Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:22 pm Post subject: Herodotus and Thucydides
Read Herodotus and Thucydides pp. 15-34. Who do you consider the father of history? Why? How are you defining history? (feel free to expand the conversation beyond these questions...)
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:45 pm Post subject: First post
Herodotus is the father of history because his writing speaks more to how past events affect the present/future. “If someone were to propose to each man to choose the best customs of all that are, he would look them over and choose his own.” (Page 16, left side top) Herodotus wrote about multiple parties and not just the Greeks or just the Persians. He knew the stories of each side would differ. On the same page, he also explains that he visited small cities as well as larger ones because they are of equal importance.
Even though Thucydides strongly suggested Herodotus’ work as inaccurate, he still even admits in his own history on page 27 left side that he took accounts from memory and even made up speeches to “convey his doubts about democracy”. Thucydides may claim that he was more thorough in his research and his version is more accurate, but in the end he used some similar strategies as Herodotus and who knows which is more accurate.
My definition of history is past happenings that affect the present. That is why I feel Herodotus is the father of history rather than Thucydides.
I believe Herodotus to be the father of history, for he was the first person to bother putting any of the stories of the past down in a book of any value. while he did include some parts that were somewhat suspect, flying snakes, i think he only did this out of respect of the stories. after all all history is is the retellg of stories, even though today (as with thucydides) people would do more research first, he figured with teh use of logic and the taking in of many stories to make an account fo the events that transpired. even if his stories were out there it doesn't mean it's not an attempt at history. for him to make an attempt he would have had to have an idea and that idea was history. Thucydides only took the idea and perfected it, in his view, and his newer way (being more selective of the truth) became more popular. it takes only what he can see as cold hard facts, no flashy ideas, and yet as kinaide said he did fudge up the truth with his own previous conceptions. so he did exactly as Herodotus did, but he put extra effort into findgin out how true accounts were before putting them down. he's like the son thay perfected teh buisness his father created.
my definition of history is the use of language to relay the truth of past events.
but the truth can be fakeish because of the fact that everyone's perception is different from others. as we see with Herodotus' differing points of view in his books, which he acknowledges too, so he may be trying to have us come up with our own inclusions, like a writer might do.
I think that both Herodotus and Thucydides fathered aspects of history. I think that Thucydides is the father of history. While Herodotus traveled, spoke to people, and made inferences, Thucydides stayed in one place and conducted actual investigations into the city. I think that the Thucydides’ response to Herodotus’ theory about the buildings in Athens was interesting because it proved that Herodotus had only considered that buildings symbolized wealth, not power or anything else.
I define history as an exploration of different cultures and peoples through the remnants of their lives. This is why I feel that Thucydides was the father of history, because he was more of an archeologist than Herodotus.
What kept coming up in these readings was the important and reoccurring theme of conflict and the role it played throughout both Herodotus and Thucydides histories. I agree with Kneaded that Herodotus is the father of history because he focuses much more on people, places, geography and wars as a whole, whereas Thucydides rarely strayed from the facts and relied too heavily on a “critical attitude” (p. 29). And although these differences change as history changes and moves forward, I still feel that Herodotus is the father since Thucydides could not have critiqued and argued with Herodotus’s ideas and histories to then make his. Thucydides work belongs “in the category of history as a science” (p. 29) and possesses a certain sophistication that I believe can only be fulfilled with the refinement of Herodotus’s works. I also feel that Thucydides position of power, as both a high ranking general and a rich goldmine owner, strongly effected how he analyzed power and the war in general. He was a “man of action” which led to a straightforward approach to dealing with the past, possibly leaving out important components, such as people and culture and their connections.
Herodotus took into consideration things like alternate versions of events and what can be called the two sides of a single story, even though that itself is debatable… Like I said earlier, the pertinence of conflict in his works seems more down to earth almost, since conflict is a part of history.
Going off the beginning of my post, I am thinking right now for this reading that history is conflict, and then the process/story of resolution that follows, even if that resolution is never reached. Both Herodotus and Thucydides acknowledged the patterns of human behavior, but Herodotus went as far to try and make connections.
I'm going with Thucydides. At first, i was for Herodotus, especially after reading the preface he wrote for his book. (page 15, right side) It really seemed that Herodotus focused on what and why things happened, which are really important qualities of a good historian. As I continued, Herodotus switched from a historian to a storyteller, which are not the same. While a historian, such as Thucydides, bases writings off of facts, a storyteller just.... tells stories. Having truth in his stories isn't foundation enough for Herodotus to be a historian. It was really great how thorough he was, giving backgrounds and forming his ideas on hard vs soft cultures (page 16) and all, but he really just talked a lot. Now I get that Thucydides made up some speeches, but i really believe he did it because it didnt change the overal outcome or important messages of his writing. Herodotus told many unreliable versions of his stories. If he had pushed a version, then it would seem more historical, even if wrong. Thucydides relied, "almost exclusively on political and military material," (page 26), which i think was more effective than doing the research himself. Herodotus was a great researcher and storyteller, but the author of the articles really convinced me that Thucydides did a better job reflecting on information and presenting it in a new and effective way to everybody.
My definition is pretty similar to the one i had in class, but now with an emphasis on what actually happened.
History is the study of actual past events, that present day historians use to improve the world around them.
I would personally consider Thucydides to be the father of history. While Herodotus is clearly known by many to be the 'father of history' for a reason, the fact that he has been accused of fabricating info (especially the part about the flying snakes...) was a big red flag for me. It also said in the text that he most likely used oral information to conduct the speeches in 'Histories', and history that is passed down by word of mouth can sometimes become distorted over time. Thucydides, on the other hand, claimed to have conducted more accurate research for his work than Herodotus. Thucydides's 'History' has been said to display the earliest example of accurate historical research. He also seemed intently focused on his subjects of interests while I got the sense that Herodotus's mind wandered more.
Writing this got me thinking about a question that I'd like to ask you guys: do you think that good historians always have to be 100% accurate with their information, or is there room for some story telling?
Herodotus did found the style of historical narrative, even if his priorities within this context don’t line up with what is emphasized by today’s historians. I see Herodotus the same way I see Aristotle because of this. Today scientists focus on experiments and quantitative evidence to support their ideas. Aristotle emphasized logic and all properties observable and natural. Although Aristotle’s priorities don’t match up with those of modern scientists, his ideas are still relevant. They revolutionized his society, and many people still use his philosophical system today. The same can be said for Herodotus. He was wildly wrong in some instances but his writing was groundbreaking as were some of his ideas (for instance, “For the cities which were formerly great, have most of them become insignificant; and such as are at present powerful, were weak in the olden time” (22)”.
Science and history (and all forms of study for that matter) are organic, changing over time. Herodotus’ efforts should not be disqualified because he didn’t father history as we now interpret it. (Also, this partially goes to answering Lilia’s question) I think that Thucydides might have focused his efforts on fact to the point of fault. His emphasis on fact resulted in a much narrower scope than found in Histories, but ultimately untruths are unavoidable in history, and despite his best efforts there is definitely misinformation in Thucydides' text. I think its better to tell people’s stories and derive meaning from them that later generations can learn from (perhaps sacrificing a certain amount of accuracy along the way), than to single-mindedly pursue an unattainable “truth”.
History: the story of past events, often presented in an attempt to derive meaning and context from them
Last edited by bcusanno2012 on Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:21 pm; edited 2 times in total
I really agreed with what Tilly had to say. I too noticed the theme of conflict coming up a lot. And I'm in love with her definition that history is conflict. I don't think that this definition only applies to the reading. Thinking back on any history class I've ever taken, I realize that history is just a continuing cycle of conflict and resolution.
I went back and forth on who I thought was the "father of history", but finally decided on Herodotus. Though he was in fact a "storyteller" and his work was only considered "reasonably accurate", I feel that he had a much more open-ended view of the past. I guess it depends on what your definition of history is. I personally feel that understanding why something happened is much more important than understanding how it happened.
Herodotus' approach to history lends itself to this much more. Instead of telling us exactly what happened, he gave us a few possible scenarios and left it up to the reader to decide. He questioned everything he heard and read about events and looked at everything skeptically. I think questioning things is important not only in understanding history, but also in navigating through life. Isn't that what history is for? To help us figure out how to navigate through our lives based on ideas, mistakes, and triumphs from the past?
His critics call his work "biased", but I completely disagree. He is not trying to convince us of anything. In fact he is asking that we keep in open mind and know all the facts before we declare something.
I think that both Thucydides and Herodotus are both "fathers of history" based off of the definition that history is a carefully altered version of past events as told or written by someone else. They had to go off of research and some fabrication because they weren't there when those events happened. Clearly, they wouldn't have been able to tell the whole truth so they had to write their own "truths". It seems as if they were both into storytelling of some sort and that they were interested in the idea of conflict within civilization, "The subject of this book is the confrontation of East and West, of barbarism and civilization..." (pg 19) & "He investigated the causes of the conflict between Athens and Sparta and thereby revealed certain general behaviour patterns" (pg 29). So I personally think that you cannot grant one the title and not the other.
At the beginning, Thucydides came off as a hypocritical jerk. He accused Herodotus of being “Pleasing to the ear rather than truthful.” While at the same time Thucydides sometimes used similarly unreliable sources like anonymous sources and Oracles, and had a tendency to paraphrase. My vote would have been with Herodotus, if only because he seemed open with his biases, as Kate pointed out.
However, Thucydides changed my mind in two sentences: “Never had so many human beings been exiled, or so much human blood been shed.” Then later “..should make us ‘more inclined to approach one another with forethought.” Pg 26 This is a man who records history so that we don’t repeat it. And I can’t help but feel that that’s what gives history power.
So I have just finished the first half of the reading. From the introduction of Herodotus, I cannot see him as being the father of history, considering he comes up with alternate stories. Even though he is "reasonably accurate", I think that he would need to focus on more substance rather than the play of words in order to be the father of history. I will post again to see if I change my mind after I complete the reading.
-did anyone really follow the history that he wrote about? I did for a little bit, but then I got lost. Just curious to see if anyone else had struggles or not.
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
