Hey /lit/, so I'm pretty interested in reading 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire', but before I make a purchase, I'd like to ask a few questions about it.
So first off, what kind of book is it? Google says it's non-fiction, but I just wanted to make sure that it's not an essay-type book, because I don't like reading those kinds of books. Does it have a narrative of any sort? With characters and stuff?
Second, I'm going to be buying the Everyman's Library edition from bookdepository, but there's a bunch of different versions and I don't know which one I should get. I don't want to get the $300 full set one as I can't afford to pay $300 right now, so I'm going with an $80 one for vol. 1-3. Some of them have black and white spines, and others have black and gold. Is there a difference between the two? I don't want to have vol. 1-3 as one design, and vol. 4-6 as another.
Thanks.
Autism
>>7745391
start with mommsen
>tfw someone took heed of your post
>>7745375
Asking the same thing here
>>7745399
not OP but part of the reason I'm interested is the prose
>>7745422
The prose of Mommsen is good, and you should read the beginning/republican stage of Rome before go for the dictatorship.
>>7745391
I have this set, its beautiful.
>what kind of book is it
A narrative history with philosophical tangents on shit like Arianism, early Christian theological disputes, and the nature of the peoples that are involved.
>With characters and stuff?
When he talks about certain leaders he takes alot from Plutarch and conducts a moral exploration of their lifes. Stilicho, Belisarius, etc
>Which edition
I seem to remember the Everymans Edition is some 1919 treatment. Im sure there are more modern versions, but Gibbons has his own footnotes.
>>7745391
>>>not getting the iconic heritage press
Look around online and you can get it for dirt cheap with Gibbon's notes in the generous margins. I got an unread set at a used bookstore for $18.
More importantly, why are you interested in Gibbon? If this is your first foray into Rome, no matter what your focus it isn't going to be your best option at this point.
If you want pure Roman history, you're better off reading more modern sources (e.g., "The Roman Republic" by Crawford) or even primary sources themselves.
For Rome's early history, Livy and Dionysius.
For the Punic wars, Livy, Polybius, and Appian.
For the Civil wars, Sallust, Appian, and Caesar.
For the emperors, Suetonius, Tacitus, Plutarch, and Dio Cassius.
If you haven't already read some Roman history and poetry (Virgil, Ovid, etc.), you have no idea what Roman culture was like: Cultural values and their historical origins, political motivations on personal and governmental levels, habits of waging war and deciding peace, etc.
At this point Gibbon is a niche read; he lacks the strengths of the original primary sources AND the new information of modern sources. For a long time his work was a cornerstone of history (and it's still widely known), but everyone who bitches about primary/secondary source value has to admit that Gibbon is, to put it rather harshly, the worst of both worlds.
That's not to say that he isn't worth reading, but understand that in doing so you lack the opportunity to notice and interpret for yourselves themes and trends as they manifest in primary sources, and you rob yourself of a few hundred extra years of archeological and historical research.
>>7745391
>Does it have a narrative of any sort? With characters and stuff?
top kek.
>>7745673
Well then, which version do you have? Is it good?
>>7745422
>prose
AHAHAHAHAHAHa. go read poetry faggot.
>>7745673
There's a reason Mommsen got the Nobel Prize in Literature
