See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/377326933

HERODOTUS AND THUCYDIDES

Chapter · January 2024

CITATIONS READS
0 5,313

1 author:

Adjei Adjepong
University of Cape Coast
19 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adjei Adjepong on 11 January 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Herodotus and Thucydides: “The Fathers” of the Science of the Past

ADJEI ADJEPONG
[email protected]
+233-244974697 and +233-271898448
Department of History
Faculty of Arts
College of Humanities and Legal Studies
University of Cape Coast
Cape Coast

Abstract
Human history began to be enacted with the appearance of the first humans on earth. However,
the systematic study of history did not start with our first ancestors. Many ages elapsed before
humans learned to pay serious attention to the recovery and reconstruction of the past. The first
attempts started in the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and the Chinese worlds, long before the fifth
century B.C.E. Nevertheless, Herodotus and Thucydides of ancient Greece, who undertook their
studies of the past in the fifth century B.C.E. have been regarded as the founders of the
systematic study of the past: Herodotus as “the Father of History”, and Thucydides as “the
Father of Scientific History”. The credit for the start of the systematic study of history has been
given to these two ancient Greek historiographers due to the fact that until Herodotus’ time,
history had been confused or mixed with fables, whereas Thucydides’ achievement lay in his
application of the principles of medical science to the reconstruction of the past. Depending
exclusively on secondary documents, this study examines the context in which Herodotus and
Thucydides reconstructed the past and earned their enviable titles. To be able to do this
successfully, the study first briefly reappraises pioneering attempts at the study of history. It then
analyses the historical careers of the two historiographers. Finally, the study attempts a
justification of the positions of the two giants in history based on the findings of the study.

Keywords and Phrases: Father(s), Greek, Herodotus, History, Historiography, Peloponnesian

War(s), Persian Wars, Science, Thucydides.

Introduction
It is acknowledged worldwide that history as a scientific subject of study, distinct from the
genealogical or geographical compositions of the earlier chroniclers, such as the Ionians, began
with the writings of Herodotus, whom the Roman statesman Cicero called “the Father of
History,” and Thucydides, the first “scientific historian”1 respectively (Caldwell, 1965:252).

1
The origin of Thucydides’ title, “The Father of Scientific History”, is not certain, both in terms of who
conferred it on him and when the title was bestowed. There is no doubt, however, that it was the scientific
approach which he adopted in his reconstruction of the History of the Peloponnesian War which made
him become the father of scientific history. One of the translators of his work Benjamin Jowett, for
example, assert that for displaying philosophical objectivity and impartiality in his study, Thucydides
“established himself as the world’s first scientific historian”. See the first page (without page number) of
his translation of Thucydides’ work cited in the bibliography.
1
Herodotus became the first writer to gather his documents systematically, seek to ascertain their
veracity, and offer a thoughtful and lively narrative. It was Herodotus who employed the word
historia, the Greek word for inquiry or research, to explain how he was providing a record of
human development. Herodotus became most noted for the work he produced on the emergence
of the Persian Empire, the Persian assault on Greece, and the subsequent Greek triumph. Another
great Greek historiographer,2 Thucydides, who transformed history into a science, is best known
for his History of the Peloponnesian War, an epic battle waged between Athens and Sparta that
occurred during the latter stages of the fifth century B.C.E.3 Thucydides took extraordinary care
to verify the authenticity of the stories he relayed, turning to many key surviving participants on
both sides. He also offered remarkable presentations of orations, such as one delivered by
Pericles. Certainly, the two historiographers made great contributions to the evolution of history
as a subject of serious study. In view of this, it is imperative for us to examine how Herodotus
did his work, evaluate the authenticity of his facts, and estimate the kind of achievement he
eventually attained. It is equally necessary to evaluate how Thucydides performed his
historiographical task, measure the extent to which his work differed from that of Herodotus, and
assess the contributions he offered to the historical discipline, making it scientific. This chapter,
therefore, examines how Herodotus and Thucydides performed their tasks as historiographers
and earned their enviable titles.4

Methodology and Data Sources

The nature of a study determines the research design to be used and the documents to be
consulted. Hence, the subject of this study dictated the documents to be used. Hence since no
living being was a contemporary to the two historiographers, interviews with eyewitnesses could
not form part of the research design. Neither could archival documents be used. In effect, the
study was largely library-based and depended exclusively on secondary documents. Again,
Herodotus’ Histories could not be accessed for direct observation and review. As a result, all
facts on Herodotus were gathered from studies and commentaries done on him. The major works

2
See below for the definition or explanation of historiography and historiographer.
3
This study qualifies dates as B.C.E. (‘Before the Common Era’) or C.E. (‘Common Era’). In practice,
B.C.E. refers to the same epoch as B.C. (‘Before Christ’), and C.E. refers to the same epoch as A.D.
(Anno Domini, a Latin term meaning ‘in the year of the Lord’).
4
The objective of this study is not to compare how the two founders, or fathers, of historical science
handled their topics as historiographers. If it had been so, it would have been appropriate to organise the
important elements of their works under themes such as topic or problem of study, objective of the study,
methodology and data sources, interpretation of data, style of writing, significance of the study,
organisation of the work, and such other significant elements which form important part of the scientific
process of research. We have not adopted this approach because the aim of the study, as clearly stated
here, is to examine the topics they chose for study, how they handled their problems, and appreciate the
contributions they made to the development of history as a subject of study in schools, colleges and
universities. Hence, we have considered it expedient to treat the two intellectuals and their works
separately for a good understanding and appreciation. Moreover, although they were contemporaries, they
did not compose their works at the same time. The differences in time frame implies a possible change in
the factors which affect the writing and rewriting of history: new ideas, interpretations, and perceptions;
new knowledge; area of interest; perspective of the author; materials or means available; etc. As a result,
the aims and means of the two historiographers are too different to allow a common ground for
comparison and grading. It is also obvious that Thucydides benefitted from the work of Herodotus.
2
consulted for data included Elizabeth Vandiver’s Herodotus: The Father of History (2002);
Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, edited by Rex Warner (1966); Mortimer J. Adler
and William Gorman’s The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World,
Vol. I (1952); Wallace Everett Caldwell’s The Ancient World (1965); V. Gordon Childe’s New
Light on the Most Ancient East (1934); and Ernst Breisach’s Historiography: Ancient, Medieval
& Modern, (1994). The information gathered from these major studies was supplemented with
evidence collected from other works. These works were used because of their relevance to the
topic. They provided evidence on the context in which Herodotus and Thucydides approached
their studies. The views and conclusions of these studies helped put the study in its proper
perspective.
The researcher was aware of the limitations of historical documents, as it is with all
documents in all fields of study. He envisaged the likelihood of distortion of facts, exaggeration,
understatement and other limitations normally associated with historical documents. The
researcher, thus, deemed it necessary to carefully scrutinise and internally and externally critique
all the data collected from the available documents in order to present only the accurate and
reliable facts. In relating the story, the researcher adopted both the chronological and thematic
models. In sum, the study incorporated the hallowed traditions of historical scholarship: rigorous
empirical research, systematic analysis of data, and objectivity.

A Brief Discussion of the Concept of ‘Historiography’

History,5 as a body of knowledge, has three parts to it: the event, or the fact; the account of it, or
the story; and the means by which the account is prepared, or the fashioning of the account.
Among scholars of history, the third aspect is popularly referred to as historiography. In reality,
this part takes place between the event and the account. For instance, if we state that history
requires the most meticulous research, we are referring to history, in this sense, as something
intermediate between events of the past and the final product or the report on the events as yet
incomplete. In this way, we are talking about what the historian does with the facts at his
disposal in his attempt to produce an intelligible account of the past. It is a fact that though
history, like all other disciplines, has ethics that guide its professionals, no one can tell another
person what kind of historian to be at the outset of a career. While professionals in the same
domain, historians differ from one another as there are diverse themes and areas of interest in the
career; and different historians employ different research techniques in the examination of their
facts. Moreover, every generation reconstructs history, and all discard, not entirely though, their
predecessors’ views. These variations or differences among historians are what constitute the
subject matter of historiographical studies.
Historiography, therefore, refers either to the study of the history or development and
methodology of History as a discipline, or to the critical examination of a body of historical work
on a specialised topic, such as slavery and the development of racism, imperialism and
colonisation, pre-colonial African science and technology, the Persian Wars, the Peloponnesian
Wars, etc. Furay and Salevouris (1988: 223) define historiography as the study of the way
history has been, and is, written, the history of historical writing. They advance that in
historiography, what one studies is not the events of the past directly, but rather the changing
interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians. The New Encyclopaedia

5
See Chapter One, “What is History”, for the meaning of history.
3
Britannica (2003: 948–949) defines historiography as the writing of history, especially based on
the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials in
those sources, and the synthesis of those particulars into a narrative that stands the test of critical
methods. In another way, historiography could be explained as the nature of historical writing, in
the sense of how the historian, based on his own judgement, treats historical data in order to
eventually produce a historical work.
Initially, historiography tended to deal with a succession of books, authors and schools;
later, however, it was extended to include the evolution of the ideas or principles and the
techniques or methodology associated with the writing of history and the changing attitudes to
the question of the nature of history itself (Butterfield, 1968: 464), so that the term now refers to
the theory and history of historical writing. Ultimately, it comprises the study of the development
of humans’ sense for the past, and the various relationships between present generations and
their predecessors (Butterfield, 1968: 464), and between the present and the future. In the early
modern period, the term historiography tended to be used in a more basic sense, to mean simply
“the writing of history”. Historiographer, therefore, meant historian.
A.E. Afigbo (1993: 41), in an article entitled “Colonial Historiography”, advances that
historiography involves four different but closely related kinds of historical activity. The first, he
argues, is the discovery and critical analysis of historical sources; the second, is the
reconstruction and description of the past on the basis of facts quarried from the discovered
sources; the third is the construction on the basis of the ascertained facts, of some general theory
which gives meaning and inner logic to the known past, or to most of it; and the fourth is the
reflection on the trends and patterns of historical writing. Mortimer J. Adler and William
Gorman (1952: 713) agree with Afigbo’s evaluation of historiography. They observe that the
aims and methods of writing history are discussed by the historian himself. They posit that good
historians state more specifically the objectives of their study, the standards of reliability or
authenticity by which they determine what is fact, and the principles of interpretation by which
they select the most important facts, ordering them according to some hypothesis concerning the
meaning of the events reported or reconstructed.
All these observations about historiography and what historiographical studies entail are
no doubt geared towards helping people outside the field of history and historiography to
understand how the historian or historiographer goes about his work from the outset, the
identification and definition of a problem, to the final stage, reporting on the event or giving an
account of it. In other words, they are attempts at outlining the steps involved in historical
research and writing. Fundamentally, the steps of historical research involve: statement of the
problem, or the identification and definition of the problem, which constitutes the subject-matter;
review of the relevant existing literature; data collection and analysis (criticism of data);
interpretation and synthesis of the refined and selected facts; and writing the report. It is against
this background that this study examines how Herodotus and Thucydides carried out their studies
as pioneers in historiography.

The Study of History in the Pre-Herodotus Era

The study of history is generally accepted to have begun with Herodotus, through his data
collection for and the eventual writing of his work entitled Historia or History, in the fifth
century B.C.E. This view creates the impression that before Herodotus’ attempt, no efforts had
been made to study and reconstruct the human past. But our knowledge of the human past did

4
not begin in the fifth century B.C.E. As has been stated, there is evidence of historical records
that were produced long before this period.6 To appreciate the novelty of the task undertaken by
Herodotus and Thucydides, and also give credit to their predecessors, or the pioneers of the study
of the past, it is appropriate to trace the roots of the evolution of history as a subject of study to
the period preceding the era of Herodotus, from where Egyptian, Babylonian and Chinese
historiography originated.
The rulers of Egypt, of Babylonia and Assyria, and of the Hittites and the Persians all
made attempts to preserve their glorious deeds for posterity in monumental inscriptions. The
most important ones also accumulated large archives of ordinary administrative documents and
records specially commemorating their achievements. E.B. Fr and Ed (2003: 560) maintain that
some 20,000 clay tablets remain from the collections written for Ashurbanipal of Assyria (668–
627 B.C.E.). In both Egypt and Babylonia, lists of kings were kept in the temples, and these were
sometimes supplemented by brief annals recording the principal events, though the hatred felt by
certain rulers for their predecessors led to periodic destructions of older material. In Egypt,
written records, primarily compiled in Greek by Manetho, composed under Ptolemy
Philadelphus, appeared long before Herodotus’ period (Childe, 1934: 4). Certain fragments of
much older indigenous Egyptian annals, particularly the so-called Turin Papyrus, were written
about 1300 B.C.E., while the Palermo Stone was inscribed some fourteen hundred years earlier
(Childe, 1934: 4). In Babylonia, written records, which were inscribed in cuneiform7 characters
on tablets of baked clay together with the Greek compilation of indigenous tradition composed
by a Berosus, also appeared long before Herodotus’ time, and there are now several tablets
drawn up in the latter half of the third millennium B.C.E., that purport to give a list of the cities
that from time to time attained hegemony with the names and reigns of their rulers (Childe,
1934: 14). Actually, apart from changes in literary style, there was surprisingly little
development over a period of more than 1,000 years in all these types of commemorative records
(E.B. Fr and Ed, 2003: 560). The inscriptions and temple records were normally intended to
perpetuate the glory of the gods in whose service these rulers had accomplished great deeds.
Ancient China also supplied itself with historians and historical writings from early
times. The Chinese, in the eighth century B.C.E., for example, produced the Spring and Autumn
Annals though it covered the entire year (Barzun and Graff, 1977: 38). This was a day-to-day
record. This work was, however, preceded by a collection of notable sayings and moral
injunctions to officials that is called The Book of Documents or Book of History. This earlier
record was a more poetic and attractive work.
In Western culture, the same sequence of interests and expression in keeping records
about the past is found. It is in this direction that the logographers, mainly Ionians, come to

6
These early writer have been described as logographers. Logos means, among other things, “account”
(Vandiver, 2002: 7); a logographer, therefore, means a writer of accounts. Many of these logographers
came from Ionia, a region just north of Herodotus’ own native Caria.
7
Cuneiform was the first form of writing developed around 4500 B.C.E. by the Sumerians (Fields, Barber
and Riggs, 1998: 57). The Sumerians began by using pictures to represent objects or ideas, drawing them
on clay with blunt-ended reeds in such a way that the lines appeared to be wedged-shaped, hence
cuneiform. Later, the pictures became formalised and came to represent sounds as well (Caldwell, 1965
24). The cuneiform was developed primarily to keep track of business accounts among the traders of
Sumeria (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998: 57). See page 25 of Caldwell’s study for the different types of
early writings developed by the most renowned civilisations.
5
mind. Unfortunately, most of the works of the logographers did not survive, and so their precise
nature is hard to determine. What is certain, however, is that these works seem to have fallen into
several distinct categories: ethnographical treatises describing the customs of non-Greek peoples;
geographical works detailing the places visited on a journey; mythographical works, which
attempted to systematise traditional myths; local histories listing events in one particular city,
often starting with its foundation; and chronological treatises attempting to work out consistent
time reckonings (Vandiver, 2002: 7). Homer’s account of the Trojan War, a much richer, more
highly organised piece of legendary history, is more popular with most people. Homer’s two
great epics, The Iliad and The Odyssey, are the first works of Greek literature.8 Both works relate
only a part of the story of the Trojan War. The Iliad focuses on events that happened in the last
year of the war, culminating in the death of Hector. It depicts panoramic battles, warrior values,
heroic acts, and interventions by impatient deities. This epic poem examines war, bravery, and
honour, focusing on the battles themselves and the personal qualities of the warriors. On the
other hand, The Odyssey depicts the ten-year travels of Odysseus, a hero who was an ideal ruler,
after the Trojan War.9 These works, the culmination of a centuries-long oral tradition, were
probably written down sometime in the eighth century B.C.E. (Vandiver, 2002: 13). They show
unmistakable evidence of oral composition.
It is interesting to note that these stories of heroic deeds and individualism became the
foundation for Greek education. Greek boys, particularly aristocrats, were schooled in these two
classics and committed long passages to memory (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998: 163). Each
city-state claimed a heroic founder from The Iliad, and their nostalgic reverence for the heroic
Mycenaean Age gave them a sense of unity, cultural superiority, and tradition. The influence of
Homer’s works on later Greek literature and society was incalculable. They served as a virtually
inexhaustible source of plots and characters; and they also served as sources of quotations and as
reference points. For Herodotus, the Homeric epics suggested both the subject matter and the
structure of his work. Conversely, it is believed that among the logographers, Hecataeus of
Miletus stood out as the most important influence on Herodotus.10 Hecataeus wrote two major
works, neither of which survived. These were Periodos Gês (Journey around the World) and the
Genealogies (Vandiver, 2002: 7). The former described the places and peoples encountered on a
voyage around the Mediterranean and Black Sea. According to Professor Vandiver, this work
was divided into two books, Europe and Asia. It was an attempt to describe the entire known
world. The Genealogies consisted of at least four books. This work focused on families that
claimed a divine ancestor.
It must be noted that historical works produced before Herodotus’ work were usually
records relating to events in, or close to, the area of the writers (local histories). Herodotus’
study, a work regarded as a superb literary art, however, showed a deep curiosity about other
peoples and their history. Herodotus’ formula ushered in a situation in which subsequent writers
sought to extend history beyond local limits and domestic concerns. Meanwhile, it is evident that

8
Though the compilation of these works is generally attributed to Homer, they are actually a compilation
of legends by many storytellers of the eighth century B.C.E. (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998: 163).
9
Odysseus’ life entertained as well as inspired. His experiences, captured in The Odyssey, the story of his
ten-year trek back to his homeland after fighting with other Mycenaeans at troy, proved to be the most
popular of Greek adventures.
10
In Herodotus’ work, he makes frequent references to Hecataeus, and this justifies the assertion that the
latter had enormous influence on the former.
6
before Herodotus, some attempts were made towards reconstructing aspects of the past. In these
attempts, different attitudes were adopted. These attitudes became more identifiable with the first
two dominant figures in the development of history as a unique discipline of academic
importance, Herodotus and Thucydides.

Herodotus: Birth and Life

Herodotus was born in Halicarnassus in Caria (now Bodrum) in Asia Minor (western Turkey),
then part of the Persian Empire. This area was Greek-speaking and culturally Greek (Vandiver,
2002: 4; Caldwell, 1965: 252).11 Ancient tradition maintains that he was born in 484 B.C.E. and
died in 425 (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998: I-13; Caldwell, 1965: 252). His family, including
his father Lyxes, who was probably from Caria, and his mother, whose name was either Rhaeo
or Dryo, was stationed in the upper social strata. Herodotus had one brother, Theodore, and
another relative, Panyasis, who was an uncle or a cousin, and an esteemed poet. Herodotus
undoubtedly received the liberal education that comfortable Greek citizens did: grammar,
gymnastics, and music. When he turned eighteen, he took his place among Halicarnassus’s
ephebi or eirenes, the young men who were undergoing military training. However, he possibly
felt stifled, due to the tyrannical rule that his home city endured under Lygdamis. Thus, he
decided to follow the example of Panyasis in becoming a writer. Clearly, he undertook an
extensive reading programme poring over the works of Homer, Hesiod, Ovid, Lysistratus,
Sappho, Solon, Aesop, Aeschylus, and Pindar, among others. In his work, Herodotus referred
particularly to Hecateus, up to that point considered the finest Greek prose writer.
Herodotus was early involved in political troubles. Fearing that Panyasis was engaged in
treasonous activities, the despot Lygdamis had him sentenced to death around 457 B.C.E.
Herodotus, who apparently shared the political ideas of Panyasis and appeared to be involved in
the attempt to overthrow the ruling dynasty, was either exiled from Halicarnassus or left of his
own accord as the execution of Panyasis was taking place. Herodotus sailed for the Ionian island
of Samos, which was a key component of the Athenian confederacy. His family’s comfortable
economic status, perhaps coupled with the need to distance himself from Halicarnassus, led to
extensive travels, both in Greece and in other lands. Most of those travels were apparently
conducted between 464 and 447 B.C.E. Herodotus went through much of Asia Minor and
European Greece, visiting islands of the Archipelago-Rhodes, Cyprus, Crete, Italy, Sicily,
Sparta, and Athens, among other spots. He travelled from Sardis to Susa, the Persian capital,
went to Babylon, and spent considerable time in Egypt, which was at the time largely influenced
by Athens. His second home was Athens from which he drew his inspiration. The direction and
extent of his travels are not precisely known, but they provided him with valuable firsthand
knowledge of virtually the entire ancient Middle East.
Following the overthrow of Lygdamis, an event in which Herodotus may have
participated, Halicarnassus became a willing participant in the Athenian confederacy. Herodotus
evidently returned to his hometown, where his history was beginning to receive an initial,
unfavourable response. That probably convinced him to leave Halicarnassus once again. Hence,
in about 447 B.C.E., he moved to Athens, then the center of intellectual life in Greece and the

11
The specific dates of birth and death of Herodotus are difficult to determine. Many scholars are not
certain on them. Some agree that he was born in 484 B.C.E. However, the year in which he died remains
unsettled among many scholars. Some believe that he died in 425 B.C.E. Those who are not certain
normally say ‘sometime in the 420s B.C.E.’ See, for example, Vandiver (2002: 4).
7
focus of culture in the Greek world. There, Herodotus was treated with great favour, even being
awarded the generous sum of ten talents, thanks to a decree by the citizens of that city-state. He
won the admiration of most illustrious men of Greece. He was often seen in the company of his
friend Sophocles, when he was in Athens. Among the noteworthy intellectual figures to be found
in that Greek city-state who were contemporaries of Herodotus were Pericles, Thucydides,
Protagoras, Zeno, Olorus, Antiphon, Euripides, and Sophocles. It is reported that Herodotus was
very close to Sophocles, Thucydides, and Olorus.
Herodotus decided to leave Athens, where an elevated status was hardly afforded writers,
unless they performed other tasks as well. Socrates, for example, was an infantryman; Sophocles
commanded naval fleets; and Thucydides served as a general in the Greek army. Again,
Herodotus must have been aware that the franchise, so valued by free Greeks, was not easily
attained. In view of all this, in 444 or 443 B.C.E., he chose to sail with a group of colonists who
established the colony of Thurii in southern Italy, which Pericles championed. Herodotus later
referred to himself as Herodotus of Thurii, which included as one of its colonists, the great
philosopher, Pythagoras. Herodotus devoted the remainder of his life to the completion of his
great work, entitled Historia, the Greek word for inquiry. It was possibly the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta in 431 B.C.E. that induced Herodotus to
construct his story of battles, historical developments, and travels as a full narrative. His main
topic was the Persian Wars of 490 and 480–79 B.C.E. Herodotus died at Thurii in 425 B.C.E.
(Caldwell, 1965: 252).

The Persian Wars (490 and 480–479 B.C.E.) Produce “The Father of History”
Before attempting to discuss how Herodotus examined his topic, the Persian Wars of 490 B.C.E.
and 480–79 B.C.E., it is imperative for us to briefly examine the wars themselves in order to gain
insight into these conflicts and to understand the importance Herodotus attached to them. It has
been argued that the Greek poleis12 infrequently united in a common effort, but they did so to
defend Greece from the Persians (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998:161). By the sixth century
B.C.E., the huge Persian Empire became interested in the lucrative Greek trade along the western
coast of modern Turkey, threatening the Ionian cities there. After taking over the smaller nearby
kingdom of Lydia in 546 B.C.E., Persia soon encroached on Greeks in the region. Many of the
poleis were eventually taken over or were forced to accept pro-Persian governments. The Ionian
cities revolted against Persia in 499 B.C.E., calling for aid from their Greek homeland. This
conflict initiated long-term hostilities between Greece and Persia. When Persia’s King Darius I
invaded Thrace in 490 B.C.E., the Persian Wars (490–479 B.C.E.) began. Some Greek poleis had
surrendered to the Persians, but others allied in a common effort to defeat Persian aggression.
This brought into existence what is called the Delian League, a coalition for the common defence
and liberation of any Greek who remained under Persian control. However, not all areas in
Greece joined the alliance of poleis against Persia. Greeks rarely came together in political or
military unity; each polis fiercely guarded its independence. During these conflicts, the powerful
states of Athens and Sparta supplied commanders to lead the Greek alliance. The three major
battles of the Persian Wars occurred at Marathon, Thermopylae, and Plataea (Fields, Barber and
Riggs, 1998: 161). The last and most significant naval battle, near Salamis, launched the
Athenians into naval dominance. Athens soon emerged the leader of the allied effort, the Delian

12
Polis means city-state; it is the singular form of poleis; hence poleis mean city-states.
8
League. After their defeat in 479 B.C.E., the Persians retreated from the area, and a new era in
Greek history unfolded as Athens exploited its leadership role. Hostilities with Persia came to an
end in 449 B.C.E. with the signing of peace treaty between the two belligerent powers (Fields,
Barber and Riggs, 1998: 161).
It was the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero who called Herodotus the “Father of
History”. Cicero conferred the title on Herodotus because the latter, as shown above, was the
first person to carry out a thorough search for facts and attempt fully to describe events of the
recent human past and to explain the causes of those events, as well as offer a justification for his
reconstruction of the past. After inquiring into his topic, he produced a narrative compilation of
his findings into a single volume. Later authors, however, have divided the work into nine parts;
that is why the title of the work is often given as Historiai, which translates as Histories,
meaning inquiries or researches.13 It is not certain when Herodotus started writing the work, but
it is believed that the work was probably published14 sometime in the 420s B.C.E. (Vandiver,
2002: 4).
The Histories contain a vast amount of material; their organisation, however, moves
clearly toward a culmination in the account of Greece’s victory over Persia in their conflicts. As
noted, the Histories have been put into nine “books,” or papyrus rolls. The earlier books deal
with the customs, legends, history, and traditions of the peoples of the ancient world, including
the Lydians, Scythians, Medians, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, and the people of Thrace. The
last three books describe the armed conflicts between Greece and Persia in the early fifth century
B.C.E. Book I outlines the beginnings of the East-West conflict. Herodotus traces the conflict’s
origins to the Trojan War and, in more recent history, to the subjugation of Ionia by Croesus,
king of Lydia. He then describes the rise of Cyrus the Great and the Persian Empire. This book is
complex, containing several subsidiary stories. Books II and III continue the description of the
Persian Empire and its conquests. Book II focuses on Egypt, which was brought into the Persian
Empire by Cyrus’ son Cambyses (Vandiver, 2002: 27). Book III concentrates on the accession
and rule of Cambyses’ successor, Darius. Book IV examines Darius’ campaigns against Scythia
and Libya and contains ethnographical material on those two nations. Book V brings the
narrative closer to the eventual conflict of Greece and Persia by describing the Ionian Revolt.
The Greek-speaking city-states of Ionia revolted against Persian rule in 499–494 B.C.E. Athens
lent aid to the Ionian cities, and this attracted Darius’ attention and enmity to the Athenians.
Book VI begins the narrative of the Persian Wars by describing Darius’ invasion of Greece in
490 B.C.E. and his troops’ defeat at the Battle of Marathon. Books VII through IX, the
culmination of the Histories, focus on the second Persian invasion of Greece, under the
leadership of Darius’ son Xerxes. Book VII details Xerxes’ preparations and journey to Greece,
includes the narrative of the Battle of Thermopylae, and begins the description of the Battle of
Artemisium. Book VIII continues the narrative of Artemisium and culminates in the account of

13
Herodotus’ book begins: “These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus”; and what follows is
a series of reports for oral delivery. See Barzun and Graff (1977: 39).
14
Using the term published here creates some confusion. Many scholars and studies maintain that the
Histories were published in the fifth century B.C.E. The fourth word in the opening sentence of the work
apodexis, which Professor Elizabeth Vandiver (2002: 8) considers as the “subject of the sentence”, has
been translated as publication. To talk of publication as far back as the fifth century B.C.E. is, however,
anachronistic. Moreover, it is accepted that Herodotus’ work was almost definitely “shown forth” through
oral recitations, and so were the works of other writers at the time.
9
the crucial naval Battle of Salamis. Book IX concludes the Histories by describing the Battles of
Plataea and Mycale and the Persians’ eventual retreat. Thus, the Histories move from remote
antiquity to the recent past, from a broad sweeping portrait of foreign lands and peoples to
specific spots in Greece, and from broad ethnographical and cultural descriptions to fine details
of battle.
In the Histories, Herodotus provides information about ancient Greece, North Africa, and
the Middle East, based on his observations of the different peoples he encountered and on his
studying of the military history of the places he visited. In these studies, the development of
civilisation moves inevitably toward a great confrontation between Persia and Greece, which are
presented as the centers of Eastern and Western cultures respectively. Indeed, he envisages the
war as an episode in the conflict between East and West. Accordingly, he traces the background
of these struggles in the sixth century B.C.E., proceeds to a description of the lands which were
under the Persian Empire, and writes an account of the war itself. Included in the work are
descriptions of landscapes and the people who inhabited them, as well as climatic factors. In
addition, Herodotus discusses the history of the people of Greece, examining their colonies,
political machinations, wars, religion, and more.
Herodotus’ information was derived in part from the works of predecessors, meaning that
Herodotus relied on written accounts for background knowledge. Information gathered from
existing literature was widely supplemented with knowledge that he had gained from his own
extensive travels, which also means that Herodotus cross-checked the observations made in
written accounts with the accounts of eye-witnesses in oral form (Alagoa, 1993: 4; Vandiver,
2002: 11). He enriches his work by also collecting a vast amount of information from other
historical sources. This included physical remains such as art objects, language, ethnographic
information, and geographical accounts which he then joined to the story of the Persian Wars
with its different focus (Breisach, 1994: 19–20). In relation to foreign traditions, Herodotus’
research methodology was to record the traditions of the various nations just as he heard them
related to him. In dealing with different traditions, he mentions the problem of accuracy and
evidence on a number of occasions:

So far the Egyptians themselves have been my authority; but in

what follows I shall relate what other people, too, are willing to
accept in the history of this country, with a few point, added from
my own observation (cited in Breisach, 1994: 19).

He, however, interprets all traditions in the light of direct observation and research, and the
views he forms from them (Alagoa, 1993: 4). Although he is sometimes inaccurate, he is
eminently fair-minded and is generally careful to separate plausible reports from questionable
ones. He feels it his duty to inquire and then to report what he learns, whether he himself
believes it or not. When opinions conflict, he presents them all; for he seems satisfied to let the
reader decide between conflicting accounts. Only in few cases does he use his own judgement to
indicate which account was more likely (Adler and Gorman, 1952: 713). In doing this,
Herodotus more often shows good judgement: “At this point I find myself compelled to express
an opinion which I know most people will object to; nevertheless, as I believe it to be true, I will
not suppress it” (cited in Breisach, 1994: 19). In the treatment of events and personalities, he

10
shows, for the most part, an admirable balance, except perhaps in the case of Cleon, against
whom he is prejudiced.
Admittedly, Herodotus offers explanation to certain historical phenomena by formulating
and testing hypotheses to direct his search for the order among the facts he was dealing with
(Cohen and Nagel, 1936: 197–204).15 Interested in the problem of causation and with a mind
freed from superstition by his education, he brushes aside traditional views. Earthquakes and
eclipses are to him not divine portents but natural phenomena. Herodotus disregards oracles and
omens of supernatural interference and found his causes in the actions of humans and in the
relation of events. To him, the causes of the wars between the Persian invaders and the Greek
city-states are: mischief-making exiles at the Persian court who urged the Persian ruler Xerxes to
wage war against the Greeks; fraudulent oracles; a peculiar sense of duty which told Xerxes that
he must add to Persian power; the hope for war booty and for control of “Greek wealth”; revenge
for Athens’ support of the Ionian revolt against Persian rule; and Xerxes’ vague ambition “that
the sun will not look down upon any land beyond the boundaries of what is ours” (Breisach,
1994: 15). Eventually, Xerxes’ grandiose ambition also provokes the Persian catastrophe by
arousing the gods, who frowned upon excessive power. Essentially, Herodotus identified the
causes of the Persian Wars in human motives.
He fails, however, to emphasise sufficiently those underlying social and economic
elements in history upon which present-day historians lay such stress. His comments on the
actions of people under strain of war are, nevertheless, full of wise observations. Again, although
freed by the enlightenment of his generation from much of the supernaturalism of his
predecessors, he still believes firmly in the justice of the gods and pays due respect to the gods of
other lands (Caldwell, 1965: 252). But above all, he believes in the happiness of the individual as
a citizen, an individual not so arrogant as to offend the deity and bring down vengeance upon
himself, but mindful of the gods and of the limitations which they placed on all human
achievements. His ideal of human happiness is best illustrated by the story he tells of Solon’s
visit to Croesus. When Croesus asked Solon whom he deemed to be the happiest of men, the
latter mentioned Tellus of Athens. Solon considered Tellus the happiest of all men because he
lived in a well-governed commonwealth and had sons who were virtuous and good; and he saw
children born to them all and all surviving. The other reason for which Solon regarded Tellus
happy was that he ended his life in a glorious manner; for coming to the assistance of the
Athenians in a battle with their neighbours near Eleusis, he put the enemy to flight and died
nobly. The Athenians buried him at the public charge in the place where he fell and honoured
him greatly (Caldwell, 1965: 252–253).
The Histories may be the first known creative work to be written in prose. Both ancient
and modern critics have paid tribute to its grandeur of design and to its frank, lucid, and
delightfully anecdotal style. In the past several decades, Herodotus has been lauded as a pioneer
in history, ethnography, and anthropology.16 His lyrical style, acknowledged by contemporaries

15
In their An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (1934), Morris R. Cohen and Ernest Nagel
examine in detail how Herodotus formulated hypotheses and tested them in his search for connections
between facts and his rejection of untenable theories. See Chapter XI, especially pages 197–204, of their
work for the details.
16
This why some scholars maintain that Herodotus could also be called the “Father of Ethnography,” the
“Father of Anthropology,” or even the “Father of Travelogues”. See, for example, Vandiver, 2002: 5).
Barzun and Graff (1977: 192) have also described Herodotus as a sociologist, a demographer, and even a
11
and later generations alike, continues to be appreciated. While Cicero termed his prose “copious
and polished”, Quintilian called it “sweet, pure and flowing”. An ancient critic also said in praise
of Herodotus: “He takes you along and turns hearing into sight” (Barzun and Graff, 1977: 40).
Herodotus demonstrates a wide knowledge of Greek literature and contemporary rational
thought. The universe, he believed, is ruled by Fate and Chance, and nothing is stable in human
affairs. Moral choice is still important, however, since the gods punish the arrogant. This attempt
to draw moral lessons from the study of great events formed the basis of the Greek and Roman
historiographical tradition, of which Herodotus is rightly regarded as the founder. Obviously,
though he had political and cultural interests too, Herodotus cherished moral history more than
anything because he believed that notable lives and deeds have permanent value as moral
teachings (Barzun and Graff, 1977: 46). He was a unique story-teller, and the greatest charm of
his book is to be found in the many digressions when he turns aside to tell a story. And the fact
that he was the first to weave his researches into a continuous and shapely narrative for readers’
consumption is what justifies his ancient title of Father of History (Barzun and Graff, 1977: 39).
Every good historical work must serve a purpose. At the outset, Herodotus explains that
he undertook the study “in the hope of preserving from decay the remembrance of what men
have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the Barbarians17
from losing their due meed of glory” (Adler and Gorman, 1952: 713; Caldwell, 1965: 252). In
effect, the Histories provide the initial history produced by the Western world. Herodotus’
description of Egypt remained a major source of the West’s image of this important civilisation
until the end of the eighteenth century, when Napoleon Bonaparte’s Egyptian expedition enabled
French archaeologists and historians ‘rediscover’ Egypt (Lim and Smith, 2003: 49). Shortly after
its publication, the work was considered path-breaking. Writers had previously produced
chronicles and epic tales, in their efforts to record the past. However, Herodotus is the first to
examine the past in a philosophical fashion and to conduct research to track human behaviour.
Meanwhile, it should be noted that one of the important questions in the study of Herodotus and
his Histories is whether or not the work is a finished work. Some scholars have argued that he
left the work unfinished when he died. The balance of modern scholarly opinion, however, is that
the work is a finished whole and that Herodotus intended for it to end as it does, with an
anecdote about the great Persian king Cyrus. Interestingly, the Histories proved highly
controversial throughout the ancient era, and its author was condemned for his purported biases
and inaccuracies.

Thucydides: Birth and Life

Described as an ‘objective’ and ‘scientific’ historian by Rex Warner (1966: 7), Thucydides was
born around 460 B.C.E. and died in 400 B.C.E. (Caldwell, 1965: 253; Fields, Barber and Riggs,
1998: I-29).18 He was born into a prominent Athenian family, which owned gold mines at Scapte

psychologist. The last description is based on the fact that in Book II, Herodotus reports the experiment
by which Psammetichus tried to find out which language an untaught child would speak. Considering all
these, Herodotus was generally a social scientist.
17
In Greek, he term barbarian simply meant foreigner. In view of this, when Herodotus said that he
wanted to record great and astonishing deeds by Greeks and barbarians, he was not necessarily implying
that those non-Greeks were in any way uncivilized or savage.
18
Like Herodotus, Thucydides’ dates of birth and death remain controversial. Scholars like Caldwell and
Fields, Barber and Riggs agree that Thucydides was born in 460 B.C.E.; yet others, including Warner
12
Hyde on the Thracian coast opposite Thasos. His father Olorus was related to Cimon, the great
Athenian general and statesman whom Pericles was to oppose and to supplant as the outstanding
political personage in Athens (Hadas, 1960: 9). Family wealth afforded Thucydides two dwelling
places: one in Athens and the other in Thrace. Moreover, the family gold mines undoubtedly led
to Thucydides’s frequent stays in Thrace, where he operated a gold mine. In addition, the
connections his relatives possessed enabled him to meet powerful men who were shaping history
in their own fashion. During his early schooling, Thucydides was, without doubt, educated by
Sophists, who taught rhetoric, philosophy, and critical thinking.
Prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian Wars in 431 B.C.E., Thucydides evidently
played no major role in Athenian political affairs. However, considering his appointment in 424
B.C.E. as a strategos or general in the Athenian military, there is the likelihood that even as a
young man, Thucydides must have had some reputation for military and political competence.
That he belonged to the same highly regarded and politically conservative family as Cimon is
also an indication that Thucydides must have been nurtured in the conservative tradition which
opposed the growing power of the democracy and the programme of Pericles. His highly
approval of Pericles, however, has been regarded as a sign of acute political awareness and
independent judgement (Hadas, 1960: 10).19
When the Peloponnesian Wars broke out in 431 B.C.E., Thucydides was a young man,
and it is likely that he participated in some of the early actions of the conflicts. In the second year
of the wars, the plague swept through Athens, afflicted many citizens of Athens and decimated
the city. Thucydides himself caught the disease some time between 430 and 427 B.C.E. and
recovered from it (Warner, 1966: 8). Later, he indicates that “he had seen others suffer” and had
apparently helped minister to his fellow citizens. In 424 B.C.E., when Thucydides was named a
general in the Athenian army, he was charged with operations in Thrace and in particular with
the defence of Athenian colony of Amphipolis (Hadas, 1960: 9; Warner, 1966: 8). With his small
squadron of ships, Thucydides arrived too late to save Amphipolis from the energetic advance of
and skillful diplomacy of the Spartan commander Brasidas, though he succeeded in securing the
near-by port of Eion and defended it against Brasidas’ attacks. For his failure to save
Amphipolis, however, Thucydides suffered condemnation, probably instigated by Cleon, and
exiled in 424 B.C.E. for a period of seven years, but he did not return to Athens until twenty
years later when all people banished were amnestied following the defeat of Athens (Warner,
1966: 8).
The exile ended Thucydides’ own part in the conflict. How Thucydides spent his years in
exile, and at what times the various parts of the History of Peloponnesian War were composed
are not certain. It is certain, however, that after his banishment, he was free to consort with both

(1966: 8) and Hadas (1963: 10), maintain that he was born rather in 455 B.C.E. In the works of earlier
writers, Herodotus is said to have been born in 470 B.C.E. based principally on the ancient assumption
that a man’s most important work is done when he reaches his peak, which is the age of forty (40 years)
(Hadas, 1960: 10). The date of his death, too, is not clear. Caldwell (1965: 253) maintains Thucydides
dies in 395 B.C.E., whereas Hadas (p. 10), Fields, Barber and Riggs (1998: I-29) and Warner (p. 8)
advance that he died in 400 B.C.E. Even some of the scholars, including Hadas (p. 10), who accept that
Thucydides died in 400 B.C.E. do so on the grounds that in Herodotus’ Histories there are no allusions to
events in the fourth century in passages where one might reasonably expect them.
19
Some critics suggest that Thucydides wrote his work largely to praise Pericles and justify his policy.
See Hadas (1966: 10).
13
Peloponnesians and Athenians and had leisure for his inquiries. Accordingly, for much of the
remainder of the war, as he resided at his property in Thrace, Thucydides determined to write
about the conflict. At the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides returned to Athens
for a brief period, before Lysander’s takeover. He then retired to his estate in Thrace, remaining
there until his death, continuing to work on his grand history of the war that had so crippled the
great Greek city-states. It has been asserted that Thucydides had intended to carry his work down
to 404 B.C.E., but the work stops short at the winter of 411 B.C.E. (Warner, 1966: 8). He
apparently died around 400 B.C.E., at which point his remains were sent to Athens and placed in
the vault of Cimon’s family. His sudden death explains why his history ends abruptly in 411
B.C.E., seven years before the war came to a close.

The Peloponnesian Wars (431–404 B.C.E.) Produce “the Father of Scientific History”
Thucydides’ topic was the Peloponnesian Wars, and as in the case of Herodotus, a preliminary
examination and understanding of the Peloponnesian Wars are prerequisite to an understanding
of Thucydides’ historiography of the wars. The Peloponnesian Wars were a purely Greek affair.
The two major antagonists in the Peloponnesian Wars were Athens and Sparta. Athens
dominated the Delian League, which developed in 478 B.C.E. (Vandiver, 2002: 22) after the
Geek victory over Persia in 479 B.C.E. for the common defence of Greeks against any future
Persian attack. Athens forced each polis to join the coalition on its liberation from Persia. She
also controlled the treasury, which had been established for running the League. The controllers,
or treasurers, of the treasury which was housed on the island of Delos were Athenians. The
future of Athenian power seemed secure when the treasury was moved from Delos to Athens in
454 B.C.E. (Fields, Barber and Riggs, 1998; 161; Vandiver, 2002: 22). Athens had been severely
damaged in the Persian Wars, and the money used to rebuild the city came from the league’s
funds. At the same time, Athens enjoyed an unprecedented commercial expansion and a
corresponding economic growth, due principally to Athenian access to all ports.20
Essentially, democratic Athens increasingly meddled in the political affairs of the poleis
and dominated the Greek economy. In fact, Athens became the controller of hundred and fifty
other poleis, which paid tribute in return for League protection (Vandiver, 2002: 22). This
Athenian dominance of the political and economic lives of the poleis led to widespread rebellion
among the poleis. What the other League members even found more annoying was that any
threat of withdrawal from the League was met with force, and allies were treated as subjects. The
allies, realising that they were actually subjects of Athenian interests, turned to rebellion. Sparta
and its allies, mainly from the more rural areas, had resisted Athenian hegemony and had not
joined the Delian League. Sparta took this opportunity to destroy Athenian power and led the
rebellion against Athens, thereby initiating the conflicts. The wars were fought in two major
periods, 431–421 B.C.E., and 415–404 B.C.E., with an uneasy truce between them. By 404
B.C.E., Athens had been defeated, its walls demolished and its citizenry demoralised.
Unconditional surrender placed the city under the control of a tyrant backed by Sparta, but
Athens overthrew the tyrant and regained its independence. Democracy finally returned to
Athens by the winter of 403–402 B.C.E. The end of the Peloponnesian Wars, however, did not
mean peace for Greece. Skirmishes between poleis continued for a generation, which even saw

20
Athens’ wealth, political power, and democratic system of government were undoubtedly among the
motivating factors behind the astonishing flowering of Athenian culture in the fifth century B.C.E.
(Vandiver, 2002: 23).
14
the Persian emperor arbitrate local disputes. This implied that although Persian control of Greece
had been overthrown, there was still some kind of relationship between Persia and Greece which
allowed Persian ‘interference’ in the affairs of the Greek poleis. The tradition of Greek
independence discouraged Greece from uniting politically and militarily, and the history of
Greece from this period until the rise of Macedonia in the north is the history of each individual
polis.
It is believed that Thucydides died while still at work on his book, and that some
author(s) must have continued, or revised, the work.21 This is because the last book breaks off in
the middle of a paragraph and contains none of the speeches Thucydides would have included.
Various suggestions have then been offered in response to the question of why passages in the
preface and elsewhere can envisage events down to 404 B.C.E. The History of the
Peloponnesian War, as a whole, is divided into eight books.22 Book I is introductory. Books II,
III, IV, and part of V cover the Archidamian War, which was concluded by the Peace of Nicias
in 421 B.C.E.; the rest of Book V is on the interval of peace. Book VI and VII deal with the
Sicilian expedition; and the incomplete Book VIII examines the Decelean War. It has been
suggested that Thucydides may have laid a later book down unfinished to work on an earlier one;
or that the whole work was revised and references to later events added by some later writer; or
that the whole study was done by Thucydides in the order we have, kept his work by him
constantly, and continually revised the earlier portions while he worked on the later.
Thucydides indicates in the first sentence of the History of the Peloponnesian War that he
began to write about the war at its very beginning because he felt it was going to be great and
memorable above all wars. He believes that no other event in the recorded history of Greece, not
even the Trojan War or the Persian Wars, could match the importance of the Peloponnesian
Wars. Athens and Sparta were vitally important Greek city-states, with highly contrasting
worldviews. The intellectual and artistic influence of Athens on other Greek cities was
considerable, as was Sparta’s martial emphasis. In addition, non-Hellenic peoples in Thrace,
Macedonia, Epirus, Sicily, and the Persian Empire were affected by political and cultural
developments in Greece. History to Thucydides was primarily a useful subject. His object is not
only to reconstruct the history of the war itself, but also to provide lessons for future generations.
He believes a faithful history would serve those who desire an exact knowledge of the past as a
key to the future, which would in all probability, he believed, repeat or resemble the past. In
consequence, his work is not a piece of writing designed to meet the taste of the immediate
public, but is done to last forever (Warner, 1966: 24–25).
To achieve his ends, Thucydides painstakingly gathered evidence and interviewed
participants. Like, Herodotus before him, he travelled extensively, and readily visited allies of
the warring parties. He visited and studied the scenes of events, talked with eyewitnesses, copied

21
Xenophon, author of the Hellenica, has been identified as the likeliest reviser of Thucydides’ work.
Xenophon’s work starts with the completion of Thucydides’ unfinished last paragraph, and Xenophon’s
first two books, which continue the story from 411 B.C.E down to 404 B.C.E., have been considered as
based on notes left by Thucydides. Theopompus and Cratipus are two other historians known to have
written continuations to Thucydides’ work; and the papyrus Hellenica of Oxyrhynchus, which does not
bear the name of its author, is yet another continuation of Thucydides’ work. Refer to Hadas (1960: 11)
for the details.
22
There are even proofs of an alternative division of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War into
thirteen books. See page 11 of Hadas’ study.
15
documents, and used all available evidence to reach conclusions and to be able to state what
actually happened. In pursuit of the scientific approach, he made a greater effort to determine the
facts (Adler and Gorman, 1952: 713). Thucydides hoped to surpass the contributions of previous
students of Greek history, including Homer and Herodotus. Epic poets like Homer had waxed
eloquent about their subjects, but had deliberately welded together fable and fact. The Ionian
prose writers or chroniclers, seeking a popular audience, had uncritically sought to record tales of
legend. Thucydides, however, was influenced by the science of the time and tried to apply the
principles and methods of Hippocratic medicine to politics, so that everything could be covered
by rational explanation (Butterfield, 1968: 468). He refused to blame the gods or fate for
historical events.
In contrast to Herodotus, whom Thucydides apparently lumped with the Ionian
chroniclers, he makes every effort to ascertain the veracity of the materials he obtained. Of
course, he deserves the title “father of scientific history”, because regarding his factual reporting
of the events of the war, he makes it a principle not to record the first story that he accesses. He
dislikes the situation whereby people are unwilling to take enough pains “in the investigation of
truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand” (cited in Adler and Gorman, 1952:
714). Neither does he allow himself to be guided by his own general impressions. Events that he
reports were those at which he was personally present or those which he heard from eye-
witnesses, whose reports he cross-checked with as much thoroughness as possible. And instead
of merely reporting speeches, Thucydides writes them out in full in his own words. He
acknowledges this practice frankly:

I have made use of set of speeches some of which were delivered

just before and others during the war. I have found it difficult to
remember the precise words used in the speeches which I listened
to myself and my various informants have experienced the same
difficulty; so my method has been, while keeping as closely as
possible to the general sense of the words that were actually used,
to make the speakers say what, in my opinion, was called for by
each situation (Warner, 1966: 24).

The best known of these is the Funeral Oration delivered by Pericles in honour of those who had
perished on the Athenian side. Thucydides used these speeches to communicate what we should
regard as the historian’s explanations of facts or situations, or of the motives and ideas behind
human actions (Butterfield, 1968: 468). Admittedly, it is Thucydides’ concern for accuracy and
his detachment which set him apart from his predecessors who wrote to implant particular
political attitudes and beliefs.
Thucydides clearly draws his own interpretations about the origins of the conflict and
how it unfolded, and expresses his viewpoint. For example, he expresses the view that the war
was a disastrous affair, resulting from “love of power operating through greed and through
personal ambition.” Another instance where Thucydides expresses his own point of view is
found in his discussion of the conquest of Melos. His “Melian dialogue” conveys Thucydides’
perception that “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they
have to accept.” In presenting his history, Thucydides attempts to make it readable. He generally
succeeds, as when he offers graphic descriptions of the plague’s impact on Athens or his account

16
of the fateful Sicilian campaign. In view of the conscientious attitude he adopts towards the
treatment of his topic, he is convinced that his conclusions “may safely be relied on”,
undisturbed “either by the lays of a poet displaying the exaggeration of his craft, or by the
compositions of the chroniclers which are attractive at truth’s expense” (cited in Adler and
Gorman, 1952: 714).
Thucydides combines the concern for the particular and concern for the general, the
approaches of the chronicler and the philosopher respectively. His combination of the two
approaches, to their mutual enrichment, is said to be the greatest hallmark of his study (Hadas,
1960: 12). The History of the Peloponnesian War seems to many readers more than an account
of a war between two ancient Greek city-states. Generally, as Rex Warner (1966: 8) has argued,
the study is an account of war itself, or of all wars where any kind of principles are involved.
Consequently, the work is not only fascinating in itself but must also be judged useful by all who
believe that it is possible to learn something from the experiences of the past. It provides and
insightful, even modern, interpretation of how distinctive cultures come into being, showing how
human societies throughout history have formed their own identities on the basis of
environmental factors and contact with other peoples. Thucydides reveals to us the drama and
the tragedy of a struggle which was fought out not only on the material plane but also on the
moral plane. He gives his readers, in full detail and with conscientious accuracy, both what
happened in the course of one particular significant war and an understanding of the permanent
patterns of human reaction to types of military and political challenges. Thucydides’ work is also
instructive on the fact that humans repeat themselves; their motivations for action and their
responses to the actions of others are sufficiently constant for their political conduct to be
subsumed under general laws (Hadas, 1960: 13). The facts he conveys on the causes and
symptoms of the plague that hit Athens are equally valuable assets to contemporary society.
They provide adequate knowledge of both the symptoms physical and psychical, and the effects
on human outlooks and on their responses to political and military behaviour. As Hadas (1960:
13) maintains, the account of the particular plague constitutes an increment in our knowledge of
history, but the knowledge is made universal and, therefore, philosophical, and, as a result,
constitutes an increment to our wisdom.
Thucydides has been compared with Hippocrates and his followers, the Hippocratics, and
described as both scientists and philosophers. Elsewhere, he is described as both a master of
scientific history and of a literary style that showed a keen sense of dramatic values. His
descriptions of the plague in Athens and of the retreat from Syracuse are marvels of exposition.
Some critics think that the work was composed as a prose tragedy under the spell of the great
dramatists. Ernst Breisach (1994: 17) maintains that it was Thucydides who developed the most
expressive and precise prose style. His work is, in fact, an artistic distillation in selection and
distribution of emphasis to construct a grand organic rhythm and in the gradations of his own
austere style. His relentless search for the essence of history, rather than for the merely
interesting detail, found its stylistic counterpart in a sparse, rhythmic prose which had an impact
on his audience like that of poetry.
By largely eliminating divine causality in his account of the war between Athens and
Sparta, Thucydides established a rationalistic element which set a precedent for subsequent
Western historical writings. He was also the first to distinguish between cause and immediate
origins of an event. His work was enthusiastically read by Demosthenes, while Cicero and
Quintilian were reportedly influenced by it as well. In the Roman period, Thucydides was

17
recognised as an authentic classic. Literary critics considered him the peer of Demosthenes and
commented on his style at length. Both Greek and Latin historians imitated Thucydides; and
compilers, such as Plutarch in his biographies and Diodorus Siculus in his universal history,
relied so much on Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian Wars for historical data (Hadas,
1960: 11–12). The History of the Peloponnesian War is, indeed, an exemplary historical work
that is still widely admired and read today.

Conclusion
The study has shown the attempts made by earlier writers to recover and reconstruct the human
past before the fifth century B.C.E. It has also examined how Herodotus and Thucydides
composed their studies and earned their prestigious positions in historiography. The earlier
Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese and other chroniclers deserve our commendation for being the
pioneers in the field of history. However, considering that Herodotus and Thucydides attached
more seriousness to their studies and made strenuous efforts to gather all the necessary and
sufficient evidence before composing their works, making all attempts to ensure objectivity, and
recording their works in a more intelligible manner, one would be convinced that the two ancient
historiographers actually laid the foundations for historical studies. Thus, in different ways, the
two founded the study of history: Herodotus is “The Father of History” because he made the first
major attempt at studying and recording the past in great detail, and Thucydides is “The Father
of Scientific History” because he was the first to introduce the scientific principles of his times
into the study and writing of history. Hence, whenever and wherever students and teachers of
history meet to celebrate their noble discipline, they must always ‘pay homage’ to Herodotus and
Thucydides for their great efforts towards the founding History.
It must be appreciated, however, that other peoples and institutions, in the course of time,
also made enormous impact on the development of History as a subject. Individuals like St.
Augustine and Orosius recorded great events like historians, but they interpreted catastrophes as
punishment by God. The Middle Ages (C.E. 500–1450) added to the development of History. At
this time, emphasis was placed more on monarchical or political history. In the next generation,
Voltaire enlarged the scope of hitherto monarchical history by showing in his Essay on the
Manners and Customs of Nations (1756) that aspects of civilised life other than battles and kings
had importance and could interest the general public. More and more individuals continued to
add their efforts to the growth of History, particularly in the nineteenth century. It is important to
state, however, that the study of history as an academic discipline, a formal field of study in
universities, colleges, schools and other centres of learning, began in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries with Leopold von Ranke, a nineteenth century German historian. Ranke is
often regarded as “the father of modern history”, that is, History as an academic discipline
(Spielvogel, 1999: BH-2). He created techniques for the critical analysis of documents and began
to use formal courses in universities to train new historians.
In Africa, the systematic study of history was introduced into the school curriculum
during the colonial period. At this time, however, the kind of history students were taught was
not that of African history, but, rather, the names of European kings and queens, rivers and
mountains in Europe, and so forth. Essentially, students were not taught anything about the
African past due mainly to the wrong assumption that Africa had no history. It was in an attempt
to correct the situation that African and Africanist historians emerged to put the records straight.
Meanwhile, historians of all schools of thought, and of all countries today usually make

18
references to Herodotus and Thucydides in their studies because of the fact that no historian can
examine the problem of the development of History as a subject without appreciating the good
works of these two giants in the science of the past.

Bibliography
Adjepong, Adjei. “The Image of Pre-colonial Africa in European Circles”. In Eric Sakyi
Nketiah, Ed. Distance Forum. Vol. 1. London: AuthorHouse, 2011. pp. 15–37.
Adler, Mortimer J. and Gorman, William. eds. The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of
the Western World. Vol. I. Chicago, London and Toronto: Encyclopaedia Britannica,
Inc., 1952.
Afigbo, A.E. “Colonial Historiography”. In Toyin Falola, Ed. African Historiography. Harlow:
Longman Group UK Limited, and Ikeja: Longman Nigeria Plc, 1993. pp. 39–51.
Aggarwal, J.C. Teaching of History: A Practical Approach. Third Revised Edition. Second
Reprint. New Delhi: VIKAS Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., 2004.
Alagoa, E.J. “Oral Tradition and Oral History in Africa”. In Toyin Falola, Ed. African
Historiography. Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited, and Ikeja: Longman Nigeria Plc,
1993. pp. 4–13.
Barzun, Jacques and Graff, Henry E. The Modern Researcher. Third Edition. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977.
Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern. Second Edition. Chicago &
London: The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
Briton, Crane, et al. A History of Civilisation. Vol. One. Second Edition. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960.
Butterfield, Herbert. “Historiography”. In Philip P. Weiner, ed. Dictionary of the History of
Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, Vol. IV, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1968. pp. 464–498.
Caldwell, Wallace Everett. The Ancient World. Revised Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1965.
Childe, V. Gordon. New Light on the Most Ancient East. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co., Ltd., 1934.
Cohen, Morris R. and Nagel, Ernest. An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. Third
Printing. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1936.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Methodology of Historiography”. In The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Vol. 20. Fifteenth Edition. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2003.
pp. 559–573.
Furay, and Salevouris. The Methods and Skills of History: A Practical Guide. 1988.
Hadas, Moses. “The Art and Science of Thucydides”. In Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War.
Bantam Books Classic. 2nd Printing. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. New York:
Bantam Books, Inc., 1963. pp. 9–19.
Press, Gerald A. “History and the Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity”. In George
H. Nadel, ed. History and Theory: Studies in Philosophy of History. Volume XVI,
Number 3. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, October, 1977.
Spielvogel, Jackson J. Modern World History. Lincolnwood: NTC/Contemporary Publishing
Group, Inc., 1999.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Edited by Rex Warner. Baltimore: Penguin

19
 Books, 1966.
Vandiver, Elizabeth. Herodotus: The Father of History. Part I. The Teaching Company
Partnership, University of Maryland, 2002.
Warner, Rex. “Introduction”. In Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Edited by Rex
Warner. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966. pp. 5–10.
Zewde, Bahru. “African Historiography: Past, Present and Future”. www.ossrea.net/publications/
newsletter2/article10.htm. Retrieved on February 19, 2007.

This work was published in 2017 and should be cited as follows:

Adjepong, Adjei. “Herodotus and Thucydides: “The Fathers” of the Science of the Past”. In
Prince Adjei Kuffour. Concise Notes on African and Ghanaian History. Kumasi: K4 Series
Investment Ventures, 2013. pp. 18–39.

20

View publication stats