The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I (Edward Gibbon, 1776)

(567 pages)

Volume 1 of 3. (Volumes 4-6, which I've not purchased (and not sure whether I will), address Constantinople.)

"Introduction" is excellent on its own - discusses why someone like Gibbon (and others of Enlightenment era) were so interested in Rome's failure - considering potential seeds of failure in their own intellectual/political world, what could they learn from the Roman experience?  Gibbons's interaction with David Hume, Adam Smith, Johnson & Boswell (unfriendly); Joshua Reynolds does his portrait - what an era.

Gibbons commences with a summary from the second century AD (now CE); this volume moves into the fourth century.  The names of the emperors; all of the battles; the dates; the details - little of this will remain in memory - yet the work seems indispensable.  All the familiar issues.  The Praetorian guard getting out of control - reminds of the Janissaries or the Streltsky.  Dictatorial powers.  Several "good" emperors who can hold the borders and generally restore internal order.  Many bad emperors - they are vilified, while the good/popular ones are deified.  Succession challenges - family members by birth or adoption, etc.  Long stretches where no emperor dies a natural death.

Lengthy discussions of the barbarians, including the Germans in particular.  Hiring barbarians to assist with defense; significant downsides from doing so.  Battles in east and west.

Discusses Rome's use (or non-use, in the early days) of physical walls in various areas, in a manner consistent with the discussion in this book.

Emperors recognize that the size of the empire had made governing unwieldy for a single individual.  Experiments with more than one emperor (groups of two and even four), designated successors; eventually the eastern and western parts split permanently.

The famous passages considering the effect of Christianity on the empire; recall that Gibbons is writing during the Enlightenment and with awareness of clerical issues over the centuries.  He takes widespread criticism for these passages, seeks to defend them.

His writing style is quite wonderful.  Dense; can pack contrasting concepts in just a few words, often landing in an unexpected place.  It draws the reader along.

The discussion of religion among the pagans is similar to that included in this work.  Lengthy consideration of Constantine (also as done in that same work).

I'm genuinely looking forward to volumes 2 and 3.