The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[corroonb]

Originally Posted by ahi

Really?

I thought I read somewhere that he was the first historian to actually go back to original sources, and that as a result his work is the next best thing (to original sources--in contrast with earlier histories where people are reporting on people reporting what other people reported that yet other people said/did/saw).

Having said that, his opinionatedness does not surprise me... but is it really so bad as to negate the (supposed) value of the underlying research?

- Ahi

He was an exceptional historian for his time but Classicists no longer read him for his history (at least in my experience). Archaeology was still very primitive in Gibbon's day so he used mainly textual sources, although to be fair to him he did visit battle-fields and the like.

He is especially poor on the Byzantine Empire. John Julius Norwich has a three volume work on that subject if you want a better account of the 'Eastern' Roman Empire.

His main theory that Christianity was a prime factor in the collapse of the Empire is generally disputed today.

The Roman Empire by Colin Wells and The Later Roman Empire by Averil Cameron are good 'beginner' modern histories of some of the period covered by Gibbon.

[ahi]

Thanks, corroonb.

Is the PG edition (David Widger as editor, and Henry Hart Milman as commentator) supposed to be one of the better ones?

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by corroonb

I imagine a paperback version will be either abridged or in multiple volumes and in both cases have very small print indeed.

I finder if it will exceed Aquinas' Summa Theologica in page numbers as a 6" sized PDF eBook. If so, hopefully not by too much.

- Ahi

[corroonb]

Originally Posted by ahi

Thanks, corroonb.

Is the PG edition (David Widger as editor, and Henry Hart Milman as commentator) supposed to be one of the better ones?

- Ahi

I have no idea. The edition I have is the Everyman text edited by the Folio Society's choice of editor (Betty Radice). I suspect the Everyman edition by Hugh-Trevor Roper is the standard edition. The PG text looks pretty good though.

[pshrynk]

There is a version here on MobileRead that lacks the footnotes. It can be found here.

[rhadin]

If you are looking for a good history involving the Roman Empire, I highly recommend Spartacus War by Barry Strauss. I'm just about finished with it in hardcover pbook version, but the link I provided here is to an ebook version at Fictionwise.

Reading this book helps clarify the difficulties with ancient histories. However, the story of Spartacus remains a great historical thriller.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

There is a version here on MobileRead that lacks the footnotes. It can be found here.

Thanks, but, alas, I want to read it with the footnotes.

That's alright though... shouldn't be too hard to put together.

- Ahi

[DixieGal]

Ick. Footnotes and ebooks don't play well together. I started The Canterbury Tales, but it was such a mess that it was perfectly useless. It looks OK on the PC.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by DixieGal

Ick. Footnotes and ebooks don't play well together. I started The Canterbury Tales, but it was such a mess that it was perfectly useless. It looks OK on the PC.

My own PDF eBooks ought to be able to deal tolerably--if not downright pleasantly--with footnotes.

- Ahi

[toomanybooks]

I am reading a paper version with the footnotes and the ebook version from this site at the same time. I actually prefer the version without footnotes.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by toomanybooks

I am reading a paper version with the footnotes and the ebook version from this site at the same time. I actually prefer the version without footnotes.

It shall be a trifling to suppress the footnotes. I shall be sure to make a version like that when I am generating the eBooks.

- Ahi

[igorsk]

You could download PDFs from Google and OCR them with a good program (i.e. Finereader). The results will likely be better than the PG version which dates from 1997.
Here's one version of Vol I.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by igorsk

You could download PDFs from Google and OCR them with a good program (i.e. Finereader). The results will likely be better than the PG version which dates from 1997.
Here's one version of Vol I.

Thanks, igorsk! Has OCR become that good?

- Ahi

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by igorsk

You could download PDFs from Google and OCR them with a good program (i.e. Finereader). The results will likely be better than the PG version which dates from 1997.
Here's one version of Vol I.

Igorsky, how does the Google Epub OCR conversion stack up to Finereader's?

Would it be easier to clean up Google's version or Finereader's?

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Igorsky, how does the Google Epub OCR conversion stack up to Finereader's?

Would it be easier to clean up Google's version or Finereader's?

I have this notion in my head...

What about taking a given document, OCR-ing it with at least 3 or more different OCR programs, and then parallel parsing them character by character (perhaps now and then making and adjustment, if one of the streams is out of line do to an erroneously detect additional character) and always putting the character into the output stream that the (most) OCR-d texts agree on.

Obviously this won't help with anything that the various OCR programs get wrong in the same way... but it might minimize the amount of clean-up to be done thereafter.

How realistic is such an approach? Anybody here tried it before?

- Ahi