.

That doesn't mean there is something wrong with this NASA guy picking up Newton in his off time. How can it hurt him? He might even gain new insight from the old expression of the method. Einstein gained tremendously from his reflections on Newton, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he was familiar with Newton in the original Latin.

There is no central authority in historical reasoning that serves a function comparable to the role played by Newton in Physics. When I assert that Gibbon remains an authority, I do not mean to assert that he is a central, controlling authority across all the sub-fields of historical research, and it is deeply unfair to say that I am. I recognize the fact that these are completely different fields of thought. It seems to me that the historian's job is so varied that it is difficult to speak of a single, unified field at all. What is the connecting link between a battle historian like S.L.A. Marshal or Keith Nolan, the statistical analysis of a Fernand Braudel, or the "story telling" method of a Henry Adams or Gibbon--except that all seek to understand the past. There is no single, controlling methodology, let alone one authority.

It seems to me that the historian has a duty to read everything relevant on the subject. So, when I am actively told to avoid Gibbon, that I shouldn't base any of my thinking upon him (even though his facts are admitted to be accurate), I start to get suspicious.

There has been concern expressed that one could, for example, form an inaccurate opinion of Constantine's reforms, from reading Gibbon (the one solid criticism, so far). I'm sure the facts will be accurate, but the opinion based on those facts might be wrong; I admit it. An excellent way to find out would begin with a careful reading of Gibbon.

Take the specific question of the military reforms: were they "good" or "bad"? If they were bad, then I presume it was because they had a negative impact on military performance. Well, that is a question that could be looked into, and I would expect that Gibbon was intimately familiar with this subject (the military history of Rome), and his comments on it will be exhaustively and accurately sourced. There's your list of source material. I seriously doubt this list has any significant additions since 1776.

This is beginning to make sense.

He thinks that Newton is central to physics.

Gibbon is authoritative on Roman history.

Did you go to school in the early 1800s? It's highly unusual to encounter someone so far behind.

 

[outhouse]

Paul never calls himself "Saul of Tarsus."

He doesn't even mention Tarsus at all in his epistles.

ya I thought about it aftewards

if romans were talking about him "they" would use the greek method.



But does paul ever use a jewish name with his given name and fathers ??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Errors of fact are specifically what I'm looking for.

Why? This is what continually baffles me. Why are you starting from the assumption that Gibbon is authoritative unless someone can show you enough errors? It's bizarre. Where does this idea that Gibbon should be considered authoritative (as opposed to hundreds of other historians who have also written histories of the roman empire)? Or that he is considered as such by actual experts of roman history?

If it could be shown that Gibbon made such an error, I would drop him like a hot potato.

I did. I provided you with such an error, and then you acted as if this was some area of contention. "The debate doesn't end here" as if anybody but you is debating that Gibbon is an authority. Historians no longer treat Gibbon as a source for history, but as an object for historical study (what motivated him to write the way that he did, what biases were involved with what conclusions, etc). Take a look at Barbarism and Religion (volumes 1 through 5), a series "intended to exhibit Edward Gibbon and his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in historical contexts which they belong...." In the third volume (part VI) Pocock begins to actually talk about the text. Five volumes just to explain to the modern reader why Gibbon wrote what he did in the way that he did. Whatever debates are occuring among historians about Gibbon, it isn't concerning "facts" because nobody is concerned (except you) with using Gibbon or whether or not Gibbon should be used.

I've yet to hear one example of this type.

His entire approach to historiography is considered unsound. Those sweeping narratives which seek to explain such diverse and complicated events over vast periods of time and space under a few themes are no longer considered valid by historians.

If such an example could be provided, I would rethink my opinion.

Why is this your opinion in the first place? Who informed you that Gibbon is an authoritative source to be trusted? Why not start reading modern academic accounts of Roman history by scholars in the field today?

I refuse to believe that Gibbon is as antiquated and useless as has been suggested, until someone can provide a solid example.

I did. I quoted to you from a scholar writing in a modern, respected, reviewed journal, who stated that, for example, Gibbon's attacks on Constantine's military reforms has "little to no basis in fact." Your response?

I disagree that there is little basis for Gibbon's assertions in fact. If he was that free and careless with the facts, then there would be one or two serious factual errors that you guys would have already been thrown in my face.

So you disagree that Gibbon's errors here are accurate because...we would've shown you more earlier? What you don't seem to realize is how bizzare you sound to those who have studied Roman history extensively.

revolutionary new material that Gibbon did not have which now invalidates his thinking, just one thing,

Modern historiography.

Do you mean the fact that some guy in 1969 criticized Gibbon's opinion of Constantine? All that proves to me is that assertions of Gibbon were still being actively debated as recently as 1969, which almost invalidates the ridiculous idea that Gibbon is no longer "relevant" in the modern era.

You still don't get it. The point of the paper wasn't about the errors, but the reason behind them. When historians talk about Gibbon, they are talking about him as a subject of history: why did he make X mistake, X assumption, write so much about X, come to X conclusion about Y, etc. He's a part of the history of historiography, but no longer a useable source for historical evidence.

The debate is primarily over the reforms, and only secondarily over the opinions of scholars like Gibbon and Jordan.

What scholars have you read? Where are you getting your ideas about roman history and roman historians?

By the way, this reflexive dismissal of Gibbon reminds me of the reflexive inability to imagine Paul as a Roman citizen.

And you're die hard reluctance to part with Gibbon is akin to a religious devotion to a text. I'm not "reflexively" dismissing anything. I've spent years reading Greco-roman scholarship (and years studying the primary sources in Latin and Greek).

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who informed you that Gibbon is an authoritative source to be trusted?

Gibbon.

Obviously.

 

[Pragmatist]

...I'm not "reflexively" dismissing anything...

Except Gibbon. He, of course, can be easily dismissed, without effort, without thought, for this easy reason... wait, there is no real reason. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to dismiss an obvious authority like Gibbon unless I can be given a real reason to do so.

I did. I provided you with such an error, and then you acted as if this was some area of contention.

No, sir, you did not. I am looking for a factual error. You provided, at best, an error of interpretation. Your entire criticism consists of this: Gibbon has a bad opinion of the emperor Constantine. You like Constantine, and you cite this scholar Jordan to support your opinion. This refutes what, exactly?

How is this not "some area of contention"? Do you really think, because some scholar from 1969 said Gibbon was wrong about Constantine, that definitively and finally settles this issue?

Just because Jordan says Constantine was good does not make it so. I gave reasons why I think that Constantine's military reforms were "bad." You passed over these in silence.

Why are you starting from the assumption that Gibbon is authoritative unless someone can show you enough errors? It's bizarre. Where does this idea that Gibbon should be considered authoritative (as opposed to hundreds of other historians who have also written histories of the roman empire)? Or that he is considered as such by actual experts of roman history?

It is bizarre. Why are you starting from the assumption that Gibbon is not authoritative? Name me one of these "hundreds of other historians" that invalidate him. All you've dug up so far is this Jordan from '69, and all he's got is that Gibbon's take on Constantine was "intemperate." This is a simple difference of opinion, and proves nothing.

Why this "assumption" of mine? I had heard years before that Gibbon is the only author from this period, writing on this subject, who does not need significant correction. When I then read him, I immediately saw that he had an authoritative style. I will admit that this is a subjective evaluation, and I will continue to hold to it, unless I can be given an objective reason not to. No one here seems capable of giving me these objective reasons.

...why did he make X mistake, X assumption, write so much about X, come to X conclusion about Y, etc.

Fill in these X's and Y's with something objective and concrete, and you're on to something. Otherwise, you're just spouting off. You've got a prejudice against Gibbon because he is old. End of story.

 

[Pragmatist]

You simply have no argument here. Gibbon is more than 200 years old. That is antiquated.

How many times must I be told that this book is from 1776?