LITERATURE & HUMANITIES

HERODOTUS AND THUCYDIDES

Audrey Leigh, Member, on 17 April 2001

Herodotus was born about 484 BC at Halicarnassus, a Greek city of the coast of Asia Minor, at that time under Persian rule. He left the city at an early age and travelled widely to Egypt, Tyre, Babylon, the north coast of the Black Sea and the northern Aegean. He finally settled in southern Italy until he died about 425 BC.

Herodotus introduced his book by saying that it was the account of his Inquiry (the Greek word translated as Inquiry is historia). His aim was to ensure that there was a record of the exploits of Greeks and non-Greeks, and, particularly, to explain how the Greeks and Persians became involved in war with one another.

He was the first major literary prose writer in Greek but his work was heir to two traditions the spirit of enquiry that motivated early Greek `scientists' like Anaximander and the geographer Hecataeus, and, secondly, to the poetic tradition, particularly of Homer, which was a matter of story-telling.

Although the ultimate goal of his writing was the conflict between Greeks and Persians, covering the years 498 480, he only reached this point in the last three of his nine books. The earlier books were discursive, being an account of his travels and full of digressions as one story leads to another, and he describes the traditions, religious practices, buildings, diet, clothing etc. of the peoples he has visited.

His method was to meet and question as many authorities as he could priests, leading men and participants in events. He relied mainly on oral evidence. He made clear what he had seen and what he had only heard about, and when not sure of his evidence, he said so. His narrative becomes more sequential in his last three books, which cover the well-known period of the battles of Marathon, the heroic Spartan resistance at Thermopylae, and the naval battle of Salamis.

His interest in peoples and the differences between them is enormous. It is completely open-minded. There is no condemnation of other's attitudes or customs, but an acceptance that different people do things in different ways. He is interested in individuals, their behaviour in prosperity and adversity, and he is moved by their sorrows. These individuals include many striking women whose achievements he describes with admiration.

His style of writing is apparently simple and effortless, enticing the reader to go on with the story, but the scale of his work is immense. He produces a total history of the known world and this approach to inclusive history makes him the most modern of ancient historians, although he was the first..

Thucydides, the Athenian, had a different aim. He took a single subject, the Peloponnesian War of 431 404 BC between Athens and her allies on the one hand, and the Spartan alliance on the other, and he sought to impose his own view of that war.

By 431 BC the naval alliance of Athens and the cities and islands of the Aegean against the Persians had been converted by the Athenians into an empire where she controlled the original allies and exacted taxes from them. The growing power of Athens was of great concern to the states outside the alliance, notably Corinth and, above all, Sparta. It was Thucydides' view that "what made war inevitable was the growth of the Athenian power and the fear it caused in Sparta". Thucydides tells us that he began to write his account as the war was beginning, realising it would be a great war. He was in a unique position to observe the course of events because he himself was a General for the year 424-3 and failed to save the city of Amphipolis from the Spartans. Consequently, he had to become an exile from Athens and so saw the war from `the outside'.

He made it clear in his introduction that it was of greatest importance to him to write with accuracy and to take great pains to establish the facts from eye witnesses. He also, at significant points, includes speeches by political and military leaders, but admits that these are, at best, approximations of what was said and that at times he is making speakers say what seemed appropriate.

Thucydides was writing the history of a war that took place nearly 2,500 years ago between a collection of Greek cities. Why then have generations of readers found his history so compelling and felt in contact with a remarkable intellect? Firstly, he sincerely attempts to ascertain and reproduce the facts commands respect. Then there are the vivid portraits of military and political leaders and analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. Most striking of all is that he imposes on his work a general view of politics and society. He accepts as a general view that might is right and that states that obtain power must use it in their own interest. He is not judging the morality of this position but accepting it. Yet he had a strong emotional involvement in events. This is most obvious in the powerful account of the Athenian expedition against Sicily in 415 413, and the humiliating defeat of their forces. Books VI and VII make compulsive reading.

He works through the war campaigning season by campaigning season, but some episodes are chosen for detailed reporting to develop his view of the nature of war. For example, his account of his close observation of the Great Plague of Athens in 430. There is an extended account of the revolt of Mytilene from Athens in 428 7. The Athenians first decided, and then revoked at the last moment, a decision to kill the whole male population. Later, in contrast, is the cynical aggression against the island of Melos in 416 when they did kill all the men, enslave the women and children and colonise the island. Many people consider Thucydides regards the subsequent total defeat of the Sicilian expedition as nemesis for their arrogance against Melos, just a downfall follows excessive pride in Greek tragedy.

Thucydides did not finish his history. The work ends in mid-sentence with the events of 411. The war did not end until 404 when Thucydides was able to return to Athens. He died within a few years of his return.

Audrey Leigh

Discussion

A lively discussion ensued. Greek democracy was not as democratic as its leaders would like to think; the elite decided policy. The free rule over the many, mostly slaves. Spata was an oligarchy. City states like Argos and Corinth were independent.

Athens was a society of philosopher-rulers. The history we have is only of the elite; Any violence, massacres, and the treatment of slaves and women were excluded.

The Athenian empire was maintained by naval force, like the British. Silver, gold and other metals were important and land transport three times as expensive as sea.

Recent studies have shown that Herodotus is more accurate than was thought. There is a large statue of him near the airport, indicating his importance to modern Greeks

Peter Valentine