Dr. David Gwynn

Exactly. All this background, it's part of their legitimacy. It's part of their identity. But it is interesting that many of the most fascinating sources we can read, Isidore of Seville, Gregory of Tours, they're actually writing a couple of generations after the kingdoms took shape. So they're emphasising a continuity in a very different world.

Exactly. All this background, it's part of their legitimacy. It's part of their identity. But it is interesting that many of the most fascinating sources we can read, Isidore of Seville, Gregory of Tours, they're actually writing a couple of generations after the kingdoms took shape. So they're emphasising a continuity in a very different world.

Okay. So we're almost approaching the 250-year mark. Yes. And I spend much of my time, when I'm working on this, criticizing elements of Gibbon. But I always do try and begin by saying, if someone's arguing with me 250 years from now, I did my job well.

Okay. So we're almost approaching the 250-year mark. Yes. And I spend much of my time, when I'm working on this, criticizing elements of Gibbon. But I always do try and begin by saying, if someone's arguing with me 250 years from now, I did my job well.

Okay. So we're almost approaching the 250-year mark. Yes. And I spend much of my time, when I'm working on this, criticizing elements of Gibbon. But I always do try and begin by saying, if someone's arguing with me 250 years from now, I did my job well.

Exactly. Gibbon was a very good historian as well as a brilliant writer, which is why his account's still well worth reading. He knew most of the textual sources we know now. Archaeology is where there have been massive changes since Gibbon's time. But also, of course, like any other modern historian today, Gibbon has his own biases. He's got his own vision.

Exactly. Gibbon was a very good historian as well as a brilliant writer, which is why his account's still well worth reading. He knew most of the textual sources we know now. Archaeology is where there have been massive changes since Gibbon's time. But also, of course, like any other modern historian today, Gibbon has his own biases. He's got his own vision.

Exactly. Gibbon was a very good historian as well as a brilliant writer, which is why his account's still well worth reading. He knew most of the textual sources we know now. Archaeology is where there have been massive changes since Gibbon's time. But also, of course, like any other modern historian today, Gibbon has his own biases. He's got his own vision.

He doesn't like the Eastern Roman Empire. He doesn't much like Christianity. And it makes his story very interesting to read. But more than anything else, that title, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, did significantly skew English scholarship because it's not the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And decline is a judgment. Doesn't make it wrong.

He doesn't like the Eastern Roman Empire. He doesn't much like Christianity. And it makes his story very interesting to read. But more than anything else, that title, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, did significantly skew English scholarship because it's not the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And decline is a judgment. Doesn't make it wrong.

He doesn't like the Eastern Roman Empire. He doesn't much like Christianity. And it makes his story very interesting to read. But more than anything else, that title, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, did significantly skew English scholarship because it's not the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the fall of the Western Roman Empire. And decline is a judgment. Doesn't make it wrong.

But it does mean it needs to be argued, not claimed.

But it does mean it needs to be argued, not claimed.

But it does mean it needs to be argued, not claimed.

Yes. And they'll hear Gibbon's name. They'll hear his title. They may read his general observations on the fall of the empire, which is a little sandwich he inserted into the wider book, even if they'll probably never read the massive work. It's interesting. It's an English language bias.

Yes. And they'll hear Gibbon's name. They'll hear his title. They may read his general observations on the fall of the empire, which is a little sandwich he inserted into the wider book, even if they'll probably never read the massive work. It's interesting. It's an English language bias.

Yes. And they'll hear Gibbon's name. They'll hear his title. They may read his general observations on the fall of the empire, which is a little sandwich he inserted into the wider book, even if they'll probably never read the massive work. It's interesting. It's an English language bias.

I remember meeting a number of Greeks who were very unhappy that people thought Gibbon was a starting point because Gibbon didn't really much like later Byzantine Greek culture. So other linguistic, other scholarly traditions, perhaps not so much. But yes, in the English speaking world,

I remember meeting a number of Greeks who were very unhappy that people thought Gibbon was a starting point because Gibbon didn't really much like later Byzantine Greek culture. So other linguistic, other scholarly traditions, perhaps not so much. But yes, in the English speaking world,

I remember meeting a number of Greeks who were very unhappy that people thought Gibbon was a starting point because Gibbon didn't really much like later Byzantine Greek culture. So other linguistic, other scholarly traditions, perhaps not so much. But yes, in the English speaking world,