The Histories

I think what I enjoyed most was the honesty. Herodotus was trying to write about the known world and the people in it. He reported stuff that he didn’t always personally believe, but he was up front about it and would admit, “Yeah, I’m not so sure, but this is what they say in Myconos,” or wherever. And he did TRY to get reliable sources. Which isn’t to say he didn’t sometimes get his leg pulled – there is not, in fact, a tribe of people in the Sahara who don’t have heads. But again, “that’s what the Libyans told me…” It made the book feel like a friend telling you a story as opposed to someone trying to lecture at you.

I really really really (REALLY) liked that he didn’t have an agenda. By which I mean his show more unbiased coverage: He was Greek, and Greece had just had a bunch of wars with the Persian Empire (ever see “300?” He writes about it). So for him, as a Greek, to say anything nice about the Persian people or anything they do—and he does when it’s deserved—is pretty unheard of in his time. Or, let’s be honest, ours. He tells the story WITHOUT inflicting his personal value judgments on it.

It being the ancient world, women are generally ignored, but there are a few notable ladies he writes about for being wise or clever or what have you (plus there’s Amazons!). Also, the science of geography being the massive joke it was back then, he had NO idea how big Africa really was, and the British Isles were an unproved rumor as far as he was concerned. However, I have to say it was REALLY nice to read a book written before 19-sumpty-some that ISN’T racist. He’ll helpfully inform his European audience that yes, people in Egypt and Ethiopia tend to be a bit dark compared to us, etc. etc., but there are no implicit or explicit judgments associated with skin tone. Maybe because the various Greek city-states were so busy fighting *each other* all the time, meaning that the person most likely to kill you looked like you. As a matter of fact, he can’t say enough nice things about Egypt, and he thought Ethiopians were “the tallest, most handsome and longest lived of all men.”

The book has so many great passages here and there that I actually took to marking their place in the margin – in pencil, of course, but for me to write in my books at all is saying something. show less

This was quite a slog, and I abandoned ship at the end of book six, so bear that in mind. This is a book that probably is very rewarding to study, to read it in chunks at bedtime can be a bit problematic. Whilst The Histories has a structure the presentation is not as readable as the layperson might be used to, and I found that I was often lost in time and space! Wait, is this same Megacles? There are some fantastic stories here, but lots of similarly named people going places and fighting over people, in ways that aren't especially dramatic. I always enjoyed the Pythias though, they sounded like they had fun. I guess that I don't want to badmouth this book, because I can recognise that the failings were mostly mine, but if you're a bit show more of a thicky like me then you might want to get a well-edited or annotated version. I will definitely come back to the last three books sometime though. show less

In the world's first history textbook (so to speak), Herodotus chronicles the wars between Persia and Greece - and so much more. As new historical figure or locales are introduced into the narrative, he frequently pauses to detail that person or place's history even when it has little bearing on the main event. The sum is a fascinating amalgam of fact and fiction: enough facts to provide an outline of the Greco-Persian Wars and the environs in which they took place, together with the people who carried it out; and enough fiction to add an aura of mythology to the undertakings, providing a challenge in prose to Homer's poetry.

Inevitably the question arises of what to believe, so you'll want a good edition with footnotes or endnotes to show more help you parse it all. Herodotus' absurd description of a hippopotamus alone is enough to throw everything else into question, and that's just one of many examples. Whether he travelled as widely as his narrative implies, or saw with his own eyes as much as he claims, are open questions. There's also no telling how reliable his other sources were - something he gamely questions, but never enough to prevent him from sharing a good story. Expect some entertainment with your history.

It's much easier reading than I'd assumed going in, and translator Aubrey de Selincourt's 1954 effort probably deserves the credit for making this such a compelling read. Even if you don't believe a word of what Herotodus says (although archeology has been able to back up quite a bit), the 'Father of History' still put together a great epic. For all that his effort is slandered, dating all the way back to ancient times, at least he gave it a shot and - most telling - none of his contemporaries ever tried to top him. show less

I finally tackled this “I really ought to read this one of these days” doorstopper of a book and found myself thoroughly entertained. One reason for this experience is the edition I read. Instead of the worthy nineteenth-century Rawlinson translation that has sat on my shelf for years and that I occasionally dipped into, I sprang for the recent translation by Robin Waterfield. I’ve heard that Herodotus’s Greek is reasonably straightforward, especially in contrast to the more formal Thucydides, so I found the tone of Waterfield’s translation appropriately colloquial.
For instance, Rawlinson renders the words of a gloomy Persian on the eve of the decisive battle of Plataea: “Verily ’tis the sorest of all human ills, to abound show more in knowledge and yet have no power over action” (9.16). Undeniably eloquent, but compare Waterfield’s rendering: “There’s no more terrible pain a man can endure than to see clearly and be able to do nothing.” It’s clear that both translations are correct (and a check of the Greek confirmed it). Still, given the length of the book (nearly 600 pages apart from the excellent introduction by Carolyn Dewald and a judicious amount of notes), I felt that a modern translation would serve me better.
Compared to modern history-writing, Herodotus has little interest in population density, economic factors, or technological advances as causes of conflict and determinants of outcomes. Instead, it is a tale of heroes, fate, and retribution. Most conflicts have very personal causes, and the result often has to do with righting an ancient wrong. Although Herodotus’s sympathies are with the Greeks, especially the Athenians, he is even-handed, admiring courage and integrity and censuring cowardice and treachery wherever it appears.
Herodotus declares at the outset that his aim is to explore the causes of the conflict between Greece and Persia, and the book culminates in his stirring account of the doomed attempt of Xerxes to subjugate the Greeks. Yet, he takes many detours along the way. It seems as if he set out to include in his book everything he could find out about the known world. Book Two, for instance, is a detailed and lively account of Egypt, a land which even then could boast an ancient history. Some readers may grow impatient with Herodotus’s reluctance to pass up any excuse to work in a diverting anecdote. Still, if you’re willing to follow him down these sidelines, you may find yourself enjoying them. Herodotus simply knows how to tell a story.
Ah, yes, you might say. A story-teller is surely not the same as a historian. How much of this is reliable? If you take into account the fact that Herodotus was inventing the genre of long-form narrative as he went along, I think it can be argued that, in the course of these “inquiries” (the meaning of “histories” back then), Herodotus lays the groundwork for later critical evaluation of sources. He employs an arsenal of phrases to reflect his judgment -- ranging from trusting to skeptical -- about the tales he includes.
Herodotus traveled widely with an insatiable curiosity and reflected both on what he heard and what he saw first-hand. Many of his conclusions remain valid, two-and-a-half millennia later, For instance, his conviction that no nation stays on top forever, and that the turning point often comes through overreach. show less

The point of ploughing through this 1858 translation of Herodotus' 'world classic' is precisely to read the text that Victorian imperialists would have read. Go to a later translation with annotations if you want to hear the fully authentic voice of the Greek but this one will do.

The book meets two needs. It is a geography (of the centres of power and civilisation in the fifth century BC) and a history, not only of those specific centres but of the massive clash between the hegemonic Persian Empire and the last nearby 'free' zone, that of the Greeks.

Herodotus is, of course, writing as a Greek but a cosmopolitan one who has travelled to many of the places he describes. His achievement is remarkable. The slanderous 'father of lies' claim show more is grossly unfair ... he may take an absurd story at face value but he will also frequently question claims.

The further away from Ionia he is, the more dodgy the data and the nearer, the more reliable, but, given the technology of travel and information transmission and preservation of the day, sneering strikes me as wholly inappropriate. It is not a religious text. We are all free to critique his claims.

Truth to tell, the geography is much duller than the history. The micro-histories of provinces and the founding of empires is very much less interesting than the second half of the text (made up of nine books) which centres on the Persian Wars.

If you can get through the first half, you will find (considering we are dealing with a text nearly 2,500 years old) some serious excitement as Darius and Xerxes build their forces, transport them around the Aegean and face off the mostly united Greek armies and navies.

The battle of Marathon in the first invasion (490-492BC) and those of Salamis and Plataea during the second invasion (480-479BC) are events placed in their context, filled with detail (sometimes more than one account of a particular event) and written to thrill.

If there is one section to read, it is the Spartan defence of the pass at Thermopylae which has become a by-word in Western culture for communitarian military sacrifice in defence of the homeland (Book VII) and has even inspired a contemporary comic book and film.

There are gaps, of course, that we must regret. He rarely goes far West so, although we know something of the tyrants of Greek Italy and Sicily, he tells us nothing about Etruria, little about Carthage and virtually nothing useful about the Western Mediterranean or Central Europe.

Nubia and Ethiopia are only palely reflected in relation to the Persian occupation of Egypt, Arabia, India and Central Asia are places of myth and legend and the South Russian steppes only interesting because of the peoples who harried civilisation.

Later commentators often position the books as a morality tale about civilisation and oriental barbarism but this is self-serving by those wanting to be inheritors of Hellenic culture. It has created a myth about difference that has been exaggerated,

It is a set of books about hegemony and the right of resistance. The Persians are representatives of imperial realpolitik rather than exporters of values. The Greeks have provoked them and the Persians find an irritating gap in control over the known world of consequence to them.

The Greeks themselves are not a polity but a distinctive culture. It becomes clear that (just as many Britons would prefer to serve a hegemonic European Union than be free) many Greeks will submit to Persian lordship from vulnerability or for profit.

The massive Persian forces also include many unstable Greek elements whose homelands are not being threatened with sack and massacre but who have thrown themselves in with the Persians either because they have little choice or, frankly, prefer mercantile stability to rebellion.

Herodotus is not a theoretician, ideologue or social scientist. He just tells it like it is but the clues are there to mercantile interests who quite like access to the 'single market' built by the Persians but who are ready to switch sides at the drop of a hat if necessary.

The Greeks who are defending their territory are an anarchic lot but they are able to sink their differences (Herodotus is good on the summits and councils where different interests are played out) to preserve their homelands.

What is remarkable is the relative discipline, not based entirely on fear and shame but on consultation and interest. This is explained by factors alien to us today but they include a culture of shame and honour and a fatalistic but interpretative approach to oracles and the will of the gods.

We are looking at a world both familiar to ourselves (in terms of interests, double-dealing, cynicism and political machination) and apparently unfamiliar (in terms of self-sacrifice, contempt for the cowardly, cultural coherence and shared religion).

I say unfamiliar but this would not be quite so unfamiliar to our grandparents and to all the generations before them. World War I was fought in part on the basis of Hellenic virtue which brings us full circle to the 1858 edition and its role in creating an imperial honour culture.

Herodotus can be read at many levels - as a source of data that would otherwise be lost, as a rattling narrative that reads as true history for the most part, as an incomplete picture of an Eastern Mediterranean civilisational zone and as exemplar.

One gets the impression that Herodotus was keen to tell the story of the Persian Wars as a culturally patriotic tale but he is never dismissive of the enemy. Persians are always treated with respect as worthy opponents who are different from Greeks but not radically so.

They come across 'just like us' as human beings (a theme to be brought out in Euripides 'The Persians') which is not incompatible with being triumphalist about victory. This is all about men against men with 'great men' (and the odd woman like Artemesia) on both sides.

The victory is all the sweeter because the gods are fickle and because Greek heroism matched Persian organisational might. Indeed, in battle sections, it is clear that the Persians themselves are fine fighters and that both sides had wobbly and inexperienced allies.

Similarly, the organisational structures of the two sides are central to the story. Both are capable organisers. Imperial might could bring vast numbers of men and material long distances. Hellenic fear could bring squabbling locals into one battle front that could hold a line.

Men were defending their homelands (and would go back to warring with each other as soon as the danger was over) against 'imperialism' while quite happy to build empires if they could (as Athens and Macedon were to do).

These wars are thus just one incident in the constant ebb and flow of raw power, organisation and morale where the ideology is merely culture - being a 'people' distinct from other people without necessarily wanting to exterminate them or not to trade or mate with them.

Indeed, civilisation might be defined as conquest and expansion that utilises what it controls instead of destroying it.

What is also heartening about Herodotus' world is that persuasion is just a tool for struggle and power - as in the references to the persuasive and cunning Athenian C-in-C Themistocles. There are no theorising philosophers trying to justify slaughter or getting in the way.

The books are riddled with pagan virtue, less ritualised than in Homer and without the magical thinking of Plato. This was a culture of power defending itself against another culture of power that had miscalculated the organisational and cultural cohesion of its opponent on its home territory. show less

Herodotus of Halicarnassus proved to be like a lot of us: he got a chance to travel his world and was very interested in the events which shaped that world. To this end he wrote what he simply called historiai, and which we call The History. In so doing he changed everything.

Ostensibly, Herodotus set out to describe the events of the Persian Wars between the Greeks and Persians in 490 and 480-479 BCE and to explain how such enmity developed, in a sense hearkening back to the Achaeans vs. Trojans of the Trojan War days, but more “practically” in terms of the growth of the Lydian Empire, its fall at the hands of Cyrus the Persian, the growth of the Persian Empire and its conquest of Ionia, the Ionian Revolt, and then descriptions of show more Darius’ Scythian and Greek campaigns and Xerxes’ Greek campaign in greater detail.

Yet such a description does not do any sort of justice to what Herodotus wrote. Herodotus is way more fun than that.

For generations a lot of people hated on Herodotus because of his particular brand of story telling. Historians in general tend to want to laud Thucydides and his account of the Peloponnesian Wars; to them Herodotus was too enamored with mythology and whatever fantastic tales were told to him by various people.

But that’s what makes Herodotus so fun and interesting. For most of the book you can forget it is intending to be setting forth the story of the Persian Wars. Herodotus will unfailingly stop any sort of narrative to provide some story he heard about some ancestor of the people in the action, or of the stories about the land, as in Egypt or other places. He will often provide contradictory accounts. Sometimes he will tell you what he thinks. Many times he just left it to the audience to figure out what they want to accept.

Herodotus is known as the “Father of History,” and for good reason; all historigraphical writing ever since has been based, in some way or another, on Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus was well timed and well placed for this endeavor: as far as we can tell, the primary events he described all happened before he was born or soon afterward; if born in 484 BCE, he would have been 5 when the battles at Plataea and Mycale were fought. His would have been the days of the Peloponnesian Wars; yet having originated in Halicarnassus of Ionia and eventually ending up a citizen of Thurii in modern-day Italy, he could view them at some remove. He has clearly traveled much: certainly to Egypt, likely to Persia. We have to wonder if many people could have written a historical travelogue like his at many points before him.

We certainly need to be careful about bias and prejudice, but we should also be able to understand why the definition of “pre-history” has been “the time before Herodotus.” So much of what we know about the world of the fifth century BCE, and in many respects the previous worlds of the ancient Near Eastern world, comes from various aspects of what Herodotus recorded. And Herodotus has been vindicated many times by archaeology in terms of the chronicles he has provided, although matters regarding the number of soldiers in various battles remains challenging.

If you have any interest at all in ancient history, Herodotus remains critical reading. Biblical personages like Darius and Xerxes (the Ahasuerus of Esther) take center stage in The History, and so its study can add an extra dimension to understanding the age of the post-exilic period. Grene’s translation is decent; his notes are often helpful. show less

I loved this, it kept me gripped right the way through the 4 volume edition I borrowed from the library. He sets out to tell the history for the Persian wars, only he gets a bit sidetracked! Takes a whole book to describe Egypt, for example. Full of action, fine descriptions of places and tells tales. And he's so interested in anything and everything that it is full of little details, a real magpie of a mind at work. I can quite see how he comes to be called the father of history and the first writer of literature, because this doesn't actually fall into either category neatly - it is probably best described as a history embroidered with literature. It isn't all entirely factual, the men with eyes in their chests probably never existed, show more except in heresay, but that's how he gained his information - visit places and ask everyone about what's just over the horizon. show less