Famous Greek Historians: Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius

The Greeks invented history as a literary genre in the fifth century BC. Herodotus, ‘the father of History’ wrote it around ca. 450-425 BC, considerably after the appearance of epic, lyric poetry, philosophy, tragedy and comedy, and some four hundred years, according to his own reckoning (2.53), after Homer. Today it is clear to consider the greatest of the ancient historians in Greece were the writers of contemporary or near-contemporary history: Herodotus, Thucydides and Polybius.

Herodotus 484-425/413 BCE starts ‘inquiry’ or ‘history’. 415 BCE “The Histories” was published in nine chapters. Based on travels by Herodotus and collection of information. Includes fictional accounts as well in order to entertain audience. At the beginning of his work, Herodotus tells us why he wrote it. It was, he says, ‘so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvelous deeds – some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians – may not be without their glory; and especially to show why the two people fought with each other’. One point in his initial statement which is worth pausing on is the reference to recording the great deeds of the barbarians (i.e non-Greeks) as well as Greeks. Herodotus initial statement of intention at the outset of his Histories, that he wrote to preserve the memory of great deeds (p. I I). (BH) Monuments were among the marvelous deeds of men, and well worth recording for their own sake. He was predictably impressed by Egypt and Babylon, giving, as we have seen, a particularly precise description of the latter (I. I80-83). As Herodotus asserts that his business is to record what people say, but he by no means bound to believe it – and that may be taken to apply to his book as a whole.

As it can be seen in The Persian War, Herodotus tells his readers that when the Persian King learned of the disaster, he did not give a thought to the Ionians, knowing that their punishment would come. Instead, the first thing he did was ask who the Athenians were. Then he commanded one of his servants to repeat to him the words ‘Master, remember the Athenians’ three times, whenever he sat down to dinner (V, 105). However, it is unreliable at times (exaggerations, omissions), filled with hearsay and legends that can not be proven. As modern history-writing as a “science” requires that all statements can be verified through thorough referencing sources. The sources has different types such as written texts, archaeological evidence, oral traditions ( to a lesser degree) and many more.

Another Greek historian that contributes to the writing of ‘The Histories’ was Thucydides.Thucydides was born some twenty-five years after Herodotus, in the early 450s BC. Yet the works of the two men are so different from one another, to say nothing of background and temperament, that many generations seem to separate them, not one. No doubt the chief reason for the difference are those twenty-five years, for in that short time profound changes swept over the Greek world. Thucydides alone of the ancient historians has received the accolade “scientific” from the moderns. The influence of ancient science on Thucydides is undeniable where it is described in a few late fifth-century treatises that have come down under the name of Hippocrates of Cos, ‘the father of Medicine’. In his opening sentence, Thucydides asserts of how great and important the outbreak of war would be, in consequence he began preparation for writing it at once. Thucydides claims the nature and value of history which had been quoted earlier:

Possibly the absence of the story-telling element in my history may make it less entertaining. But I will be satisfied if those people judge my history useful who desire an accurate picture of past events and those to come, which, given man’s nature, will recur from time to time in a similar or analogous fashion. My work is a possession for all time, not a showpiece designed to catch the applause of the moment. Pg. 85 Here he explains the purpose of his writings where his history will enable his readers to understand events that have already happened or are in the course of happening, but not to anticipate what is yet to come.

As can be seen in The Peloponnesian War, the immediate occasion of this major conflict which was fought out in various places from the outbreak of hostilities in 431 until the defeat of Athens in 404, was a dispute between Athens and Corinth over Corcyra, a colony of the latter which sought to make an alliance with Athens contrary to the interests of Corinth, which appealed to Sparta to intervene. Sparta declared war with the expressed aim of liberating the states of Greece from the dominance of Athens. Thucydides, the historian of the war then finds the underlying cause to be Spartan fear of increasing Athenian power (I, 23). However, his criticism of the successors of Pericles has been judged to have been hard on Cleon. Some historians have felt that his own narrative of events belies his judgement that the Sicilian expedition was not properly supported. Xenophon is known for his variety of writings. He was born an Athenian in the early years of the Peloponnesian War, around 428.

Polybius of Megalopolis wrote a history of the Mediterranean world in forty books, covering the period 264-145 BC. His original purpose of writing was to narrate the history of the 53 years (220-168 BCE)¬- from Hannibal’s Spanish Campaign to the Battle of Pydna-during which Rome had made itself master of the world. Polybius assert that if history is to convey practical instruction and useful political percepts, it must be accurate. Truth is to history, he says on two occasions, what eyesight is to a living creature; if you take truth away, all that remains is a story without value (1.14, 12.12). Not only that, it has the potential to be positively harmful should someone try to model his conduct and policies on untruthful accounts. This is perhaps the most important reason for his frequent and lengthy criticisms of other historians. They do not understand the serious purpose of history; they exaggerate, they embroider, they falsify. He objects those like Timaeus, inserted speeches at every opportunity, putting words in the speakers’ mouths that they never said and never would have said. Polybius affirms that speeches are an essential part of history, but the reader must know what the actual arguments were in order to learn why some led to success and others to failure. By and large Polybius succeeded in writing truthful history. What can be cited against his veracity does not amount to much. He concedes that one should show favoritism to one’s country, but only if it does not contradict the facts (16.14). Despite minor lapses from the standard of strict veracity, it is clear that Polybius is writing in the tradition of Thucydides and is opposed to those for whom history was a vehicle for displaying their rhetorical virtuosity and for catering to the public’s taste for the emotional and sensational. Both of them emphasized the usefulness of their histories over against simple entertainment.