Which version of this should I be getting? Should I just read the abridged penguin one?

>>24561053 (OP)
>reading abridgements

>>24561056
what's wrong with reading the abridged edition of this extremely long work?

>>24561053 (OP)
I read the abridged version because I'm not a historian and I'm not autistically fixated on ancient Rome. It seemed to be good enough.

>>24561060
Because it's also an extremely detailed and well-written work. If you have any interest in history or literature, why would you settle for anything less?
Besides, an abridged version is just somebody else's opinion of what's important in the work. This will inevitably prejudice your appreciation of it.

>>24561053 (OP)
Read the abridged one then read a modern history book on the subject. As good as Gibbon is he wrote at a time where there wasn't as many sources as now have been discovered and worked upon by many scholars over mulitple years.
>inb4 some retarded larp about europe

>>24561590
>then read a modern history book on the subject
do not do that OP

This is outdated but a fun read. Reading abridged is fine since this is mostly fiction by now

>>24561610
no scientific discovery has been able to so far refute the established historical narrative that it could in any shape or form be considered "mostly fiction"

>>24561139
>well-written work
Gibbon is a good writer in the same way that a professional panegyric writer is a good writer. Obviously a lot of skill goes into it but the result of it is largely worthless drivel and sophistry

>>24561053 (OP)
Hans-Friedrich Mueller's (Modern Library) abridgment includes longer excerpts from the whole text.

David Womersly's (Penguin) abridgment includes complete chapters from the original.

the only sensible abridgement of Gibbon is one that simply omits the arab chapters
they are inexcusable filler