I have heard (and mostly read) that Gibbon's accounts of the history of rome are not as highly regarded as they once were. Still, it's probably the most prominent book if only by past glory alone. I will read all volumes sooner rather than later. So I would like to know what should I keep in mind while I read it so I don't get any wrong (by current standards) ideas. By the way, now that we are on the subject, what and when was the "breaking point", if any, of Gibbon's credibility? Dramatic but I couldn't find a better way to say it
A few places to check out here! First, /u/Daeres wrote this fantastic little piece on Gibbon which is worth your time reading through:
Gibbon essentially represents the vanguard of the movement which resulted in the creation of professional historians, and heavily contrasts with all of his contemporaries in the Anglo-French intelligensia. I’m going to point out how he differs, and what Gibbon considered to be bad historical methodology in his day. Whilst Gibbon is a sitting duck, very few of these contemporary works have been shown for how they don’t stand up to modern methodology, so I consider them utterly fair game. My second big goal is I want to point out a more universal historical conundrum- the balance between secondary and primary literature, and what results from using one or the other exclusively. This period of literature, Gibbon included, provides a lot of material for that.
Additionally, Gibbon has come up here before, so you'll find several entries regarding Gibbon in our FAQ, with particular regard to posts by /u/Shlin2 and /u/LegalAction. Hopefully this all will give you some guidance as you tackle his works!
Some tips on reading Gibbon:
Read a version with Gibbon's footnotes. Some versions (especially ebook ones) don't include them, or abridge them drastically, but they're half the joy of the book. As someone said, Gibbon lived out his sex life in his footnotes.
The final three volumes are about the Byzantine empire, and they just ain't as good as the earlier three volumes (especially 2 and 3). He more or less judges the Byzantines by the standards of Rome, which automatically means that they degenerated for a thousand years (as opposed to recognizing that yes, they resembled Rome less and less over time because things change, but they should be judged on their own merits, if they should be judged at all). So, be prepared for the books to fall off somewhat. (Still fascinating reading, though.)
If you have trouble getting into it, fast-forward to the section on the emperor Julian. If you don't like that, then Gibbon's not for you.