Introduction
In Greek history studies, Thucydides and Herodotus are frequently contrasted against one another in terms of their styles, storytelling approaches, scientific methodology, thematic emphases, and overall philosophy. The works of Herodotus and Thucydides produced an intellectual area called history today after the term Herodotus gave his research (Herodotus, 1952). The extent of Herodotus’ achievement as the first historian is challenging to comprehend, mainly because the genre he founded became such a significant contribution to humans’ thought world in the hands of Thucydides and later historians. The paper contrasts Herodotus’ chronicle of the Persian Wars with Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, emphasizing each author’s overall contribution to Greek historiography.
Introduction to Herodotus and Thucydides
It is vital to describe both historians’ backgrounds before comparing their texts. Herodotus, the father of history, was born in 485 BCE in the city of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor (Herodotus, 1952). He may have been deported early in life and traveled extensively across the Greek and Persian regions of the Eastern Mediterranean realm, taking a keen interest in the peoples and countries he visited, both Greek and foreign. His enormous “Histories” incorporate much of what he witnessed and learned from others; they chronicle the Persian empire’s rise in the sixth and fifth centuries, as well as its surprising military loss in Greece during the Persian Wars in 481-479 BCE (Herodotus, 1952).
In the 440s, Herodotus became a citizen of the pan-Greek colony of Thurii, which Athens funded, and appears to have completed his work around 425 BCE, in the early years of the Peloponnesian War (Herodotus, 1952). “The Histories” is first and primarily a work of history; Herodotus is intriguing in his incorporation of numerous forms of evidence that one can reflect on and reasonably define as geographical and historical.
Thucydides, the son of Olorus, was born around 460 B.C. and died around 400 B.C. He most likely took part in some of the early battles of the Peloponnesian War, which began in 431 B.C (Thucydides, 1954). He became ill with the plague between 430 and 427 but recovered. In 424, he was made general, but his tiny fleet of ships arrived too late to safeguard the significant Athenian colony of Amphipolis from the Spartan leader Brasidas. Nonetheless, he successfully defended the adjacent port of Eion from Brasidas’ attacks (Thucydides, 1954). As a result, he was exiled and did not return for twenty years, dying a few years later.
Comparing Herodotus’ Chronicling of the Persian Wars with Thucydides’ Account of the Peloponnesian War
What Herodotus had in mind when he composed his “Histories” is still a mystery. The Greeks’ triumph over the Persians a generation earlier was undoubtedly a prominent topic of Herodotus’ lectures as he traveled across the Greek world (Herodotus, 1952). The historian starts his enormous “Histories” with reference to it. He begins with simple inquiries on how the battle between Greeks and barbarians started.
Herodotus was not the first to pose such concerns; there were almost certainly essays about the battle and about Persians and other eastern peoples spreading among educated Greek audiences at the time. Nonetheless, Herodotus was the first to view many diverse stories from the past as elements of a single complete story—to see the vastness of the known human universe started opening with his intention: to describe the story of the Persian Wars (Herodotus, 1952). “The Histories” are a polycentric narrative that flows smoothly between the numerous voices, narratives, and points of view of many persons from many different locations, rather than a chronicle of a single rule or a single people’s pact with its deity.
In his opening phrase, Herodotus states that his goal is to recount the remarkable exploits of Greeks and barbarians. The work is presently divided into nine volumes, not produced by Herodotus but by subsequent Hellenistic editors (Herodotus, 1952). Thus, Herodotus’ long work has a structural order at its most basic genealogical and dynastic: the consecutive narrative of four Persian kings’ conquest achievements. The Persian story emerges as a backdrop against which Herodotus performs something far more complicated and engaging (Herodotus,1952). The historian creates a massive road map of the entire human world, past and present, in which everything is related to everything else through the story.
Consequently, Herodotus defines a vast network of causal linkages that transcend generations and cultures, largely thanks to personal reciprocities. I find some passages about Herodotus’ world particularly distracting and entertaining. For instance, He describes Elis’ troubles with mule breeding, ants the size of dogs in India digging for gold. Other examples are sheep in Arabia with tails so large and flat that little wagons must be constructed to carry their tails and people in Libya who inhabit caves and chirp like bats (Herodotus, 1952). Parataxis, the shape and concentration of the individual narrative account, associative thinking, and, lastly, a trait dubbed “ring composition” are all critical parts of his writing style ((Herodotus, 1952, p. 39). Unlike later historical writing, these stylistic elements interact to create a narrative. Herodotus (1952) states that he must report what he was told but not believe it. Furthermore, throughout this narrative, his role is to transcribe everything each tells him of his informants.
On the contrary, Thucydides’ writings could not have been given as public lectures. Thucydides wrote in austere and analytic writing on events he witnessed, such as the Peloponnesian War (Herodotus, 1952). In Herodotus’ “Histories,” from Cyrus’ conquest of Lydia through Xerxes’ Persian Wars (546-479 BCE), the events of one Persian king’s reign led down to those of the next (Herodotus, 1952). Thucydides used this format, which he learned from Herodotus, to describe the story. The Peloponnesian War took place between Athens and Sparta from 431 to 404, with a seven-year ‘peace’ in the midst (Thucydides, 1954). That conflict lives on not because of what occurred but because of Thucydides, who wrote its chronicle. No other historian can match this accomplishment; no other conflict or historical topic is as much the creation of its writer.
Thucydides used complicated tenses and stacked up subordinate clauses to express the precise idea of an event or a statement to convey the sense of an action or an assertion. Rex Warner, the translator of the work, emphasizes that nothing mattered save the events and the difficulties, which he would correct through hard work, dedication to precision, and understanding; he would convey his findings without embellishment (Thucydides, 1954).
Thucydides claims to have lived through the entire conflict since the author was of an age to grasp occurrences. In terms of accurate reporting of the war’s occurrences, he has made it a rule not to write down the first narrative that comes his way or even to be led by his initial impressions; either Thucydides was there at the events (Thucydides, 1954). The historian recounted or heard them from eyewitnesses whose stories were later examined as thoroughly as possible. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides never identifies his informants; he only mentions himself as a direct participant twice: when he was sick with the plague and when he was a commander at Amphipolis.
It should be observed that Thucydides’ skepticism did not extend to the myths and poetry in their entirety. Although poets exaggerate the significance of their topics and chroniclers are less concerned with reporting the truth than grabbing the public’s attention, their principal narratives are regarded as historical reality. Even the Hellen son of Deucalion, the fabled ancestor of the Hellenes, as the Greeks called themselves, appears as a historically accurate figure (Thucydides, 1954). His research, like that of Herodotus before him, was conducted among people rather than among papers. For Thucydides, history was fundamentally a human matter, capable of study and comprehension solely via recognized patterns of human behavior, without the participation of the supernatural (Thucydides, 1954). His history emerges without gods, oracles, or omens; this distinction was possibly Thucidides’ most significant deviation from Herodotus.
Analysis of Passages
A few passages that I find interesting were selected to demonstrate the difference between Thucydides and Herodotus. Thucydides never acknowledges Herodotus by name, but there are ample hints that he carefully researched his predecessor. In the programmatic passage (1, 20), for instance, Thucydides asserts that the rest of the Hellenes, too, make numerous false assumptions not just about the poorly remembered past but also about current events (Thucydides, 1954). He says that there is a widespread notion that Spartan monarchs had two votes, whereas, in fact, they only have one: it is also widely held that the Spartans have a company of troops known as the ‘Pitanate.’
The historian also adds that most people will not investigate the facts and are far more likely to believe the first version they hear. Both of these mistakes exist in Herodotus (VI, 57 and IX, 53), and they are indeed the passages Thucydides addressed (Thucydides, 1954). I agree that it is challenging to imagine a widespread belief or even general interest in whether or not the Spartans referred to one corporation as a “Pitanate,” or in the specifics of the Spartan Gerousia voting method. Even so, it is wrong to infer that this is Thucydides’ proper judgment of Herodotus’ success. Thucydides awarded Herodotus the high honor for collections, which he completed, meaning that it was unnecessary to go over the same subject again. It was only needed to bridge the gap between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.
Conclusion: Contributions to Greek Historiography
From my perspective, both authors significantly contributed to Greek historiography and impacted the history genre. Thucydides gathered historical material with considerable care, personally seeing and researching events and gathering accurate information from others. Thucydides’ writing is, in many ways, opposed to Herodotus’ History. Herodotus depicts the excitement of the Persian wars, whereas Thucydides portrays Athens’ superior education during the Peloponnesian War. Herodotus writes in ordinary people’s simple, straightforward language, and his tale captures readers’ imaginations. On the contrary, Thucydides’ writing style demands tremendous attention.
Herodotus employs historical and mythic narratives, interpreting and portraying events without profound scrutiny and with naive acceptance. Thucydides’ “History of the Peloponnesian War,” written primarily in a practical tone, is concerned with political life. He depicts the Peloponnesian War, in which Athens battled critically and deeply with other nations for supremacy over Greece. Furthermore, Thucydides is strongly opposed to all mythical matters. Nonetheless, both authors possessed extensive historical knowledge, as Herodotus’ work influenced Thucydides, who experienced historical events to fill the gap between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars.
References
Herodotus. (1952). The histories. (R. Waterfield, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
Thucydides. (1954). History of the Peloponnesian war. (R. Warner, Trans.). Penguin Books.