Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:37 pm Post subject: Herodotus and Thucydides
Homework Question: Who is the father of history? Why? What is your definition of history?
As of right now, my definition for history is: The study of past events that have shaped the course of the world, people living, and the events that are occurring now.
Thus leading me to the conclusion that I believe Herodotus is the father of history. I believe this because he was willing to write a book (even though his book was split up) on a topic that was very popular at the time, but incorporate his views on the topic. At the very beginning of the reading we are asked the question, "Father of history or father of lies?" which puts us (the readers) to believe that Herodotus is a liar, although if you continue to read you realize that he was a man that was willing to write a book on a popular topic, that not only included a large of amount of information, but also put in his point of view and exaggerations in order to keep the reader's attention. In this way I believe that Herodotus is the Father of History because he wrote about history, as well as made history with his unforgettable writings and included point of views, which give us another aspect on the events that happened.
Question: If the books that had been written on the same topic had included the author's point of views, as well as exaggerations, and Herodotus had not included and of these things; would Herodotus be considered an author who was too literal and someone who did not include important thoughts from that time because the other authors' writings would be considered normal?
Lex- Sorry I feel really bad saying this but I’m kind of really confused about what you’re asking so I don’t really know how to respond to it (>_<). Maybe the next person should answer it instead of answering my question!
My definition of history is: A study of events in both the past and present in context of other subjects, such as Politics, Environmental Studies, Science, Art, etc. Although in trying to be objective, Thucydides tried to focus on and only on historical events and hence missed out on providing other contexts, the fact that he tried to use primary sources that were more factually based (despite the fact he did include some poems, oral speeches, dramas, etc) still made him more reliable, and thus he should be considered the father of history for his rigorous thinking. History is similar to storytelling, but it should be in no ways exaggerated, too vague or too digressed. It is true that as long as someone is studying and writing about history (in fact things in general), both the person’s thoughts and works will be biased due to his/her unique perspective, which will always be different from anyone else’s. However, a historian should still try to stay as close to reality, despite the biases, as possible. Also a historical record can and should make the audience think, but it shouldn’t leave them wondering whether the author is telling the truth (I mean, everyone’s “truth” is different, but still). “One the whole…we are left in no doubt as to what actually happened” (p.26) Thucydides made everything as clear and as close to what happened as possible, and he also did add in some of his views but also made it clear that those were his own understandings. Therefore I think Thucydides should be considered the father of history (although I do like Herodotus).
Question: Thucydides mentioned that he started recording the War as soon as it started, but over the times his perspectives might have shifted. Just because one person’s views aren’t the same at different times, does it mean this person and his/her works are unreliable? If the answer is no then does that justify many horrible things people did in the past because at that time they thought they were right?
My definition of history is: well actually I think that question is kind of badly worded, or at least I separate it into two questions. What is history, I would say it is everything that has ever happened. (maybe even extends to what has ever been thought).
But what is recorded history? Is; All things that are written (spoken ie voice recording) about events, ideas and people that have happened in the past. But since there is no past (once you say past, it is then in the past) History then must or will also cover the future.
- sorry to cluttered lots of thoughts.
But my definition also helps shape my answer to who is the father of history. Herodotus covered not only large and noticeable events, but also myths and also made observations on patterns he observed. Myths may not be “Truth” but they are “true” in a way because they are spoken and based usually on some reality. He also acknowledges his fallibility, since other than God no one can see all sides of things. But his attempt to really “get at the cause of the events” I think really is the groundbreaking part.
Thycydidesis maybe more “reliable” because he checked his facts more before writing them down, but his view is narrow, and even for all his fact checking he, like Herodotus can not know everything. I think his writing is very nicely styled, but his spirit of recording what he did was more because he knew it would be an event of importance. He does make some conclusions about patterns of behavior similar to Herodotus, but to me his not expansive view narrows his writing down to more of a very embellished army record (minus the numbers). His lack things like myth and maybe not as reliable, but more wide ranging sources, makes me say that Herodotus is the father of history.
Because as I was writing, I concluded, if to try and understand the huge mass of things that is history (yes the plural things goes with single history) then the wider spread the sources used and points observed and things recorded, it seem to me the larger the chance of sneaking a fuller view of what has happened.
Answering Mingwei, I think that changing view does not make the person unreliable, whatever someone writes it is biased, simply because they cannot write EVERYTHING and in choosing what to write or record they are editing. And the second part of your question does not exactly relate to the first for me, because you are talking about his opinion while he is in the war, and I think while he is writing about it, but it did not say that he changed sides or anything, or mention his actual actions changing, so I would just say that his writing maybe changed slight focus or showed slight changed favor. But the actual actions of people based on what they think is right, is an entirely new question, I think.
Question: It is stated that Thycydides wrote knowing and intending to be read long after his time, but I don’t think Herodotus shared the same thoughts. But if Herodotus new that his work would be read, do you think he would, like Thycydides would go to as much pain to get the ‘truth” of what happened? As well as more limit his writing topic, digress less?
Or would he have done the exactly what he did?
I think that the person's views should still be considered reliable. They have a point of view that people in the future won't be able to have and just because it has switched doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reliable.
Sorry Mingwei D: I was trying to ask if the other author's whom had written a book had made their books have a point of view, would there writing have been considered normal because a large majority of people had written like that? It was kind of like switching the roles. A larger amount of people would creatively and only one person would write without putting in their point of view...I hope that helps.
History is people recording things they think changed or will change the world/society those things happened in. or maybe it's people recording things which connect the old world to the current world, events which cause the old world to change into the current world. There's a big difference between recording what has happened and how it relates to the present, and recording what is happening and how it might shape the future, but I'm not sure that means the latter should be excluded from the definition of history. For instance, I'd say that the reporters on 9/11 recording the fall of the twin towers as it was happening were recording history. I would say that any event which alters the normal trajectory of the world as it was before is history. I think trajectory is important.
Is history something you record or something you make? Is a historic event history in itself or is the record of that event history?
It's confusing when people say the phrase "making history," like "Barrack Obama made history when he was inaugurated." If that's history, then history long preceded Herodotus. Things happened for the first time before Herodotus- dinosaurs venturing to eat a new leaf, or the caveman lighting fire. What the first historians did was record new events, put them down on paper, and tracked the progression of the past world into the present. And those pieces of paper, or the ideas on them stayed around for a while, they carried the past into the future. History began when people started drawing a line from the past into the present, the eternally forward marching present. History is the study of how we got from point a to the current point b. History is the study of how the past is different from whatever came after, including what currently is, and how it became different. Maybe also where the trajectory of past change points to in the future?
I can't decide if Herodotus is the first historian or just a historical event. He embraced his own bias, and often chose words for their poetic value rather than their accuracy. Like a poet, he often preferred "the suitable to the accurate." Maybe accuracy isn't the most important part of history. If history is the process of linking the past to the present then it might be equally important to find the phrase that is currently most suitable. He connected past events to the current culture which valued poetry and artistic language.
I would admit that accuracy is important because connecting completely false information about the past to the present is just connecting an invention of the present to the present. However, I believe that the link between the past and what came after is the most essential part of history and without connecting an event in the past to what came after, there is no history.
FICTIONAL examples of history and no history
No history: Abe lincoln brushed his teeth with a hammer
History: Because abe lincoln brushed his teeth with a hammer, he had bad breath which made the confederate soldiers pass out and the north won the civil war.
To Zoey or Zoe or Zooey or Zoughy
I wonder if Herodotus cared more about success in the short term or success in the long term, posthumous success. Compared to Thucydides, Herodotus probably cared more about short term success. But I don't think Herodotus' tendency to digress was a weakness that would make him less famous in the long run. Some criticized Thucydides for his "laser" focus because though it tells us about the war, "we gain only a faint impression of what else was going on in the world." Herodotus' rambling tangents do give us a broader picture of the world at that time.
Also, I think Herodotus' tendency towards poetry rather than accuracy could also make him more favorable to audiences in the long run. One: it's more appealing to read, and Two: it also serves as a primary source of the culture and literary aesthetics of that time.
I was always told that there are three sides to the story: your story, their story, and the truth.
My definition of History: The truth of what has happened in the past. I believe that in order to learn about history we need to have the truth, the facts, and be as objective as possible. I believe that looking at a piece of work that is biased can give valuable information, but it is also inconvenient because then it would be necessary to look at other sides of the story. I would have to disagree with when Mingwei said, "... it is true that as long as someone is studying and writing about history (in fact things in general), both the person’s thoughts and works will be biased due to his/her unique perspective, which will always be different from anyone else." I think this could be contradicted with the fact that science and the scientific method as we know it now removes all biases. I'm not sure if it would be possible to only list facts when it comes to history. I loved the quote Mingwei pulled out that, "On the whole…we are left in no doubt as to what actually happened” (p.26) because I feel like we should always question what the truth is when looking at history. All in all, with my definition of history, I think that Thucydides is the "father of history" because he based his knowledge off of reliable sources, although looking at Herodotus would provide a piece of history.
Responding to : Question: If the books that had been written on the same topic had included the author's point of views, as well as exaggerations, and Herodotus had not included and of these things; would Herodotus be considered an author who was too literal and someone who did not include important thoughts from that time because the other authors' writings would be considered normal
I think if Herodotus had written like Thucydides and vice versa, people of their time might not have liked Herodotus's writing style, but I think we have to take into account that when Thucydides decided to write factually based and more literal, he was aiming his writing towards a future audience, not people of his time. (Sorry, that a run-on that I'm too sick to fix right now)
My Question: Scientific method is to science as _____ is to history.
Is there a method of removing all biases in history and if not why?
My definition of history: The objective records of human events, written by people so future generations can study the failures and successes of their ancestors.
I consider Thucydides the father of history. His History of the Peloponnesian War is cited by scholars as the first example of “serious historical research.” This is important because he was younger than Herodotus, and therefore Herodotus’ work is not considered the first reliable recording of history. Thucydides aimed to detail his History with “higher standards of research and accuracy” than Heordotus’. He wrote about behavioral patterns that helped explain the war between Athens and Sparta (p. 29)
That said, Thucydides may not be the ideal historian. He was a wealthy and powerful figure in his community. He was also elected a general, but was exiled from Athens after an unsuccessful mission. He states he wrote History “in the belief that it would be great and noteworthy above all wars that had gone before.” He also relied “almost exclusively on political and military material” which were “unnamed oral and written sources” from the time, which may have excluded other information of viewpoints. As a wealthy, exiled general, he may also have wanted to influence his readers through his writing (though this is entirely speculation, because most scholars agree he was generally spot on).
I think Herodotus was more of a story teller than Thucydides. Both seemed to use some historic or poetic licenses in their histories, but Herodotus made up parts of some speeches that he could not remember. (Thucydides did this to a degree too, but “what sets (Thucydides) apart is that he tells us how he wrote them… and he tried to keep (what he wrote) ‘as close as possible to the overall sense’.” (p. 27)
Neither Herodotus reading said how wealthy or influential he was but the second alluded to the influence wealth would have over Herodotus’ work. Some scholars also believe Herodotus wrote to evoke pleasure from the audience, possibly at the expense of historical accuracy. This made me wonder whether he intended to write for strictly historical accuracy, or if he sought fame or a profit from releasing his works. (Again, purely speculation.)
Responding to part of Mingwei’s question, I think when a historian interjects their views or opinions into their writing, it detracts from the historical accuracy. I think a journalist should be as unbiased and objective as a good journalist is. Otherwise, what we learn to be history (or truth) may just be one person’s opinion masked as history, which unfairly skews the readers’ perceptions of history.
My question: I said Herodotus comes across to me as a storyteller (or more so than Thucydides). Does anyone else consider him a storyteller, is that too much of a stretch?
my definition of history as of now is: Actions in the past presented in a way which explains why things developed the way that they did in the world.
I believe that the father of history is Herodotus. Herodotus went straight ahead towards working at becoming someone important. There was not necessarily a path set in front of him for him to follow, he had to begin everything on his own. Herodotus did not just write about the events that were considered most important, or that perhaps another would have set aside. Herodotus considered everything, even down to myths, which not everyone may have agreed with. Herodotus went down every path he could think of to come to correct conclusions, which i believe made him the father of history.
response to zoey:
your definitions of history really got me thinking. I agree with both the definitions but then I got stuck when I tried to come up with a way to describe the difference between history and documented history. I thought it was really weird that both of your definitions could make complete sense but then somehow get stumped by this. Maybe its just me not being able to come up with something....but I thought it was interesting.
question:
do you think there is really a right answer to who the father of history is? What difference would it make, if any at all, if there was a true set "father"?
I see history less as an objective and omniscient record of the past than a rather subjective accumulation of attempts to record the past.
I agree with Zoey that the more sides we get from an event the more we are going to understand it. And I believe that is what historians should do: to record and present the past so that by comparing them we can reach the "ultimate truth". In this sense I would say Herodotus is the father of the history for his production of "the first narrative history"(156) in order to "preserve the essential facts and causes of recent events” (P157)
I think his most eminent contribution to history is his intention to find "patterns of growth and decline", which is from my perspective the purpose of studying history. And the most important distinguishing characteristic that sets him up as the father of history is the point that he "offers alternative versions of events on more than 125 occasions"(160) and persent his own skepticism towards some. This is the trend he sets up for future historians to dig into the truth among different accounts of an event.
For Rowan's question, I don't think there is and I don't see the need of removing bias.
I think history is so much more about opinions and perceptions than a simple and accurate timeline of events. And the presence of author's subjective perception is unavoidable in texts of history that are self-established as being objective. (This is part of why I'm against Thucydides: although he claimed to follow the high standard of accuracy, his perception is still from a Pelopommesian perspective)(319).
I find it interesting that we are less forgiving towards history for being inaccurate or hypothetical than we are towards science. Does it mean we (nowadays) assume history as an absolutely incontrovertible truth while we leave space for science for being hypothetical? (I guess the definition of "history" I'm pointing here is more leaning towards the definition of modern history, aka the timeline?)
My definition of history is the recording and subsequent analysis of human patterns. As zoey mentioned in her post, history needs to cover both what has happened, and also what will happened; history records the past and informs the future. Maybe the historian is not the person to analyze so as to not inject bias into their writing, but I feel that the true purpose of history is to be understood beyond the literal.
Thucydides's attention to detail is really impressive, but I feel that the true father of history is Herodotus. Both authors attempt to analyze history, but I feel that Herodotus fits more with my definition. Thucydides, as we see in his writing segment is far more concerned with the causal relationships between events; he's more interested in defining the literal 'why' instead of discovering the patterns that Herodotus does. Herodotus' theories like his soft/hard countries really speak more about what history's true purpose, at least for me.
In response to Rowan's question, I believe that the scientific method is perhaps just as important in history as it is in science. It basically takes a similar shape, just in less obvious ways. I can't stretch the analogy to fit the experimentation, but historians tend to collect information from different sources, just like scientists would collect data. They then use that data to create a conclusion about an event, or humanity in general, just like a scientist would. They then produce their findings to the rest of the academic world, so other historians may see how they drew that conclusion and repeat the process and perhaps draw a different conclusion. The full scientific method may not be there, but I find the true purpose is still intact.
Question: Do you think Thucydides' "laserlike focus" is more helpful to truly understand history, or does a broader but more complete analysis help us understand more?
The assignment was to choose either Herodotus or Thucydides as the father of history. Here I find myself in a mental deadlock as in my view they are both the fathers of history but of different parts. Herodotus while his work strikes me as more of a guidebook you may buy before going to Persia on vacation, some of his methods such as viewing an argument from all sides when talking about the back and forth kidnappings of everyone’s women. Although he is guilty of embellishment such as “flying snakes” and trying to be more appealing rather than accurate. Herodotus is important in that he brought information from outside Greece and its circle and tried to examine it along with Greek information. Thucydides on the other hand was a man obsessed with fully explaining the main topic where Herodotus had branched out over every topic he could find. Thucydides is worthy of being one of the fathers of history because of the way he approached the topic and research. Drawing exclusively from information pertinent to his main topic he managed to get a very detailed account of what he was writing about, he also did not need hooks such as flying snakes because he understood that history should be as close to the truth as possible. In his research he focused on events he had participated in and found other primary sources to aid him in his accounts were as Herodotus relied on local story tellers and “passing informants”
In my opinion history is the story of humans, human feats, deeds, conflicts etc as recorded by people. History is not fixed as understanding of events and new evidence is always emerging, much like science were what is considered proven fact or accepted theory can be disproven by the next discovery, so to is history fluid in its understanding of events
Do you think that Thucydides was right in that hard facts last longer than colored facts?
i think both are useful an overview is good if you want a brief understanding and desire to gather large amounts of information fast (thus U.S overview) but when more detail is required laser like precision is always best.
i like to think of it like Google earth if i look at Boston from above ill understand the full structure but not what makes it up that's why i need the zoom button and street veiw
Is history something you record or something you make? Is a historic event history in itself or is the record of that event history?
This is an interesting question and I will argue that a historic event is the past (which is in itself objective) instead of the history (which is the subjective perception of it, trying to be as objective as possible)
I think we are facing terminology problem again since the definition and usage of the word "history" is different in the past and present, as well as in its broad sense and narrow sense. I think the "history" in "making history" points more towards a descriptive usage, like an adjective, to describe the passing present that is being preserved.
Also I find it interesting that Herodotus refers to his own texts as "my history" (p.22) In this way he sort of established his inquiries of these events as being debatable and receptive to modifications (?)
Last edited by mijiawang on Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:38 pm; edited 2 times in total
Do you think that Thucydides was right in that hard facts last longer than colored facts? That truly depends on the nature of the facts, to give the shifty answer. But to be more precise, interesting facts last, as long as they are believable. We discussed today how medieval folk thinking that the world is flat is a myth, a colored fact, but it is interesting and believable so it has stuck. People will want to spread a clever lie more than the boring truth, especially when they can't tell the difference.
I suppose I'll begin by arguing that Thucydides was, out of the information given, the first historian. The qualities given to him: attention to detail, laser like focus, these are all vital qualities in pulling truth out of the past. The report of history must be as free of opinion and bias as possible, or it cannot be interpreted. A biased reading of history certainly has its place, and making assumptions is one of the few ways that we can analyze and learn from the past, but that place is not in the dictation of history. The historian must be reliable, and their history made of facts and not opinion.
But that is not to say that I think Thucydides was the father of history, to say the opposite, I think that Herodotus's impact on the telling of history is far greater. Herodotus may have been a storyteller first, but his work lay the foundation for the factual report of history we value today. He made the first important step from story to history, and while the step may not have been perfect, it was necessary for those who followed in his footsteps to become historians. Herodotus's work fathered history, and while he himself was a poor historian, his "children" become the greatest.
Take for instance our discussion on Aristotle today. We talked about how it is unfair to harshly criticize his work on physics, as "wrong" as we may now think it is. Because that skips over what was important about his work: When it came to physics he made have been a poor scientist by today's standards, but his work was vital in the creation of the study (the science) of not only physics but countless other fields. He himself may have been no perfect scientist by today's standards, but his work fathered the field regardless.
Question: Both Herodotus and Thucydides used speeches of great leaders of their day in their work. Thucydides admits to an imperfect knowledge of the exact words, but promises to deliver the gist of it. How does this integrity strike you?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
