And since when is that a credible work of historical scholarship, rather than a (not very subtle) apology of British imperialism (England the new Rome)?
> And since when is that a credible work of historical scholarship, rather than a (not very subtle) apology of British imperialism (England the new Rome)?
Since always. I'm not sure where you're going with this since it's received innumerable accolades and been considered an exemplary classic for hundreds of years. You must be aware that criticism such as you just gave is a minority view, but you didn't present it as such.
D&F is very well sourced, cited, and footnoted from primary and secondary Roman sources. There are criticisms to be made of it, and there are a few things that modern discoveries have shed more light on, but by-and-large reading Decline and Fall gets you a decent grounding.
I'm afraid I did not read at all an apology of British imperialism; if anything, a criticism of it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that either. Historians still recommend reading Decline and Fall.
Since always. I'm not sure where you're going with this since it's received innumerable accolades and been considered an exemplary classic for hundreds of years. You must be aware that criticism such as you just gave is a minority view, but you didn't present it as such.
D&F is very well sourced, cited, and footnoted from primary and secondary Roman sources. There are criticisms to be made of it, and there are a few things that modern discoveries have shed more light on, but by-and-large reading Decline and Fall gets you a decent grounding.
I'm afraid I did not read at all an apology of British imperialism; if anything, a criticism of it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that either. Historians still recommend reading Decline and Fall.