really enjoying reading everyone's posts tonight! It's so cool to see how people's definitions of history are already being fine-tuned.
I'm trying to decide what it actually means to be the "father" of something, in this case history (rachel here I go getting all concerned with the definitions of things as is a pattern in our class so far..) and I think if I had to choose, I would say Thucydides is the Father but only if Herodotus could be the Grandfather. H may have taken a less literal route in his historical recount, but considering that his sources were primarily word of mouth, by retelling a story told to him orally he is following it pretty closely by honoring the nature to which he was given the information. I remember trying to define a myth back in myths and patterns, and Anjali stressed that the details picked up by each storyteller along the way were as much a part of the fabric of the history as the names of the people who battled or lived inside the story. H is accused for exaggerating his facts and I think lost a lot of people's faith in his words with the whole flying snake bit, but who's to say he didn't actually see or experience that snake? I wasn't around back in BC...so if giant ants are truth to Herodotus, then I don't feel comfortable deciding it's anything but that. I guess it depends on who's truth you and I as readers of history decide to put faith in.
As for Thucydides, his approach was less grand but more fatherly in a sense, which is why I wouldn't give him the respectable title of grandfather. His approach gives us context ["Thucydides uses speeches to explain the motives and ambitions of individuals and states but also to draw out important themes." (27)] but a narrow offering of context due to the fact that most of his sources are political/military. "Although this gives us a very detailed account of the war, we gain only a faint impression of what else was going on in the Mediterranean world." (26-27) However, I think his use of synecdoche helps make up for that a little if the detailed experiences at Corcyra represent the war on the whole.
I guess to sum it up, I would choose Thucydide's account if I were to write a research paper for accuracy and authority on the subject, but Herodotus's if I were to explain the history to another person interested in the language and culture carried within the plot.
After considering the value in both approaches, right now I'd say history is a collection of truths pertaining to significant moments in the past, where the significance is highlighted by the one who is speaking.
Hope I didn't talk at you too much with this...Tilly loving your history def and Tess loving your unabashed opinions. Jess I also got a little lost in the actual historical parts
-So i think I am in the same boat as Shari when it comes to understanding what went on exactly.
I read the second half and I decided that I will stick to what I said earlier and have Thucydides be the father of history. It may just be instinct but I believe him more, even though his work is a tad duller. He was/is "more prescriptive than descriptive". pg 29. He went about history like a scientist would go about proving a hypothesis. He "investigated the causes" (pg 29) and he tried to keep "as close as possible to the overall sense of what was actually said" (pg 27). He won me over with his "higher standards of research and accuracy" (pg 26".
I am defining history as a record of what happened in the past.
- it then leads to the question, who do you believe more?
I believe that Thucydides is the father of history because he wasn’t trying to tell a story, he was telling the truth. Yes, Herodotus did use the truth in his writings, but it felt more like a historical fiction novel instead of something that the “father of history” would write. It is true that a historian needs to be able to do more than just present the facts, but I think that for the father of history its better not to elaborate on the actual events. Although Herodotus used oral accounts to portray a lot of his facts, oral accounts can easily be warped and misheard to accidentally fabricate or twist an occurrence.
I really love Tess’s last paragraph in which she says “This is a man who records history so that we don’t repeat it. and I can’t help but feel thats what gives history power!” I completely agree with this statement. I feel it hold so much truth into what history is and the importance of how its presented to future generations. SO my new definition of history is:
“History is a form of story-telling that explains an event in detail and allows us to study and learn from our mistakes for the future.”
History, as we discussed in today’s class, although this is my other definition of history based on our discussion, can be defined as the story of events of past and present that is believed as accurate while can be biased and altered by each interpretator. In my understanding, ‘Father of something’ stands as a pioneer who first established guideline or standard of the ‘something’ which later works as the root of contemporary ‘something.’
We criticize Herodotus as imprecise deliverer of false history. It is true that some of (well, a fair amount of) his records are unreliable. However, it is undoubtedly true that he created the first form of narrative history. Herodotus collected evidences, although some of them are oral traditions that have high potential of being altered and modified, and tried to bring the accurate narration of past, also leaving space for the readers to discuss and seek for more profound understanding of the past. He created the criteria of narrated history which we still respect, thus he qualifies to be called as the father of history.
…and I hereby timidly commenting that some tree snakes can fly, although the flight is actually a long-distance jump from tree to tree:)
So i think that Herodotus is the father of history, but then Thucydides is the step-father that comes to take the first father's place. From the readings, I gathered that Herodotus was considered the father of history because no one else had written history down yet. But what is his definition of history is, is not necessarily accurate. My definition of history is that history is a record of past ideas, events, places, people, or things. What Herodotus wrote, was more like a "based on a true story" movie. Where there is that element of truth, but to please the ear of the reader, he would "spice it up!"
So this is when Thucydides comes in as the brand new step dad who will replace the first father. Thucydides was more of a research based historian. His history books were more for the information, rather then to please the reader, they were more factual.
To answer Lilia, yes i think that historians have to be completely accurate with their information. Otherwise, the information being given will be bias, and one-sided. Now this is not to say that stories or story telling should be excluded completely by historians. Story telling is a huge part of history, like oral traditions being passed on from generation to generation. But in this case, it is important for historians to be as accurate as possible.
do you think that good historians always have to be 100% accurate with their information, or is there room for some story telling?
niko,i think history should be 100% accurate. As much as I wish it was possible, with storytellers like Herodotus and Thucydides along the way, history gets messed up. Someone mentioned the Churchill (i think?) quote, "history is written by the victors." I would argue that there is a good deal of truth there, and it's also just a good example of how history cannot be 100% true. We only read history from a few points of view, so it's near impossible to get the truth. One person's unbiased point of view might seem completely subjective to another, so even objectivity is hard to define. It's sort of like we know red exists, but we can't describe it. We know certain historical events actually happened, but how can we be sure they came about how we think they did?
I'm a little scared now of my working definition of history now that truth got complicated. Maybe history isnt so much about facts as it is about impacts? (But facts are important... but are obscured because truth is)
At first, I was tempted to argue that bards and poets like Homer were the real 'fathers of history'. They continued traditions of story and music, and kept culture alive, passing their knowledge down to the next generation. But I had to define the role of a historian. In the case of both Herodotus and Thucydides, we see men who realize the significance of their situations; trouble was brewing, and it seemed like it would result in a war, the scale of which had never been seen before. They both made the conscious choice to report on the events, and to record them in such a way that they would be remembered. This strong desire for definitive, lasting preservation of people, places, and deeds sets them apart, in my mind, from their predecessors. They showed a tremendous amount of foresight, as they watched two superpowers collide. Both made detailed accounts, combining many different sources, some more reliable than others. (Oracles seem a little shady to me...)
But the POINT is that both Herodotus and Thucydides sought to compile events in an orderly fashion, avoiding bias where possible, and provide insight on the causes of these events. I believe they both deserve to be credited as 'father of history.' However, if I had to pick sides, I think I would choose Thucydides, for his specificity and straightforwardness. If he were an essayist, he would stay on topic, and probably provide a more structured argument. Having said that, I appreciate Herodotus's style of narration and his ability to 'draw readers in', which should not go unnoticed. I think more people enjoyed reading Herodotus's work than that of Thucydides, although this is unfounded.
As for my definition of History: In a purist sense, the search for the clearest lens, through which all may view the past. Historians try to create a portal to the past, using their powers of information gathering, synthesis, and description.
And a little food for thought, since these two were contemporaries, what were the chances that they shared some of the same techniques and resources? Perhaps they are more alike than different. _________________ "We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less." - Diogenes of Sinope
Last edited by edalven on Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Like a lot of people, I first was on the side of Herodotus being the father of history but as I continued to read I realized he was much more of a storyteller than a true historian. Yes, most of his written history was based off of fact but when I read that he often made alternative stories about events, one of the reasons being "...where he offers his own thoughts on an event" it just sounds like he made things up and changed this around to make them more interesting and/or descriptive. It says on page 16 that he was influenced by poetry, and that a lot of his work was based on oral evidence. Overall it just seemed like Herodotus was very descriptive which gave him a lot more credit as a historian than he maybe deserved.
Then after continuing on in the reading I was made even more certain about my choice that Thucydides is more of a father of history as soon as I began reading about him. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides seemed more factual just overall in his work. It is put perfectly on page 29 (second paragraph) "Thucydides was more prescriptive than descriptive... relevance and some immediately intelligible reasons for historical change." I love the way Jessica said that he "went about history like a scientist would go about proving a hypothesis" I think that is absolutely correct and really well put. I believe that Thucydides was a better historian because he was accurately reflecting information- "accurately" being the key word. I think that's a huge part of history, making my definition of history become "Events accurately recorded about the past." This reading changed that part of my perspective on history as my original definition in class said nothing about the accuracy of the information recorded. I didn't realize how relevant that was until seeing the differences in Herodotus and Thucydides as historians.
I think Herodotus is kind of the cool uncle to history...
I hope some of this made sense. Great posts tonight everyone!!
And in reply to Niko's question, I do think that history needs to be accurate. A lot of people believe the entire point of history is to observe what happened in the past and learn from our "mistakes". When storytelling and fiction gets mixed up with history and different versions appear, what are we supposed to base any of our knowledge on? If history isn't factual, everything we learn and know have to come from our personal experiences (not to get all Aristotle with it) and we have nothing to base anything else off of because they will just be unreliable stories. Your question kind of made my mind run in circles and I think there is a lot more I need to think about and take into account to fully answer it but that's what I got at first without killing myself over thinking about it.
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:15 pm Post subject: Father Herodotus
In my eyes, Herodotus is most definitely the father. Like Gyoungheui, I thought the "Father of History", would have to truly pioneer a new concept; Herodotus did this when he wrote Histories. I like to think of Thucydides as the son who views history differently and fights his fathers ideas around what history truly is.
I found myself rooting for Herodotus midway through the Thucydides reading, because I want to believe that history is more than just the most accurate knowledge regarding past events. After the introductions about each historian, I thought Herodotus's writing was going to be whimsical while still providing accurate information and Thurcydides's writing to be purely what happened and when, including no cultural background or sense of emotion. I found Thucydides and Herodotus's writing to have far more similarities than differences, even though Thucydides was more formulaic, and Herodotus digressed once or twice.
The statement "we are left in no doubt as to what actually happened" was used to describe Thucydides, but should we be left in no doubt?
This question seems similar to Niko's, and I would love to hear what people have to say on either.
History is the series of truths that help explain conflict and past events.
Alright two things, the first seems like a wild tangent but bare (sp?) with me. I once heard this story on NPR about famous quotations, specifically famous misquotations. And one of the quotes they discussed (attributed to Winston Churchill) goes "I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat." Except when people quote it, they often just say "blood, tears, and sweat". The speech was misquoted so often that Churchill himself actually started leaving out the word toil when the subject was brought up. The speaker argued that even though leaving out the word toil is a historical inaccuracy, the quote has taken on such a force in culture that "blood, tears, and sweat" became valid because of the context. it has more meaning because of the alteration. i think history is as much a study of context, influence, and culture as it is of actual fact. so even if H did exaggerate and purport factual inaccuracies this doen't necessarily mean he was a bad historian. lies can become symbols, and just as important for people to understand as "truth" (which in itself is a subject i feel dubious about). (i know that's a little convoluted, i hope people can follow it)
secondly i think that just because we believe T more than H, and because T seems like a better overall historian, i don't think that necessarily means that T gets to be the father. in my mind father is founder. it seems to me like T just kind of cleaned up the ideas H invented and gave more credibility to something that had really already been fathered.
Herodotus had so little to work with, and was the first true historian, even if he wasn't the best. Thucydides was able to build off of Herodotus's work, and develop the recording of history, whereas Herodotus wanted to begin recording events accurately for future and present audiences. As Eli said, this is a big jump from poets such as Homer, and that initial, "reasonable accurate" attempt is what makes him the father of history.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 9:36 pm Post subject:
I think that the definition is the biggest factor on who the father of history really is. Like Dylan said, when truth comes into history, it makes the the question harder to answer.
I think for me, history is a study of past event that affects the present and future. However, when I was doing my reading, I felt that “accuracy” was the word that really stood out. I felt that without accuracy, history is no longer history, it can only be considered fiction just like what Herodotus wrote about. But, at the same time, Herodotus was the first one who introduced narratice history. Although, his book may contain some errors, some of his conceps were really meaningful. For instance, he believed that history shows patterns of growth and decline, and the concept of hard culture and soft culture. It may seem a small part of the reading, but the concept that he introduced affect other historians in the future to think more about cause and effect. Now, I may sound like saying Herodotus is the father of history; I am actually mutual in this case.
Herodotus may introduse the concept of history and the narrative history, but his lack of accuracy took away to be the father of history. Also, he did not have reliable sources when I was writing the book. On the other hand, Thucydides may solve the problem that Herodotus had, but he used the concept which was brought up by Herodotous. Thereofre, I think that both of them should share the name of the “fathers of history”.
By the way, Naya, I really like who you use grandfather and father to refer to this question, and I think it’s really convincing.
Till, I really like the way you say that history is sets of conflicts. I really agree with you on that. It reminds me of one part in the reading saying that the importance of the events in history is different because of the time, and it can shift overtime. I think that conflicts are just like that because each single conflict can weight differently overtime!
Tess, I really agree with you on the last paragraph. I think that is just what history is. It prevents us to repeat our own error.
Jessica, I got really lost when I was reading the history that both Herodotus and Thucydides wrote, too. I just goe a feel of what their writing is.
Thucydides was know for his history being, "less pleasing to the ear, but more likely to endure in the long run."
At last, a philosopher that presents his research with detail and accuracy.
According to the text, Thucydides and Herodotus were a bit close minded, could justify his close minded mentality through extensive evidence to back up views. For example, when talking about He says that he "Draws upon material evidence to fill in gaps in account of the distant past", the most essential process of finding or having true history. When talking about the physical structure of the city and it's positive attributes, he differs from Herodotus, "that the buildings of athens were an accurate index of its wealth and greatness."
As his analysis of history, political systems, and physical structures contains much detail, he maintains his unfavorable view of truth. True history tells the readers with little to room for error, as he used political and military historical evidence on what often shaped history or the direct forces of how history were shaped.
Based on the reading, I found Thucydides to be both the founder of history and have the clear upper hand as an accomplished scholar. It may be interesting to note that I started with reading about Thucydides rather than beginning with Herodotus, though I doubt that that influenced my views on either scholar.
I consider Herodotus to be the father of history. His writings about the Persian War were the first written narrative on history. Although Thucydides’ writing may have been more truthful and historically accurate, he builds off of what Herodotus already started. Herodotus has been accused of "deliberate falsehood, inconsistency, errors of fact and judgment, undue credulity and easy acceptance of unreliable sources of information.” This may be true, but no one can deny that his work is an excellent source on the ancient world. When using unreliable sources, he always offered examples. Herodotus' 'ring composition' is an effective way of helping the reader fully process the information given. By returning to the subject announced at the beginning, your memory is refreshed, making the information more easily accessible. While his work may not be 100% accurate, his style of writing makes it quite engaging. His poetic narrative and attention to detail draws the reader in. On the other hand, Thucydides’ single-minded focus on truth hindered his ability to be creative and to allow readers to question and debate his work. If his writing is presented as dry facts, there is nothing we can extrapolate from it.
In response to Lilia's question, I don't think historians have to be 100% accurate all the time. Creative story telling allows for a more interesting portrayal of the information.
I define history as the aspect of learning that examines, analyzes and records past events, people, ideas, cultures and places. We can use history to help us determine how to handle the future and not repeat the same mistakes.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
