Adbridged or unadbridged version of the history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire?

[Garett Hornwood]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:06 AM, Mwm said:

Which one and why?

It depends on why you would want to read it.  Personally I have a history degree and am very interested in history including reading the classics even though the information in them are now outdated.  So naturally I read the unabridged version.

If you're just reading Gibbon as a general reader then I say abridged.  If you're a history nut like I might be called then I recommend the unabridged.

On 6/26/2018 at 4:15 PM, Switzeran said:

Follow it up with Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium

I actually read this book a few years before I finally got Gibbon, so I could see the definite bias of Gibbon and centuries of further research as shown by Norwich when comparing the two.