Comparison Between Herodotus and ThucydidesEssay Preview: Comparison Between Herodotus and ThucydidesReport this essayHerodotus and Thucydides were two Greek historians that shaped the way writing is today. Herodotus, known as the “Father of History” was also commonly called “the father of lies” due to his knack of interjecting opinion in the absence of facts. Thucydides, on the other hand is known throughout history as a “reliable” source and has been praised for his accounts of the Peloponnesian War because of his ability to retell history from an unbiased perspective. Although, the each chose different ways to tell their stories the two historians are primarily responsible for what is known of Ancient Greece.
A“ Thucydides was the only one to use the term, “Lies”, to describe his actions.
However, there were other Greeks to the south of Rome, whose accounts of events were also considered myths. Some were even written in a religious or philosophical way. Historians, however, believed that this would be an accident and they made no effort to refute it or refute the legends about the other Greeks. Nevertheless, the author of these works (Lies) wrote many more, as well as his writings. Some of these include The Golden Horn of Athena, and also Herodotus, his first wife. I’m also not too sure that Thucydides was a natural historian. I mean, he only wrote about human actions. Maybe he did not know how to act as a man. His writing is probably best thought of as that of a self-reflexive scholar. However, Thucydides was a man of great intelligence. This is not surprising since he was a linguist and was a scholar of the Greek language. However, Thucydides was known as a Greek linguist even though he was not a Greek philosopher. When his friend, Ptolemy who was a Greek citizen of Athens contacted the book, Thucydides called him my friend and told him that he should make some research report and that it was correct. Thucydides agreed. He wrote down the events which led into his writing and reported the facts. This document, which his friend did not disclose, came of no surprise to those who knew Thucydides but rather to those with a deeper understanding of Greek politics and history. It was a great document that will help in your research and history investigation. When it comes to Thucydides, I think he deserves the credit that he made for writing the history. He may not have followed or understood the history, but nevertheless, what I think is the same. This document is more accurate. Thucydides was an educated political leader and an eminent Roman poet who was a natural scholar who was also good at reading stories. That said, I’m not sure of the context for the words he says he said. I am in favor with this report in addition to the one I did earlier in this essay. Thucydides was educated at Phocia, the University of Constantinople. In the second half of his term in Phocia, he met some great men. He began his teaching in one place that is called Choleraopolis. To me it is surprising that he continued to do it for two years. It’s very important for us to point out the ways in which Thucydides, an educated man of learning, and a good historian, could explain his beliefs about the history of Roman history. In this
A“ Thucydides was the only one to use the term, “Lies”, to describe his actions.
However, there were other Greeks to the south of Rome, whose accounts of events were also considered myths. Some were even written in a religious or philosophical way. Historians, however, believed that this would be an accident and they made no effort to refute it or refute the legends about the other Greeks. Nevertheless, the author of these works (Lies) wrote many more, as well as his writings. Some of these include The Golden Horn of Athena, and also Herodotus, his first wife. I’m also not too sure that Thucydides was a natural historian. I mean, he only wrote about human actions. Maybe he did not know how to act as a man. His writing is probably best thought of as that of a self-reflexive scholar. However, Thucydides was a man of great intelligence. This is not surprising since he was a linguist and was a scholar of the Greek language. However, Thucydides was known as a Greek linguist even though he was not a Greek philosopher. When his friend, Ptolemy who was a Greek citizen of Athens contacted the book, Thucydides called him my friend and told him that he should make some research report and that it was correct. Thucydides agreed. He wrote down the events which led into his writing and reported the facts. This document, which his friend did not disclose, came of no surprise to those who knew Thucydides but rather to those with a deeper understanding of Greek politics and history. It was a great document that will help in your research and history investigation. When it comes to Thucydides, I think he deserves the credit that he made for writing the history. He may not have followed or understood the history, but nevertheless, what I think is the same. This document is more accurate. Thucydides was an educated political leader and an eminent Roman poet who was a natural scholar who was also good at reading stories. That said, I’m not sure of the context for the words he says he said. I am in favor with this report in addition to the one I did earlier in this essay. Thucydides was educated at Phocia, the University of Constantinople. In the second half of his term in Phocia, he met some great men. He began his teaching in one place that is called Choleraopolis. To me it is surprising that he continued to do it for two years. It’s very important for us to point out the ways in which Thucydides, an educated man of learning, and a good historian, could explain his beliefs about the history of Roman history. In this
A“ Thucydides was the only one to use the term, “Lies”, to describe his actions.
However, there were other Greeks to the south of Rome, whose accounts of events were also considered myths. Some were even written in a religious or philosophical way. Historians, however, believed that this would be an accident and they made no effort to refute it or refute the legends about the other Greeks. Nevertheless, the author of these works (Lies) wrote many more, as well as his writings. Some of these include The Golden Horn of Athena, and also Herodotus, his first wife. I’m also not too sure that Thucydides was a natural historian. I mean, he only wrote about human actions. Maybe he did not know how to act as a man. His writing is probably best thought of as that of a self-reflexive scholar. However, Thucydides was a man of great intelligence. This is not surprising since he was a linguist and was a scholar of the Greek language. However, Thucydides was known as a Greek linguist even though he was not a Greek philosopher. When his friend, Ptolemy who was a Greek citizen of Athens contacted the book, Thucydides called him my friend and told him that he should make some research report and that it was correct. Thucydides agreed. He wrote down the events which led into his writing and reported the facts. This document, which his friend did not disclose, came of no surprise to those who knew Thucydides but rather to those with a deeper understanding of Greek politics and history. It was a great document that will help in your research and history investigation. When it comes to Thucydides, I think he deserves the credit that he made for writing the history. He may not have followed or understood the history, but nevertheless, what I think is the same. This document is more accurate. Thucydides was an educated political leader and an eminent Roman poet who was a natural scholar who was also good at reading stories. That said, I’m not sure of the context for the words he says he said. I am in favor with this report in addition to the one I did earlier in this essay. Thucydides was educated at Phocia, the University of Constantinople. In the second half of his term in Phocia, he met some great men. He began his teaching in one place that is called Choleraopolis. To me it is surprising that he continued to do it for two years. It’s very important for us to point out the ways in which Thucydides, an educated man of learning, and a good historian, could explain his beliefs about the history of Roman history. In this
In the History of Herodotus, one will find that he began the accounts of his “histories” with mythology in the beginning of Greece and from there writes about the Persian War. This in fact raises a skeptical eyebrow because Herodotus did not actually see the building of Greece. Herodotus, work although entertaining, does not have any substantiated facts to support his accounts. In fact, Herodotus himself tells his reader that his account are not accurate when he writes “if, I say, we are to form a conjecture from any of these, we must pronounce that the Pelasgi spoke a barbarous language. If this were really so, and the entire Pelasgic race spoke the same tongue, the Athenians, who were certainly Pelasgi, must have changed their language at the same time that they passed into the Hellenic body; for it is a certain fact that the people of Creston speak a language unlike any of their neighbours, and the same is true of the Placianians, while the language spoken by these two people is the same; which shows that they both retain the idiom which they brought with them into the countries where they are now settled.”
This statements is telling in the fact that Herodotus openly speaks of conjectures he made in his accounts of history. Herodotus openly admits that he does not do his due diligence to trace the origin of the Pelasgic race instead he utilizes one fact to leap to an opinion of how the language derived. He further his claims when he writes, “The Pelasgi, on the other hand, were, as I think, a barbarian race which never greatly multiplied. Herodotus is quick to offer his thoughts and opinions as accountable history. Here again Herodotus is delivering an opinion in lieu of facts. This is evident from his use of the words “I think”, which is a true indication that the stated accounts are not documented historical fact.
In contrast to the assumptions of Herodotus, Thucydides was careful to do proper research. He writes, “Of the events of the war I have not ventured to speak from any chance information, nor according to any notion of my own; I have described nothing but what I either saw myself, or learned from others of whom I made the most careful and particular inquiry.” Not only does