Being published in 1776 I would imagine that Gibbon's writing style is perhaps a little antiquated for a non professional historian to digest.

I have never studied the period in any great detail however, Gibbon's work on the fall of Rome is a major piece I'd like to tick off my historical bucket list. I've never studied the period in any great detail, Is this the be all end all place to start? Has it aged well, or is the readability of Gibbon's work to a 20th century amateur historian too convoluted and cryptic?