The History Book Club discussion

Here is an analysis of the Roman Government: (It is good that it gives an analysis of the Roman government and compares it to the government of Carthage which was conquered by the Romans).

Ancient History Sourcebook:
Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):
Rome at the End of the Punic Wars
[History, Book 6:]

[Thatcher Introduction:]: ROME, with the end of the third Punic war, 146 B. C., had completely conquered the last of the civilized world. The best authority for this period of her history is Polybius. He was born in Arcadia, in 204 B. C., and died in 122 B. C. Polybius was an officer of the Achaean League, which sought by federating the Peloponnesus to make it strong enough to keep its independence against the Romans, but Rome was already too strong to be resisted, and arresting a thousand of the most influential members, sent them to Italy to await trial for conspiracy. Polybius had the good fortune, during seventeen years exile, to be allowed to live with the Scipios. He was present at the destructions of Carthage and Corinth, in 146 B. C., and did more than anyone else to get the Greeks to accept the inevitable Roman rule. Polybius is the most reliable, but not the most brilliant, of ancient historians.

http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/ANCIEN...

The Rise of the Roman Empire by Polybius

Bentley wrote: "There is so much to learn and discuss with this book and much that came before.

One key concept worth discussing is how did the Republic become an Empire and when?"

In my opinion, the Empire started when Rome won the second Punic war and collected far-flung colonies (probably not the right word) from Carthage and in Greece, even though it was still a Republic in name and form, and wasn't ruled by a single person. The importation of large numbers of slaves, the start of the latifunia, the dispossession of the small land-holders - all these things started the inevitable process toward the actual Empire.

I sense Vicki that you feel that when all of those far flung colonies came to become part of the Republic; that these events in and of themselves started the erosion process of the Republic to an Empire.

I think you are thinking that this erosion started way before Caesar and Augustus.

Interesting...I think Gibbon is of the opinion that things were pretty good before Commodus but I am not an expert on the Roman Empire and Empires like these certainly have their ups and down even before a major decline sets in.

Thanks for your comment...we can learn a lot from each other so I hope everybody just jumps right in.

I think today we should start focusing on some of the Roman military aspects presented in Chapter One - a large focus for Gibbon it seems at the end of this chapter. Please feel free to post on any points that Gibbon makes; I think we have adequately laid out who the first 17 Emperors were that led up to this scenario and the fact that Gibbon rather felt that Commodus was the straw that broke the camel's back. There is lots of ground covered in chapter one.

Bentley wrote: "I think today we should start focusing on some of the Roman military aspects presented in Chapter One - a large focus for Gibbon it seems at the end of this chapter. Please feel free to post on an..."

I was surprised that the Romans had drawn back from one of their conquests to have a more defensible border. I had always pictured them as trying hold to everything they had.

Question, why didn't they conquer Ireland?

Patricrk, it is possible that they were simply running out of steam; one of the experts on the Roman Empire stated the following and since I am not an authority on the Romans or Roman Empire - I can neither refute, confirm or deny (I will throw this out as just another opinion about why they didn't):

The source stated: "By the time the Romans were in a position to consider mounting an attack on Ireland (ie, when mainland Britain was mostly assimilated), they had largely given up invading other countries simply out of a desire for expansion.

I think this had occurred by roughly the middle of the second century AD. After that time, most of the battles on the borders of the empire were defensive - either strictly defensive, fighting invading hordes of one kind or another, or sort of pre-emptive strikes, attacking the hordes to protect the hinterland. Ireland was no threat and therefore not worth fighting."

Bentley wrote: "Patricrk, it is possible that they were simply running out of steam; one of the experts on the Roman Empire stated the following and since I am not an authority on the Romans or Roman Empire - I c..."

I'm not sure what is meant by "running out of steam" when applied to a society. Does it mean not enough young males to handle the fighting, too many other projects to provide resources for the army, a change in values that no longer rewards progress and expansion, or something else (or combination) of these. There was some discussion in the book about how the Greeks had a cyclic view of things while the Romans didn't. Had Greek thought become too pervasive and the Romans thought they were in a down cycle?

I think the Romans probably felt like many other Empire makers that they had gone enough afield. And your examples of what running out of steam might mean are all quite good ones. Yes, I mentioned that earlier in one of my posts where I helped define a difference between circular and linear thinking (message 38 of mine).

I think that the Emperors themselves have to have an appetite for expansion and I imagine that changed from Emperor to Emperor.

No, I do not think that the Romans would ever believe themselves psychologically to be in a down cycle but who knows how much influence the Greeks were.

Again, if in reading other sources I discover any additional information to help answer your follow-on question, I will post it right away.

It might be possible that some other group members who may be experts on the Romans and the Roman Empire might offer some opinion.

Bentley wrote: "I think the Romans probably felt like many other Empire makers that they had gone enough afield. And your examples of what running out of steam might mean are all quite good ones. Yes, I mentioned ..."

Does "enough afield" mean that the communication technology was so slow that the emperor didn't feel he had any ability to influence events in Rome if he took an army past the current borders? And, considering how dangerous a successful commander might be to his own person, he didn't want to risk sending someone else to expand the borders. That sounds like fear of change, an attribute not normally associated with the Romans.

I am not sure Patricrk not being a Roman or Classical scholar; I probably do not have the answers for you. It is obvious that the Emperors could not trust their military or commanders and could easily be assassinated which was often the case over the Empire's timeline.

I don't think the Romans thought much about inaction; one of the Antonines did not want to leave Italy so maybe he thought that he had quite enough to manage.

Romans were very action oriented and quite linear in their thinking. I do not want to insult the Irish or the Scots but maybe the Romans did not think that much was out there of any value to risk the effort; just keep the barbarians out. And maybe the terrain of Scotland was not worth the amount of land that they might obtain. It would be like risking your army to take over the Sinai Desert.

In the final analysis, I really do not know the answer but if I get more info I will post it. Hopefully one of our group members may have more information for you.

Bentley wrote: "I am not sure Patricrk not being a Roman or Classical scholar; I probably do not have the answers for you. It is obvious that the Emperors could not trust their military or commanders and could ea..."

I don't think the Irish have conquest envy and are grateful of being spared Roman occupation. Considering the state of civilization in Ireland at that time, you are probably right and the Romans saw no gain in going there. After all they could probably buy all the Irish slaves or cowhides they wanted from Irish slavers or traders.

For sure...it probably was not worth their effort for a number of reasons.

On the issue of "running out of steam" and acknowledging a terminus for empire, what does the following passage tell us?

"To the Romans, the ocean remained an object of terror rather than curiosity; the whole Mediterranean, after the destruction of Carthage, and the extirpation of the pirates, was included in their provinces. The policy of the emperors was directed only to preserve the peaceful dominion of the sea, and to protect the commerce of their subjects." link

It seems silly that the Romans, who conquered so much - including nature (as our moderator has demonstrated in his discussion of roads and internal improvements) would respond to the ocean with "terror." Rather, the oceans represented the boundary upon which the commerce of their subjects terminated. The whole Mediterranean represented a marketplace and living space; the ocean and Sahara represented (figuratively and literally) a desert.

If I'm on to something here, it stands to reason the Romans would project this "terminus" mentality on any frontier that seemed to promise little opportunity for business. Gibbon opines as much about the Scottish heaths and modern day Morocco.

My supposition is that, for the Romans, conquest wasn't so much a power trip as it was a practical endeavor meant to secure prosperity for a greater good. Pushing the frontier beyond its limits (with all that entails, including legions to provide security) didn't necessarily make business sense. If the cost of the endeavor equaled or exceeded the projected return on investment, there was no rational reason to push onward. I think we give the Romans too little credit if we don't look at them through the pragmatic lens of familiar politics/economics.

Oh, by the way, since I am the junior Patrick in this group, I am fine to be referred to as "Patrick S." if that helps.

I agree with your take on things Patrick and I think their approach was a rather pragmatic one when you think of it.

I love your citation approach and your citing the page number as well posting the quote itself. Extremely powerful and thank you for doing that.

You made an eloquent case for the reason that they failed to go further in some instances.

Great post Patrick.

I've seen a quote somewhere that said the Romans conquered the world in self defense! The Roman empire included plenty of people who regarded the sea as a highway (Greeks). If their approach had been entirely pragmatic and economic they probably would have never left Italy.

The Italians like to travel and are great craftsmen...hence the roads etc. We actually do owe the Romans a great deal when you think about it.

The Greeks were the Greeks and the Romans I doubt wanted to be confused with the Greeks Maybe the Romans were more comfortable with firm ground under their feet.

I am not sure about conquering the world in self defense...that is as bad an excuse as the one used in some recent encounters over here.

The more I think about it I think they were pragmatic...might as well be us who conquers the world...we are as good as anyone else.

I have been looking at quotes that others thought relevant from Chapter One:

Here is the first set:

Chapter 1:

p. 1. In the second century of the Christian era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind. The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle, but powerful, influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed or abused the advantages of wealth and luxury. The image of a free constitution was preserved with decent reverence. The Roman senate appeared to possess the sovereign authority, and devolved on the emperors all the executive powers of government.

Note: One of the most powerful and remembered first sentences of major works.

p. 1. The principal conquests of the Romans were achieved under the republic; and the emperors, for the most part, were satisfied with preserving those dominions which had been acquired by the policy of the senate, the active emulation of the consuls, and the martial enthusiasm of the people.

p. 3. Engaged in the pursuit of pleasure, or in the exercise of tyranny, the first Caesars seldom showed themselves to the armies, or to the provinces.

p. 3. After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke.

p. 6. [A:]s long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.

p. 9. In the purer ages of the commonwealth, the use of arms was reserved for those ranks of citizens who had a country to love, a property to defend, and some share in enacting those laws, which it was their interest, as well as duty, to maintain. But in proportion as the public freedom was lost in extent of conquest, war was gradually improved into an art, and degraded into a trade.

p. 17. We have attempted to explain the spirit which moderated, and the strength which supported, the power of Hadrian and the Antonines.

p. 18. Of the natives barbarians, the Celtiberians were the most powerful, as the Cantabrians and Asturians proved the most obstinate. Confident in the strength of their mountains, they were the last who submitted to the arms of Rome, and the first who threw off the yoke of the Arabs.

p. 24. It is easier to deplore the fate, than to describe the actual condition, of Corsica.

Did any of these make a difference when you were reading them. I think the one on page 18 made me stop and think what made folks believe they did not have to submit to the Romans and also how they could get rid of domination.

I liked this quote in Chapter One:

"Active valour may often be the present of nature; but such patient diligence can be the fruit only of habit and discipline." Chapter 1

I guess Gibbon is saying that the meaning of valor:

boldness or determination in facing great danger, esp. in battle; heroic courage; bravery: a medal for valor.

that this attribute does not just come from within but from practice and also internal discipline.

Here are the meanings of discipline:

1.
training to act in accordance with rules; drill: military discipline.
2.
activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill; training: A daily stint at the typewriter is excellent discipline for a writer.
3.
punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.
4.
the rigor or training effect of experience, adversity, etc.: the harsh discipline of poverty.
5.
behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control: good discipline in an army.
6.
a set or system of rules and regulations.
7.
Ecclesiastical. the system of government regulating the practice of a church as distinguished from its doctrine.
8.
an instrument of punishment, esp. a whip or scourge, used in the practice of self-mortification or as an instrument of chastisement in certain religious communities.
9.
a branch of instruction or learning: the disciplines of history and economics.

and the verbs meaning to discipline
10.
to train by instruction and exercise; drill.
11.
to bring to a state of order and obedience by training and control.
12.
to punish or penalize in order to train and control; correct; chastise.

What was Gibbon saying....that you can train and with that control be able to be courageous; that it does not simply come naturally.

Here Gibbon was talking about Trajan:

"Trajan was ambitious of fame; and as long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters." Chapter 1

This seemed to work for Trajan. Has it worked for others through the ages?

ABOUT TRAJAN:

Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, commonly known as Trajan (18 September 53 – 8 August 117), was the Roman Emperor who reigned over the Empire at the point of its greatest geographic extent. The thirteenth emperor, he ruled from AD 98 until his death in AD 117. Born Marcus Ulpius Traianus into a non-patrician family[1:] in the Hispania Baetica province (modern day Spain),

Trajan rose to prominence during the reign of emperor Domitian, serving as a general in the Roman army along the German frontier, and successfully crushing the revolt of Antonius Saturninus in 89. On September 18, 96, Domitian was succeeded by Marcus Cocceius Nerva, an old and childless senator who proved to be unpopular with the army. After a brief and tumultuous year in power, a revolt by members of the Praetorian Guard compelled him to adopt the more popular Trajan as his heir and successor. Nerva died on January 27, 98, and was succeeded by his adopted son without incident.

As a civilian administrator, Trajan is best known for his extensive public building program, which reshaped the city of Rome and left multiple enduring landmarks such as Trajan's Forum, Trajan's Market and Trajan's Column.

It was as a military commander however that Trajan celebrated his greatest triumphs. In 101, he launched a punitive expedition into the kingdom of Dacia against king Decebalus, defeating the Dacian army near Tapae in 102, and finally conquering Dacia completely in 106.

In 107, Trajan pushed further east and annexed the Nabataean kingdom, establishing the province of Arabia Petraea. After a period of relative peace within the Empire, he launched his final campaign in 113 against the Parthian Empire. Advancing as far as the city of Susa in 116, Trajan expanded the Roman Empire to its greatest territorial extent. In late 117 while sailing back to Rome, he died of a stroke in the city of Selinus. He was deified by the Senate and his ashes were laid to rest under Trajan's Column. He was succeeded by his adopted son (not having a biological heir) Publius Aelius Hadrianus—commonly known as Hadrian.

As an emperor, Trajan's reputation has endured — he is one of the few rulers whose reputation has survived the scrutiny of nineteen centuries of history. Every new emperor after him was honoured by the Senate with the prayer felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, meaning "may he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan". Among medieval Christian theologians, Trajan was considered a virtuous pagan, while the 18th century historian Edward Gibbon popularized the notion of the Five Good Emperors, of which Trajan was the second.

I found these quotes from folks reading Gibbon - all have of them have some interesting tidbits about our author:

Thoughts on Reading Gibbon

"Another damned, thick, square, book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble! Eh! Mr. Gibbon?" (William Henry, Duke of Gloucester, upon receiving the second volume from the author, 1781)

A correspondent who wishes to remain anonymous writes:

One can say of Gibbon what Mark Twain said of whiskey: "Too much of anything is too much but too much whiskey is just right." I usually have a half dozen or more books underway at any time but I laid them all aside and was able to absorb the panoramic effect which is realized from a continuous and relatively short reading.

I now have an historical framework of 14 centuries within which to put pieces which have for years laid neglected in the muck which constitutes what is left of my memory. The effect of a continuous reading of Gibbon is dazzling but you may have to postpone that for retirement or a lucky shipwreck.

I read the Penguin edition which has a superb introduction. It was an intellectual feast. Gibbon's Memoirs are worth the attention of any reader of the history but I would suggest reading it after finishing the history.

The footnotes were rich in interesting detail and the frequent references to Montesquieu caused me to inspect a copy of "The Spirit of the Laws" when I stumbled across it in a bookstore.

I am now half way through it and the background acquired from reading Gibbon brings it to life. It was relied on by Madison (Federalist No. 47) and is of interest for its historic detail and importance in the history of political (including ours) ideas. It was first translated into English in 1750 but a new translation, Cambridge University Press, 1989, 1995 is the choice for the modern reader. It is well edited and richly repays the reader.

To me, Montesquieu has been a name only and has been badly neglected. I would hope that the new translation would make him accessible to a larger reading audience.

"Rance" writes:
About ten years ago, as I was growing bored with newspaper reading on my daily trips to New York and back to Philadelphia, I started Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'd had the 6-volume set for some years, one of many fine, old, numbered sets printed in the last century and bought by me during the previous decade from Bryn Mawr College's used book store. (An aside: none of the sets--I have about ten or so--had been read through. I know this because in each case, after a chapter or so, I had to slit the pages of the signatures as I read.)

I was enthralled immediately with Gibbon's history. I believe Gibbon's opening sentence to be among the best of any work. It was difficult for me to get used to the lofty style, but after a chapter or two, I was acclimated. (It's still the case--it takes a chapter or so before my grammar and syntax can power up to Gibbon's level.) As I read I could hear in his cadences and phrasing the Gibbon that Winston Churchill credited with forming his own style.

So began a fascinating journey in those fine, old books, one that I have recently begun again. And though I discovered the route by chance, may I recommend it to you?

From the Roman Empire through the fall of the eastern empire (Gibbon, 6 volumes) change the scene to Spain, which began to form with the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella about the time that the Turks sacked Constantinople. Follow Spain to its conquest of the Moors (Prescott, 4 volumes) to the Conquest of Mexico (Prescott, another 4 volumes), of the Incas (4 again) to the story of Charles V, King of Spain, the low countries, etc. and Holy Roman Emperor (Robertson, 5 volumes--included within the 19-volume set of Prescott's histories); finally to the unfinished story of Charles' son Philip, Elizabeth's suitor, then adversary whose Spanish Armada was defeated by her in 1588. Prescott died before completing his work on Philip, but Motley wrote about him from the Dutch perspective in his chronicle of their 80-year (!) struggle for Independence, The Founding of the Dutch Republic (4 volumes) and History of the United States of the Netherlands (another 3). Finally, move to Macauley's History of England from the Accession of James II, another 50 years in 10 volumes.

I hope that first sentence of Gibbon's will hook others as it did me. I have found no modern writer of history who is able to write so clearly and nobly as those I mention above.

- 16 March 1996 -

Regarding Montesquieu:

The Spirit of the Laws by Montesquieu

Here is an on line translation:

http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol.htm

Another work by Montesquieu regarding the decline of the Romans:

http://www.constitution.org/cm/ccgrd_...

Interesting that Madison used it in writing the Federalist Papers (47)

James Madison

I thought it was interesting that Winston Churchill used Gibbon to perfect his style of writing. I quite like Gibbon's style myself.

Winston S. Churchill

On the issue of quotes, I am struck by the same one Bentley points out in message 69. Here, Gibbon is entertaining and philosophical:

... As long as mankind shall continue to bestow more liberal applause on their destroyers than on their benefactors, the thirst of military glory will ever be the vice of the most exalted characters.

I expect Gibbon's opinionated tone to reign throughout the rest of the work. Perhaps it is the 18th century historian's discipline, but I find the author's opinion (and bias) a conspicuous presence. Consider the use of the word "stupid" for example (emphasis mine):

After a war of about forty years, undertaken by the most stupid, maintained by the most dissolute, and terminated by the most timid of all the emperors, the far greater part of the island submitted to the Roman yoke. p. 3

I also offer the following for consideration:

The inland parts (of a sea-coast which still retains its ancient appellation)have assumed the Sclavonian names of Croatia and Bosnia; the former obeys an Austrian governor, the latter a Turkish pasha; but the whole country is infested by tribes of barbarians, whose savage independence irregularly marks the doubtful limit of the Christian and Mahometan power.link

This brings me back to yesterday's conversation about the geographic limits of the Roman empire. I find this Gibbon opinion lends credence to Patricrk's suggestion that Roman conquest was, to some degree, executed under the guise of self defense. It has also led me to question my former conviction that the Roman empire terminated at the boundary upon which business ceased to be profitable.

Our moderator has shown us how the Roman commercial class didn't pay taxes, and Gibbon has explained why the common classes were considered exclusively fit for military service.

Returning to my original quote ("...The whole Mediterranean, after the destruction of Carthage, and the extirpation of the pirates, was included in their provinces...), the suggestion is made that the Barbary pirates were subdued, not out of an interest in occupying and profiting from their lands, but to remove them as a threat to the Roman citizenry and its commerce.

In modern parlance, this is known as a "buffer zone" and won in this way in something we now call a "preemtive strike." And like the 20th century buffer zone of the former Communist Bloc, those zones are maintained at the public expense and sacrificed without harm to the ruling class. It's possible that the Romans in fact extended their frontier beyond the line of commerce, to protect the commerce with a demilitarized, sterile zone. Interestingly, I find the same predjudices that contributed to Ottoman, Hapsburg, and Soviet apathy were shared by Gibbon in the 1770s (condescending connotations of words like "infested," "barbarians," and "savage"). They may have been shared by the Romans in ancient times.

This domination of opinion (that could be called chauvinism or racism, depending on one's level of sensitivity) is strange to modern students. I admit to having a problem with it so far. However, the raw honesty, despite a certain inefficiency, reveals an important insight into period mentality that cannot be communicated without invective adjectives.

There is a lot to take in. I am grateful we are taking it as slow as we are.

Yes, I noticed many of the same things. Gibbon also used some colorful language when describing the inhabitants of the Germanies and of Croatia. I wondered if he did not feel similarly about these peoples even at the time of writing the history. Interesting observations Patrick but I think to somehow give Gibbon a bit of a pass, he read many primary sources where these condescending words might have been used. But some of these invective adjectives were strong. You are so right, there is so much to take in; just in the first chapter alone.

For the most part the Romans did go out and look for territory to conquer, they found it and they did just that (preemtively). I do not think that the Romans were nice people either; the military was quite ruthless despite many innovations, inventions, the roads, the aqueducts, etc. However, nice or peaceful would not be two words I would personally associate with them.

Bentley wrote: "Yes, I noticed many of the same things. Gibbon also used some colorful language when describing the inhabitants of the Germanies and of Croatia. I wondered if he did not feel similarly about thes..."

The only quibble I have with Patrick's comment is that I think the pirates being referred to were based on the Aegean islands and so were not Barbary pirates who were based on the coast of North Africa probably from the time of the Moslem conquest until the 19th century. So were active when Gibbons was writing but were not on the commerce routes of the Roman period.

Also true Patricrk...I have to work making my typing fingers keep both of you straight (smile).

Aegean, not Barbary, pirates? Doh!

I assumed Carthage equaled Berber. I guess Gibbon was referring to two separate groups?

I just started reading Gibbon (I borrowed an edition from 1901 from our library) and hope that I'll have enough time at my hands the nexts weeks to join you in your interesting discussion since I have been always eager to read Gibbon but never got the opportunity.

Having only read the first pages of chapter 1 I can already say that I find Gibbons idiosyncratic style very interesting, giving an insightful look at his personality and his times (especially in the footnotes). Especially the outright labeling of Claudius, Nero and Domitian as "stupid" is delightful. I have to read further on to see to what extensions Gibbons will drive this.

In regards to this chapter and the discussion about the roman military force at this time I can refer to Tacitus very interesting Vita of his father-in-law Agricola: 'De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae liber'. Tacitus compares the, in his opinion, virtous Agricola to the tyranny of the times of Domitian - exactly like Gibbon at the beginning of chapter 1 does.
However, you have to consider that Tacitus wrote this in 98 under the reign of Trajan and his main reason for this, as he indirectly states at the beginning, is to justify his and his uncles high political and military ranks they have achieved under Domitians tyranny. How 'virtous' the really Agricola was remains undecided.

A small footnote: Tacitus' 'Agricola' is especially interesting because of the famous speech of Calgacus, a Caledonian general, where Tacitus tries to the understand the viewpoints of the conquered nations and thus painting a very negative picture of Roman imperialism.

Cornelius Tacitus

Thank you Marcus..I believe I posted the link to the Tactitus back in message 20 but never bad to list him again. What you have posted above is very interesting. There are so many wonderful translations of primary sources now that we can refer back to in addition to relying on Gibbon.

Gibbon does not mince words for sure and we are delighted that you have been able to get ahold of Gibbon from your library to keep up with us.

Gibbon certainly covers a lot of ground in this chapter.

Bentley

In some respects, there is so much to cover here for anybody trying to understand the social structure of Rome.

In Eric Nelson's book, he talks about the Roman Assemblies:

And the Magistrates...I will try to focus on the magistrates and there is thread set up for this information:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/3...

Also feel free to add comments and questions that you might have here at any time.

Regarding message 63 by Patrick who refers to Gibbons sentence: To the Romans, the ocean remained an object of terror rather than curiosity;

In the footnote Gibbon explains that "the romans tried to diguise, by the pretence of religious awe, ignorance and terror" and refers to Tacitus Germania, c.34.

I looked up the part Gibbons is refering to, and Tacitus writes: 'The attempt of Drusus Germanicus to make discoveries in these parts was sufficiently daring; but the ocean opposed any further inquiry into itself and Hercules. After a while no one renewed the attempt; and it was thought more pious and reverential to believe the actions of the gods, than to investigate them. ['nec defuit audentia Druso Germanico, sed obstitit Oceanus in se simul atque in Herculem inquiri. mox nemo temptavit, sanctiusque ac reverentius visum de actis deorum credere quam scire.':]

It's an interesting and somehow opaque sentence in my opinion. However, I think that Tacitus refers to the actions of Druus Germanicus with a bit of irony and I don't think that this two sentences are enough of a testimony to blame the Romans for a fear of the ocean. I agree with Patrick on this subject that the Romans had no commericial or political interested in expending their seafare beyond the pillars of Hercules - they simply were very pragmatic people.


Cornelius Tacitus

Markus, thank you for working on the translations (isn't it odd how a different translation can change the entire meaning). Maybe the Romans were afraid of Neptune and the gods; and thought why tempt fate.

I always felt that for some reason that the Romans were more grounded on land and felt that was the way to move their troops fast and efficiently where they needed them. They did not feel comfortable I fear about the ocean.

Thank you so much for your post and your explanation.

I tend to agree with the comments above. I don't think it was a case the Romans were afraid of the sea but more the fact that they could not control the course of events like they could with their Legions on land.

A very good comment Aussie Rick about not being able to control the course of events.

Talking about the terror and fear of the seas reminds me of the famous episode during the civil war, where Caesar tried to, against all odds and against the advise of his soldiers and his navigator, cross the Adria during a storm, trying to reach Pompeius in Greece (Wikipedia). However, Caesars irrational plan failed and he couldn't reach the coast because of the storm.

Many historians who descriped this episode did it with a certain mockery and irony regarding Caesars arrogance and irrationalism against the uncertainty of the sea.
Especially Lucians depiction of the event is well known, where he lets Caesar arrogantly say to the navigator: 'The only just reason for your fear is that you don't know who you are carrying. The gods never desert this one [Caesar:]. [sola tibi causa est haec iusta timoris/ uectorem non nosse tuum, quem numina numquam/destituunt:] (Luc.Phar.5,580-2)

This doesn't have much to do with Gibbon but it sprung in my mind while reading your comments.

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus

Having now finished the first chapter there were two sentences that struck me.
First Gibbon says: 'We shall now endeavour, with clearness an precision, to describe the provinces once united under their say but, at present, divided into so may independent and hostile stats.'
In this sentences, it seems to me that Gibbon is almost longing for the grand and, at the 1st and 2nd century, more or less stable imperium in contrary to the unstable and fickle situtation of the states at his time.

However, at the end of the chapter he writes: This long enumeration f provinces, whose broken fragments have formed so many powerful kingdoms, might almost induce us to forgive the vanity or ignorance of the ancients." Now he seems more in favor for situations of his time.
It is also interesting that he calls the ancietns "ignorant and vain". Does he mean the emperors only or all ancient people?

Another sentence I found very interesting was, in the paragraph about Germany, that ...the Germans, abusing their superiority of valour, had occupied a considearable portion of the Belgic territory". It's odd that Gibbon blames the Germans for the same attitude for which he praises the Romans: valour in war.

Patrick wrote: "Okay, I'll be the first to bite. I'm new to the group, but am really excited by the prospects on this and other horizons.

Bentley asked (in message 36):

What does everyone remember about Rom..."

Bentley wrote: "One thing which is interesting is the outlook that the Romans had.

Echoing Patrick, my public education on Roman impact was also limited, essentially boiling down to: the Romans killed Christ, built some neat things, had roads and sewer systems, had gladiators and blood sports and were conquerers of everything.

As I aged and expanded my reading, and noted gazillions of literary and historical references to Roman culture and Roman history I began to feel that perhaps I had been shortchanged on some important information. Even more so with Greek history.

So, when this came up I thought ah...light summer reading...NOT! No, rather, an opportunity to really dig into a topic I feel is important to learn more about.

This is the first time I am reading Gibbons. I am already overwhelmed but determined to forge ahead! And yes, I just ordered Romans for Dummies to help in this endeavor.

The post by Bentley on the Roman outlook and the contrast to Greek outlook grabbed my attention. It seems to me that the American perspective is more like the Roman perspective than Greek.

Hello Kim and welcome to the discussion.

Do not feel bad...most of us have had the same experiences and know exactly the same things about Roman culture and Roman history so Gibbon is an opportunity to change much of that.

His writing style is easy to read yet the book is quite dense. I will add to the organization of the government, the military, legions, etc. as we go along.

Do not be overwhelmed....just try to read 7 to 8 pages a day and you will be fine. The days you can read more is even better but steady is what gets you by.

I find that both of the books that I recommended (which I purchased by the way myself) are a very big help. I found that I look to both of them to fill in the blanks and explain things in a way that helps me keep moving through the reading. In fact, I have already completed the first three chapters and I am enjoying it very much though I have discovered that Gibbon does have his opinions and does not hold back.

I think you are correct that the American perspective seems to be more influenced from the Romans rather than the Greeks...not in all things but in some for sure (and that could be because England our mother country was very much influenced by the Romans for a long time).

But we normally are not a country which goes out to conquer other nations either nor do we take the spoils as the Roman Empire did but there are other similarities in terms of government, constitution especially in terms of the early republic.

Glad to have you with us.

Bentley

Markus wrote: "Talking about the terror and fear of the seas reminds me of the famous episode during the civil war, where Caesar tried to, against all odds and against the advise of his soldiers and his navigator..."

That is very interesting...and you can see some temerity on the part of the sailors. I do think that Caesar was rather full of himself.

Kim wrote: "Patrick wrote: "Okay, I'll be the first to bite. I'm new to the group, but am really excited by the prospects on this and other horizons.

Bentley asked (in message 36):

What does everyone re..."

Great post Kim, I'm looking forward to more of your comments and remarks on Gibbon and the Romans. I have been enjoying the posts of Markus, Patricrk & Bentley and it has made reading the book very interesting and enjoyable and I look forward to more great comments and insights :)

Markus wrote: "Having now finished the first chapter there were two sentences that struck me.
First Gibbon says: 'We shall now endeavour, with clearness an precision, to describe the provinces once united under ..."

Yes Markus...Gibbon had his favorite time periods and emperors. He does not hold back telling us what he likes and dislikes.

I think he was not only referring to the emperors but to the people themselves to a large extent. He was quite critical of many different groups and nationalities.

I wondered too at what he said about the Germans as well as the Croatians...he was not very keen on either race and I fear he may have tempered his opinions based upon more current thinking of his own at the time. He certainly did not appear to feel that what was good for the goose was good for the gander. He definitely took sides. For some reason, he viewed the Romans more positively on the whole as a race and society versus the Germans. Maybe he was influenced by the contributions of the Romans themselves which was of course substantial. However, it is worth noting the various statements he made about the other races at that time. I have the distinct feeling that he viewed many of these folks as being quite backward and barbaric.

Were your thoughts along these lines?

Has anyone read the introduction? I don't have the correct edition (nor does my library), so I'm wondering what was covered there. The intro in the Penguin abridged edition goes into Gibbon's history. I found it very interesting that he had been "seduced" into switching to Roman Catholicism by "a course of reading" (no books were mentioned), so his father sent him to Switzerland, where he stayed with a Calvinist minister, and was brought back to views acceptable to his family.

Yes, and his father almost had a fit which was also interesting. Being left to his own devices, he seemed to have fun branching out.

We can begin to discuss the Introduction at any time Vicki...if folks want to jump in. Otherwise, by Monday, I will give a wrap up of the intro reading for the week before which will be on this thread.

@Vicki,

There are so many versions out there, I think we're all subjected to slightly different introductions unless we get the specific ISBN Bentley is basing our discussion from. There is a scan of the original text available from Google Books. There is a brief section entitled "Sketch of the Author's Life" (pp. xxiii-xxxviii).

You can download it in either an e-book or PDF format. The PDF version is printable, and you can print just the pages you are interested in. If you are not familiar with Google Books, it is completely free. You do not even have to "sign up" with anything to use it. It works like the search engine.

This is my first time reading Decline and Fall and so far I'm enjoying it. I ordered the the books recommended by Bentley in hopes of filling Grand Canyon size gaps in my education when it comes to the Romans. I am plugging along though and really enjoying the posts of the more learned members.

Eliza, we are glad to have you on this journey. I think that books will help tremendously, they are easy to read and refer to and help fill in the blanks quickly.

What does everyone remember about Roman history and literature from school?
...
What do you hope to gain by reading Gibbon and The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?

In high school, I chose Latin to meet my foreign language requirement, so I got a decent dose of Roman history, language and literature. One of the reasons I was drawn to Latin was because I found Roman myths and legends so fascinating. My favorite book from childhood was The World's Great Stories (couldn't find this in goodreads, so just a link is below).

http://books.google.com/books?id=l4Eh...

So my memories of the Romans are the stories of Romulus and Remus, Mucius thrusting his hand in the fire, Horatius at the bridge, Caesar crossing the Rubicon; also the Aeneid.

As I'm thinking back to school and writing this post, the irony is that I think we only studied the "good ol' days" of the Roman monarchy, republic and very early empire. I don't recall spending too much time at all on the decline and fall. I don't think I could tell you a thing about any emperor after Marcus Aurelius, except that Constantine converted to Christianity.

So I'm looking forward to reconnecting with a culture I haven't studied for a long time and learning more about a period of time that I never really studied at all.