is mostly writing to entertain his audiences.

He writes a history of the Persian Wars, but spends

most of his time writing about the histories of different places involved in the story. He
sensationalizes stories to make them more interesting, and changes facts in order to show a
moral or lesson, and sometimes completely makes things up (like giant gold digging ants, ect.) Its
unsure to what extent he consciously made these things up, or if he believed them and had just
heard them from unreliable sources. There is truth to his writing, but one must consciously glean
what is true from what is false, and go into his work knowing that you can't trust everything he
says.

oral traditions were still preserved with care; Herodotus undoubtedly spoke to
living witnesses of the great invasion
Documentary evidence was not unavailable but inaccessible.
By the 5
th
century, Greek culture was beginning to organize itself with
historical learning in mind. Temples and Oracles were beginning to collate their
records and temple archives were beginning to gain some acclaim. There are
records that show by 403 BC Athens had organized a central archive in the
Metroon, the temple of the Mother of the Gods, and some sources claim that
the records there went back as far as the sixth century. But this is of no use to
Herodotus. Unless a document was published--which means it was inscribed
and set in a public place--the average person would not have had access to it,
let alone been able to read it. Herodotus cites twenty-four inscriptions, half of
them Greek, half not.<65> Some of these he wrote down, some he recalled
from memory,<66> but for the most part Herodotus does not value
documentary evidence very highly-- the reason was not that it was unavailable,
but that it was inaccessible.<67>
Herodotus follows the same patterns of research and inquiry that have been par
for historical investigations for the centuries that followed. Herodotus
interviewed witnesses, both first and second hand, looked into documentary
evidence, even traveled the same paths his History would go, all in an attempt
to preserve the events of men.
Herodotus interrupts the rhythmic progress of his history with privileged
scenes-- special incidents special only because Herodotus chose them--
designed to develop themes that may not become apparent until hundreds of
pages later.<69> He inflates the incidents that he tells with dramatic detail,
while at the same time deflating, or even ignoring, other episodes-- sometimes
days, weeks, or even centuries go unrecorded all for the sake of dramatic
telling.<70>
An example of this can be seen in the seventh book of the History. Herodotus
wanted his audience to see the wonders that Xerxes accomplished in crossing
his army over the Hellespont on the ill-fated invasion of Greece.<71> To place
us there, Herodotus tells the story from the point of view of a local
Hellespontine who watches and relates the story in awe. Whether this person
was actually there or not, or even if he every spoke of such an event to
Herodotus is not really the point. The story is painstakingly told as if it were
happening at that time, and the eye-witness narrator draws the reader in so that
he or she is no longer looking into a window to the past, but instead is a
participant in it.<72>
Despite the literate culture in which he lived and work, there are still numerous
elements in the History which harken back to the epic days of old. One of the
key characteristics of epic poetry is the use of extensive catalogues, best
exemplified by the listing of ships in Book II of the Illiad. This catalogue is
paralleled by Herodotus' listing of the invasion force of Xerxes and to a lesser
extent the lists of Ionian cities, Greek fleets, and so on.<73> Genealogy, also a
key component in the Homeric narrative, plays an important role for
Herodotus. Of course this may be for more practical concerns that a simple
reverence for the epic poet. In cultures which preserve their history orally,
genealogies and king-lists provide the best and in some cases only means of
dating a past event. It may be known that something occurred in the fifth year
of King X, but exactly how many years ago that was is unclear. By estimating
the number of years between generations, however, it is possible to count
backwards and estimate approximately how long ago an event occurred.
Herodotus will also interrupt a speech or other dramatic moment to make sure
his audience has followed the story correctly up to that point. In book five, for
instance he interrupts Aristagoras' speech by inserting, "While speaking, he was
pointing to the map of the earth that he carried around engraved on his
tablet."<74> This hardly seems relevant, especially since Herodotus had
described the map earlier in that very same paragraph. For a literate man,
reading the History, there would be no need to repeat the description of the
map-- he could easily back up a few lines and re-read the description if it
pleased him. This repeating of the description is a throwback to the days of oral
tradition and oral epic poetry, where elements are repeated because "in lengthy
recitals of epic poetry with attendant fuss and movement in the crowd, there
must have naturally have been some loss of comprehension. . .
Herodotus draws the reader into his work through the use of other old-time epic
devices. In the text of his work, the words and forms he uses also serve the
same purpose. He consistently uses the second person singular in his work,
almost as though he were talking to the reader personally. For instance, when
discussing his (erroneous) belief that all Persian names end in "-s" he writes,
"On searching this out, you will find no exceptions to this among their
names."<76> This also allows Herodotus to permit his readers to hold different
beliefs, by showing the existence of different points of view (I believe this,
while you can believe that), a "form of presentation rarely found in other
historians."<77>
Herodotus' use of digression is also a leftover device from Homeric times.<78>
At first glance, the numerous digressions in Herodotus' narrative seem like
haphazard placements of material, sometimes relevant, often times not. This
view, however, comes from a modern interpretation of the style of historical
writing.<79> The modern historian also arranges his narrative in a dramatic
form, but he or she uses footnotes, endnotes and citations to show the inner
workings-- the raw data-- of his or her work. These notes allow the historian to
share sources of information, present tangential information, and provide basis
of opinions. It allows the historian to "keep the forest in view while examining
particular trees."<80> Herodotus, however, was not able to use such
conventions as footnotes or endnotes (or for that matter, pages, chapters, or
books). Because of this, his digressions had to be placed more carefully, so that
Herodotus could make his point without losing his audience.<81>
One of the largest problems that many historians have with Herodotus is his use
of direct speeches in the later books of the History. It is clear that there is no
way Herodotus or his sources could have obtained word for word transcripts of
the speeches of local Greek leaders, much less Xerxes and the other Persian
emperors. Therefore we must accept that these speeches were made up by
Herodotus (or his "sources") for some greater purpose.<82> It is possible that
the dramatic speech is also a throwback to the epic days of yore, but it far more
likely that they serve a serious purpose.<83> Recent scholars have pointed out
that in Greek history, the narrative is used to relate historical events, and the
personal speeches are reserved to provide rational explanation for the
events.<84> These dramatic speeches are used (and composed?) by Herodotus
to reveal character, to explain a policy, and, most importantly, to keep the
audience interested in the progress of the tale.
One of the traits that separates Herodotus from the many historians both before
and after him is the way in which he relates to his audience. He does not lecture
them like a superior professor to inferior students, but relates to them like
friends and equals. He uses humor, irony, and sarcasm in a way few since have
succeeded, especially in the way he relates to the unbelievable or demonstrably
false portions of his history. For instance, in the fourth book of the history,

There is a lake in it from which the girls of that country draw up gold dust out
of the mud with bird feathers smeared with pitch. I do not know if this is
exactly true; I write down just what I am told. Still,
anything may happen...<85>
The irony is practically dripping off the page as it is read. These planned
literary devices show the audience that Herodotus is not rambling
uncontrollably as he relates his story, and while they are one step beyond the
familiar figures of speech, they are not incapable of ferreting out historical truth
and delivering it to the audience. <86> Indeed, it may be Herodotus' use of
baser literary constructs which make his History so appealing to the people and
so disliked by historians.
Herodotus and Thucydides take two different approaches in recording history. They are both
considered fathers of their respective branches of historiography. Herodotus, although he has
some interest in the facts, is mostly writing to entertain his audiences. He writes a history of the
Persian Wars, but spends most of his time writing about the histories of different places involved
in the story. He sensationalizes stories to make them more interesting, and changes facts in order
to show a moral or lesson, and sometimes completely makes things up (like giant gold digging
ants, ect.) Its unsure to what extent he consciously made these things up, or if he believed them
and had just heard them from unreliable sources. There is truth to his writing, but one must
consciously glean what is true from what is false, and go into his work knowing that you can't trust
everything he says.

Thucyidides, on the other hand, is the father of scientific history. He does not attribute events to
the supernatural, but instead tires to show what real events caused the Peloponnesian War to
break out. He also did not care particularly about being interesting or sensational(as he states in
his introduction to the History of the Peloponnesian War), but he tries to be as factually accurate
as possible. Thucydides doesn't care about proving a moral lesson, he just reports facts as they
happened. As a result, his history of the Peloponnesian War is a dry and more difficult text, but it
is widely regarded for its accuracy.
At about age 35, Herodotus settled in Athens. For many years, he had been writing an account of the wars
between Greece and Persia, which had ended when he was a small child. Herodotus entertained Athenians
and other Greeks by reading parts of his work for a fee.
Herodotus traced the conquests of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius, who made the Persian Empire the
dominant power in the inhabited world. He also wrote about the cultures, stories, and legends of the
numerous peoples who made up the Persian Empire. Herodotus decided not to leave out anything he had
learned about these foreign lands and peoples.
Herodotus pioneered many methods and sources that historians use today. He depended heavily on his
own observations from his extensive travels. He also interviewed individual Greeks, Persians, and others.
Herodotus writing was not always reliable. He did not rigorously separate fact from fiction as modern
historians try to do. He also composed long speeches, most of which had never been actually spoken. But
Herodotus presented a balanced picture of the Greeks and Persians at war. Remarkably, much of his
account was from the Persian point of view. Although he wrote about oracles and dreams influencing men,
he did not put the gods in the middle of the action as Homer had done.
In the first sentence of The Histories, Herodotus explained why he wrote his monumental work:
Herodotus of Halicarnassus here presents his research so that human events do not fade with time.
May the great and wonderful deedssome brought forth by the Hellenes [Greeks], others by the
barbarians [Persians]not go unsung; as well as the causes that led them to make war on each
other.
Early in The Histories, Herodotus told the story of King Croessus of Lydia in the western part of Asia Minor.
Known for his vast riches, Croessus learned of an oracle who predicted he would destroy a great empire.
This emboldened him to attack the Persians to the east. The Persian King Cyrus crushed his army and
conquered Lydia. Only then did Croessus realize that the empire he would destroy was his own. Herodotus
thus set the stage for the fall of great men who came too close to thinking of themselves as all-powerful
gods. THEME OF HUBRIS THROUGHOUT HISTORIES
In 499 B.C., with the help of Athens, Greek colonies along the west coast of Asia Minor revolted against
Persian rule. Darius easily crushed the revolt. He then retaliated against Athens by mounting a massive
seaborne invasion of Greece in 490 B.C. The Athenians with a few allies defeated Darius at the battle of
Marathon. Herodotus described how the Athenians finally won:
In their victory there, they allowed the barbarian troops that they had routed to flee and then . . . as
the Persians fled, the Athenians pursued them and cut them down until they reached the sea,
where they called for fire and started to seize the [Persian] ships.
Great King Darius returned to Persia, vowing to come back to Greece, but he died before he could lead
another invasion. His son, Xerxes, succeeded him in 486 B.C.
Herodotus and the Second Persian War
A few years after Darius died, Xerxes decided to lead a second invasion of Greece. Herodotus quoted a
long speech Xerxes made to the Persian nobles, stating his reasons and intentions. This speech, like others
that Herodotus quoted in The Histories, probably never took place. He did, however, interview a number of
Persians and probably captured the thinking of Xerxes, as indicated in this excerpt from Xerxes speech:
Persians, I am not about to introduce a new custom to you, instead I shall follow the tradition handed down
to me. . . . I was struck by the realization that we could gain glory; take possession of lands fully as
extensive, productive, and fertile as those which we have now; and at the same time obtain vengeance and
retribution, too. . . . [I] shall not give up until I conquer Athens and set it on fire, since it is they who began the
offenses against me and my father. . . .
In 480 B.C., Xerxes led the largest army the world had ever seen across a pontoon bridge over the
Hellespont, a narrow strait between Asia Minor and Europe. He also assembled a navy that consisted of war
ships from subject states.
As the massive army and navy moved toward Athens, 300 Spartans held a key pass in the mountains at
Thermopylae. Xerxes asked an exiled Spartan if his countrymen would fight the overwhelming Persian army.
Herodotus quoted the Spartans reply:
For though they are free, they are not free in all respects, for they are actually ruled by a lord and
master: law is that master, and it is the law that they inwardly fearmuch more so than your men
fear you. They do whatever it commands, which is always the same: It forbids them to flee from
battle, and no matter how many men they are fighting, it orders them to remain in their rank or
perish.
Xerxes laughed at this, wrote Herodotus, but was stunned when the 300 Spartans repelled three assaults by
his army. The Spartans were defeated only after a Greek betrayed them by showing the Persians a
concealed path through the mountains.
Herodotus wrote that as Xerxes then marched toward Athens, the citizens debated the meaning of an
oracle, predicting wooden walls would save the city. The Athenian leader Themistocles persuaded the
others that this meant the Athenians should fight at sea with their wooden ships.
The Athenian navy destroyed the Persian fleet as Xerxes looked on in horror. The Spartans went on to win a
great land victory over the Persian army, forcing it to march back across the pontoon bridge to Persia, never
to return
Thucydides and The History of the Peloponnesian War
After the defeat of Xerxes, many Greek city-states joined a league, headed by Athens with its superior navy,
to defend Greece from any further Persian invasions. Athens, however, began to demand tributemoney,
soldiers, or warshipsfrom league members. In addition, Athens forced other city-states to join the league
and prevented any member from leaving it. It also pressured league cities to adopt a democratic government
like its own.
The combination of tribute and expanded trade created a wealthy Athenian Empire. This, in turn, enabled
Pericles, the leader of the Athenian democracy, to launch a major building program in the city. One of his
projects included the famous Parthenon, a temple to the goddess Athena. Pericles admitted that the
Athenian Empire was a tyranny but argued the benefits it brought to Athens outweighed its evils.
Meanwhile, the Spartans with their dominant land army withdrew to their homeland of Peloponnesus, a wide
peninsula connected to the Greek mainland by a narrow strip of land.
Sparta differed greatly from Athens. It was a regimented, militaristic society. All Spartan males, ages 2060,
were soldiers. Women and slaves performed most other tasks in Sparta. Its government was an oligarchy,
drawn from the professional warrior class.
As Athens gathered more Greek city-states into its empire, the Spartans began to view the Athenians as a
threat. Sparta formed its own defensive league, and before long sporadic fighting broke out with Athens and
its allies. A peace treaty between Athens and Sparta did not last long, and in 431 B.C. the Peloponnesian
War began. Fighting in Greece continued for most of the next 27 years.
Herodotus was still alive at the start of the Peloponnesian War, but another Greek, Thucydides, would write
its history. Thucydides was born into a wealthy Athenian family about 460 B.C. Little else is known about the
first 30 years of his life.
Shortly after the war began, the Athenians elected Thucydides as one of the citys 10 generals. Assigned to
command a fleet off the coast of Thrace, he failed to prevent the Spartans from capturing an Athenian
colony. As was the custom, Athens punished Thucydides by exiling him from Athens for 20 years.
With lots of time on his hands, Thucydides decided to write a prose account of the war as it happened,
almost like a modern news reporter. He traveled extensively into the war zones, observed battles,
interviewed Athenian and Spartan military and political leaders, and read documents relating to the war. He
was the first to analyze human behavior in wartime. He concluded that war was rooted in human nature and
would be repeated in the future.
Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides rejected telling crowd-pleasing stories and concentrated on the facts of
important events. He avoided writing about myths, oracles, and superstitions. He recognized that even
eyewitnesses could not always be reliable sources. In general, he tried hard to be accurate, fair, and
unbiased.
Like Herodotus, Thucydides quoted speeches, but these actually took place. Thucydides heard some of
them himself. As for the rest, he wrote that he stuck as closely as possible to the general sense of what
they really said.
Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War
In the first sentence of his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides wrote that he began writing about
the war because he believed it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any other that had
preceded it. He went on to identify what he believed to be the real cause of the war. The growth of the
power of Athens, and the alarm that this inspired in Sparta, he wrote, made war inevitable.
Thucydides wrote how Corinth, a Spartan ally already fighting the Athenians, pushed Sparta to go to war
against the tyrant city and liberate Greece. Typically slow to act, Sparta finally agreed to lead the fight
against Athens, demanding that it restore independence to the Greek cities under its control.
In Athens, Pericles also called for war, but only under certain conditions since he recognized Spartas
advantage on land with its larger professional army. He counseled the Athenians to fight a defensive war by
remaining behind their city walls, depending on their superior navy and avoiding schemes of fresh
conquest.
Thucydides wrote that only an honest leader like Pericles could make Athenian democracy work. But
Pericles, whom Thucydides called the first citizen, died soon after the war began, probably in a plague that
ravaged Athens. According to Thucydides, those who replaced Pericles ignored his defensive strategy and
committed a series of blunders that eventually led to Spartas victory over Athens.
Thucydides was interested in how both soldiers and civilians behaved in wartime. In 427 B.C., rebels in
Corcyra, one of the city-states under the thumb of Athens, revolted against the democratic government
there. Athens quickly crushed the revolt, and the people of the city slaughtered the rebel faction. This
incident prompted Thucydides to comment on the evils of revolution:
The sufferings that revolution entailed upon cities were many and terrible, such as have occurred
and always will occur as long as the nature of mankind remains the same. . . . The cause of all
these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition. . . .
In 413 B.C., a large Athenian fleet carrying thousands of soldiers headed for Syracuse, a Spartan ally in
Sicily. The expedition failed to attack Syracuse immediately, allowing the city to prepare strong defenses
and get help from Sparta.
The Athenians failed in several assaults on the city, including an unusual night attack that Thucydides
described. Then the Athenians lost most of their ships in a battle within Syracuses harbor. Trapped,
Athenian troops panicked and tried to escape inland. The Syracusans followed them, killing and capturing
many. Thucydides described how it all ended at a river crossing:
Meanwhile the opposite [river] bank, which was steep, was lined with Syracusans, who showered
missiles down upon the Athenians, most of them drinking greedily and heaped together in disorder
in the hollow bed of the river. The [Spartans] also came down and butchered them, especially those
in the water, which was thus immediately spoiled, but which they went on drinking the same, mud
and all, bloody as it was, most even fighting to have it. . . .
As the war dragged on, atrocities on both sides increased. Probably the worst was a massacre in the
defenseless city of Mycalessus in 413 B.C. by Thracians allied with Athens. Thucydides described the
horror:
The Thracians bursting into Mycalessus sacked the houses and temples and butchered the
inhabitants, sparing neither youth nor age but killing all they fell in with, one after the other, children
and women. . . . Everywhere confusion reigned and death in all its shapes; and in particular they
attacked a boys school . . . into which children had just gone, and massacred them all.
In 411 B.C., Thucydides suddenly stopped writing. The war, however, continued for seven more years until
Sparta won a decisive victory over the Athenian fleet, finally forcing Athens to surrender in 404 B. C. We do
not know why Thucydides never finished his History. He died, some ancient sources say violently, around
400 B.C., after the war ended.
* * * * *
Herodotus and Thucydides invented history, or at least the writing of it, in the Western world. Before
Herodotus, the Greeks had no word for history in the sense of writing a narration of past events in prose.
Therefore, the Roman writer Cicero was correct when he called Herodotus the Father of History.
Herodotus may have been the first Western historian, but Thucydides was the first modern one. He
explained the causes of events, analyzed political developments like revolutions, and evaluated leaders
such as Pericles. In addition, like historians today, he was rigorous in searching for the truth and discarding
information that he could not verify.


Thucydides is often compared to Herodotus as a historian. Of the two,
Thucydides is thought to be more accurate and objective. Thucydides was familiar
with Herodotus, and admired his style, but he believed that Herodotus wrote for the
purposes of entertainment, as well as education. Thucydides self-consciously
decided that he wanted his history to be of instructional use to future generations,
rather than entertainment. He did not want his history to be confused with legends,
propaganda, or hearsay. His work set a new standard for future historical writers in
terms of accuracy and objectivity.

"Compare and contrast the historical methods, interests, and objectives
of Herodotus and Thucydides". He said you "might consider the sort of
writing(narrative, description, authorial analysis, interest in accuracy,
etc.) and the author's objectives in writing the history."

Writing hundreds of years after Homer, Herodotus compiled his History
(1) based on oral accounts and myth. A genial storyteller, Herodotus did
not regard his writing as epic poetry. The History, which explores
centuries of dramatic interaction between the ancient Greeks and the
Persian Empire, culminating with the Persian Wars in the early fifth
century BC, is a vast compilation of the history, customs and beliefs of
the Greeks and barbarians. Herodotus' historical reliability depends on
that of his predecessors, as his historical account is a composition that
includes their notions of history, geography, natural history and
anthropology, in a political and literary context.
A generation after Herodotus, Thucydides, who strove for objectivity,
wrote about political and military events that occurred during his lifetime,
with a close account of the war between Athens and Sparta in late fifth
century BC. Thucydides' history of The Peloponnesian War (2) is the
composition of an astute political and military historian. In a disciplined
and methodical style, his work analyzes issues related to the wars, with
little digression into other areas.
Since fifth century BC, Western tradition of historical writing and inquiry
developed beyond conventions established by Herodotus and
Thucydides. In the twenty-five centuries that followed, many historians
shared Thucydides' preference for contemporary history and local
politics, others drew upon both original archetypes, and some rejected
both methodologies. While in the course of developing modern
objectivity historians contributed new theoretical ideas, they also
continued historical inquiry in the spirit of especially Herodotus, that is,
the art of asking perhaps naive (if not objective) questions about human
behavior in time." (3)
Similarities and differences between Herodotus' and Thucydides'
histories have been the topic of much research and dissertation in
classic scholarship analyzing their work on issues of historical truth and
interpretation, history's relation to myth, the fascination with origins, the
differences between chronicle and narrative history.
In order to compare and contrast the historical methods, interests, and
objectives of Herodotus and Thucydides we must examine the
characteristics of their literary method, including the narrative,
description, authorial analysis, interest in accuracy, etc., and their
historical inquiry - the authors' objectives in writing the history.
The context in which history is written is very important because the
particular circumstances of time and place, which are reflected in the
writer's message become part of the message, received and interpreted
by the reader. "Thucydides, for example, was conspicuously and
painfully the product of a political 'crisis' and his work cannot be
extricated from his own intense and ultimately tragic experiences." (4)
Herodotus' and Thucydides' innovative methods of conveying the
experience of historical events and their interpretation have emerged in
the context of traditionally vibrant ancient Greek culture. A range of
literary allusions to myth and folklore, to earlier epic, to lyric and
epigram, the pervasive influence of Homer found in the work of
Herodotus, the broad lines of The History shaped like those of a Greek
tragedy (5), are explicitly relevant with regard to the historian's
connection with his cultural and literary milieu - for this History of mine
has from the beginning sought out the supplementary to the main
argument. (6) Scholarly investigation of the Peloponnesian War has
revealed plausible intertextual connections between the dense text of
Thucydides and the epic of his predecessors. (7) One relevant example
of such connection is said to occur in structuring some of Thucydides'
plot-patterns, like the similarities between Nikias' letter and
Agamemnon's speech, in Homer or that between the Athenians'
expedition to Sicily and Homer's Odysseus' return to Ithaca. (8) Another
intertextual connection has been noted in the similar choice of words
and structuring of the accounts between Herodotus' narrative of the
Persian invasion of Greece and Thucydides' narrative of the Sicilian
expedition (9) One particular characteristic of Thucydides writing style is
the pervasive interspersing of speeches within the body of his work. A
very famous one is Pericles Funeral Oration, which became the model
for many later speeches, and was very well known in antiquity.
A major distinction between Herodotus' and Thucydides' writings
consists in their different assessment of what history is. Herodotus'
concept of history, focusing on the diversity of the universal human
experience, contains an expansive field of human inquiry that, later,
became to be known as Cultural History. Thucydides, who presented
history in context, focusing on political and military facts and events of
his times, has been credited with writing the original scientific
history. Herodotus and Thucydides employ different strategies in
recounting the story of history. Herodotus narrates centuries of history
within the mystery of cultures while Thucydides employs a reductionist
and analytical strategy.
Herodotus' and Thucydides' works, which differ in many ways, also
share many characteristics like the magnitude of their prose, the
elusiveness with respect to meanings, the contribution to the
understanding of ancient societies, their subject matter dealing with
causes and course of war, their fascination with origins, or their vision
of "civilization" and "barbarians." Although Herodotus' eclectic manner
of gathering information stands in contrast to Thucydides' problem-
oriented style, they both regard telling the truth as mandatory to
historical method.
When comparing Herodotus' method with that of Thucydides we notice
that Herodotus appears throughout The History as an uncommitted
Homeric observer, famously taking the risk of reporting hearsay as
evidence, and occasionally crediting the gods with causes and
outcomes of historical events. By contrast, Thucydides' historical
method is based on precise, verifiable evidence and reflects a
systematic understanding of the human and military politics.

OPENING LINES The difference between Herodotus' introduction and
that of Thucydides is as remarkable as the difference in their method of
historical inquiry.
Herodotus' method of inquiry consisted of relying on other peoples'
testimony, customs and laws to speculate about the sincerity and
motives of the sources upon which he compiled the accounts of his
History. For example, Herodotus challenges Homer's assertion that the
breaking of guest-friend taboo and the abduction of Helen were at the
root of the Trojan conflict. But Herodotus does not completely reject
Homer's story. He only calls into question Homer's story by invoking
different versions of that story. But the speculations about the original
story cast sufficient enough doubt to annihilate its merits, similarly to the
way in which, throughout the Histories, seemingly small events cause
colossal disasters.
For example, Book 2: 112 through 2: 121 corroborate how Herodotus
gathered evidence to support Homer's story of the war at Troy - which in
text is referred to under the name of lium. Herodotus tells us, I asked of
the priests, they told me that what had happened to Helen, was this . . .
(12) This is how Helen came to Proteus, according to what the priests
say.And I think Homer knew the tale; but inasmuch as it was not so
suitable for epic poetry as the other, he used the latter and consciously
abandoned the one here told. (13)
Then Herodotus proceeds to explain his reasons for allowing
the other evidence to prevail over that of Homer's account:
This, is the story the Egyptian priests told. I myself concur in what they
have said of gave me of Helen. My reasoning is as follows: if Helen had
been in Ilium she would have been given back to the Greeks whether
Alexander wanted it or not. For Priam was not so besotted , nor the rest
of his kinsfolk, that they would be willing to risk their own bodies,
children and city so that Alexander should be with Helen. If, indeed, that
had been their sentiment at the first, surely later when many of the rest
of the Trojans had perished in their encounters with the Greeks, and
when, in Priam's own case, two or three of his sons on every occasion
of battle - if we are to speak on the testimony of the epic poets - when
all these matters of such consequence happened, I am confident that, if
it had been Priam himself who was living with Helen, he would have
given her back to the Greeks, if thereby he could have been quit of the
troubles that were upon him. It was not even as if the kingship was
going to devolve upon Alexander, so that, Priam now being old, things
were at Alexander's disposal; for it was Hector, older than Alexander
and more of a man, who would have taken over the kingdom on Priam'
s death; and Hector it would certainly not have suited to comply with his
erring brother - and that, too, one who had caused great disasters to
him personally and to all the rest of the Trojans. No, the Trojans did not
have Helen to give back, and when they spoke the truth, the Greeks did
not believe them; and the reason of this, if I may declare my opinion,
was that the Divine was laying his plans that, as the Trojans perished in
utter destruction, they might make this thing manifest to all the world:
that for great wrongdoings great also are the punishments from the
gods. That is what I think, and that is what I am saying here. (14)
Contrary to Herodotus, Thucydides offers rational explanations as
evidence for his claims and for the causes of later events that could be
reasonably expected on the basis of that evidence. For example,
Thucydides attempts to justify the authoritative claim made in the
introduction about the Peloponnesian war - that had just started - being
more important than the wars before it - a real turning point in history.
Thucydides investigates the Trojan War and the Persian wars for
evidence that supports his views. His method of inquiry consists in
rigorous investigation attempting to provide rational accounts through an
innovative use of empirical data, simulating the methods used by Greek
sciences of the time in the investigation of natural phenomena.
Thucydides rejects Herodotus' invocations of supernatural explanation
when accounting for historical conflict. Instead, Thucydides uses a
scientific, inductive method of inquiry to construct his theory of history.
He considers the actual events, examines the constraints and options
available to the protagonists, and then searches for possible
consequences of the events in order to speculate about the causes of
the initial event. His notions are always open to revision, without
necessarily rejecting his previous explanations, but rather expanding his
explanation in order to include this new information.

B. The Invention of History
It's reasonable to suppose, then, that as he went around doing business in
various places, Herodotus asked people about their recollections of times gone
by, the traditional tales they'd heard from their parents, grandparents and elders,
and using those data, he attempted to formulate a coherent picture of the past.
This methodologyan overt declaration that his histories are, at least in part,
the product of oral research.
Such pronouncements are followed more than once with sensational stories of
some sortlike the tale about the Egyptian king who prostituted his daughter
for stones with which to build his funeral monument which does little to
bolster confidence in their historical validity. More likely, these fabrications
originated as propaganda concocted after the fact to discredit a former regime.
This demonstrates well the peril of attempting this kind of historical
investigation in which the researcher must depend on dubious and unverifiable
sources. But if Herodotus were going to write any record of the past, he had
little choice but to work from oral histories since in his day the written records
of antiquity were fragmentary and often inaccessible to him. The problem with
being the first historian in the world is that there aren't any other histories to
rely on.
Unfortunately, that's not the only problem for historians trying to figure out
what-really-happened in Herodotus' Histories. More than once, he encountered
sources which conflicted with one another, but then rather than analyzing them
and trying to sift fact from fiction, he just dismisses the contradiction with
something like "Some people say this and others say that," hardly the
methodology of a scientific historian. To the contrary, he appears to revel in
relating whatever shocking tale has come his way and looks for ways to work
such material into his history, even if a tale is utterly outlandishindeed, the
more lurid and sensational the story, the more he seems apt to include it.
Thus, the maddening blend of fable and fact, the mess of chatter and moralizing
that clutters Herodotus' Histories, has earned its author the dubious honor of
being dubbed "The Father of History and Lies." Especially in the nineteenth
century when historians sought to garb their discipline in the trappings of
science, Herodotus' reputation suffered. But if some scholars have deplored his
vulgar tacticsand there are those who still dothere are at least as many
others, especially folklorists and those working in fields which look at culture
more broadly than most historians, who have found in The Histories a trove of
cultural wealth. In particular, with the recognition today that the study of
history encompasses things which may not fall easily under the rubric of
"science," that paradox and prevarication are endemic to the human condition,
and that history as its product must make room for lies, bias and innuendo,
many today would agree that "scientific history" is not the only valid way to
approach the past and may well be an unattainable and unnecessary dream. To
them, Herodotus is a true father.
built an audience interested in the subject. So even if he ranges sometimes into
the incredible, his ebullient and captivating style of narrating the past is a
crucial element in creating a demand for the discipline itself.
While not entirely unjustified, his real reason for doing this becomes apparent,
as The Histories unfold. Clearly, Herodotus wanted to relate the many
entertaining anecdotes he'd heard which are set in the remote past. By widening
his sights to a greater swath of history than just the Persian Wars, he can
speculate, for instance, about how the Egyptians built the Pyramids, and report
on a debate about what's the oldest language, and even record the first people
known to smoke marijuana. While little of what he says about these things is
likely to be exactly correctfor example, he's dead wrong about the
Pyramidsmore to the point, all of it is interesting. Nevertheless, starting a
history of the Persian Wars with an account of the early Lydian Empire is a
little like beginning a history of the American Civil War with a biography of
Christopher Columbus! Yet composing sensible history is not the only goal at
hand here, perhaps not even Herodotus' primary objective. His point is also to
make the study of the past enjoyable for his listeners, and the entertainment
value of The Histories is amply evident throughout.
Herodotus narration depicts the triumph of Xerxes over the Athenians and Spartans that
defended Greece, portraying Persias powerful army in the war at Thermopylae, while
Thucydides story clearly shows the Athenian armys overall annihilation by the Syracusans and
Spartans in their weak attempt to submit Syracuse under their power.