COMPARISON BETWEEN THE METHOD OF THUCYDIDES AND HERODOTUS

Although Herodotus is considered the father of history, a title attributed by Cicero,

for having maintained a time management, that is, a chronological order of the

events, in addition to having an investigative attitude to establish the

events that will be the subject of their narration and evaluation, the methodological adjustments

those contributed by Thucydides deserve similar credit, as there are those who indicate that

Thucydides is indeed the father of history, but of psychological history.1(COLLINGWOOD,

2004: 90). Discussions that are evoked to note that there would indeed be a difference

between both Greek historians, but which will not be developed in this chapter. From the

in the same way, for Thucydides to be classified as the initiator of scientific history,

Overlooking Herodotus would mean that, indeed, Thucydides applied methods and

techniques that Herodotus did not take into account. Throughout this chapter, we will seek to understand what he did.

Thucydides more than Herodotus.

Let's start by understanding the reasons that lead them to begin writing their works. Herodotus

justifies his work by stating that he wants to prevent the exploits of the Greeks and Persians from falling into oblivion.

to forget, while Thucydides defends the choice of his topic2, pointing out that this is the

more worthy of being written, and that the events preceding the Peloponnesian War

could not be verified with certainty (COLLINGWOOD, 2004:79). The second reason

that of Thucydides is the one that would show a more scientific attitude, having a theme that is

can check.

1
Collingwood (2004:90) points out that Thucydides would rather be the father of psychological history, that is, that
It does not relate the facts for the sake of the facts themselves, but seeks to establish psychological laws, some rules.
constants that govern the relationships between events.
2
He does this, too, to mark a difference with the logographers.
Regarding sources, Herodotus made use of two types of 'records': memory (sources

oral and versions collected during their travels,) and the texts (summaries, stories, data, etc.)

All of which ends up being compared to seek the underlying causes of the events.

In addition, it makes use of Opsis (observation) and acoe (the voice that runs), sources that

they would highlight a more ethnographic than historical view. (CARBONELL, 1986:14) While

that Thucydides preferred, primarily, texts over other sources, although he also turned to his

own experience when necessary. (REGALADO, 2010:42)

And if we were to look at the techniques used by Herodotus, he amused his readers,

introducing news that interrupted the connection of the topic (GIVEN: 2010, 40-41). This

it was something that Thucydides despised, since he pointed out that he did not write to please the

Heard, that was more the work of poets.

One thing they both had in common was putting conversations, words, and speeches into

the mouth of its characters3but Thucydides was precise that, although the speeches were

fictitious in terms of words, they were not so in terms of spirit (CARBONELL, 1986:17). But

According to Collingwood (2004:92), the speeches that Thucydides put in the mouths of his characters

they highlight a lack of interest in the truth. He writes:

... the speeches of Thucydides, both in style and content, constitute

a characteristic convention of an author whose attention is not fully focused

not in the facts themselves, but rather constantly shifts towards the meaning that it may

to be crouched behind them, some immutable and eternal truth...

3
Here the influence of the Homeric tradition becomes evident.
Although, here, Collingwood forgot that Herodotus also placed speeches in the mouths of

its characters, although of course, to a lesser extent.

It should be noted that it is with Thucydides that the method and intelligence of the historian are born.

What we would call criticism of the sources and the rational investigation of causal chaining.

(CARBONELL, 1986:14), as he uses a series of methods different from those used by

Herodotus, and he finds a way to gather the information he needs for his narration.

Thus, in light of the need to speak about the years leading up to the Peloponnesian War,

Thucydides makes use of the History of Herodotus, and for even earlier times, to what is

he called it the times of archaeology, he used the analogical method, which consisted of describing

archaic Greece with the traits that the less evolved cities had in the century

In BC, and in this way, legends were rejected. Also, Thucydides dedicated himself to observing

the archaeological monuments to trace a history of the urban expansion it experienced

Greece. (CARBONELL, 1986:17). The management of an accurate chronology of the

events since the beginning of the war mainly referenced

annual archon of Athens, in the year of the priestess of Hera in Argos and the ephor in Sparta

(REGALADO, 2010:42), in addition to the use of stations. What would be a method,

superior to that used by Herodotus in the marking of dates.

Another coincidence between the thoughts of Thucydides and Herodotus is about their

humanist thought of history, for Thucydides, history was undoubtedly only

human (CARBONELL, 1986:16), and its nature, was the great engine of history

(REGALADO, 2010:43), while Herodotus saw in history the totality of the

human activity. (FONTANA, 2001:27)

(war), similarly, for Herodotus, war would be inevitable, it would be something

intended for the restoration of order (REGALADO, 2010:39), but despite this, the

war would have human causes, and nothing could prevent the search for them.

Another merit of Thucydides is that he manages to distinguish the immediate causes (crisis of 435-432

a.C.), the deep causes (Athenian imperialism) and the distant causes (perspective in the

longer duration of a conflict that seems to result from a multi-century evolution

(CARBONELL, 1986:16)

Thucydides also manages to overcome the mythical-supernatural view of the narratives and legends.

rather, its narrative pursues more 'scientific' aspects such as adhering to the truth,

apply criticism when interpreting your sources and not write to please the ear but for a

study of the politics of the Peloponnesian war (REGALADO, 2010:43)

Fontana (2001:29) points out that among the virtues of Thucydides are those of intending

the accuracy of data and dates, trying to explain the facts without attributing anything to the

providence, besides its proposals such as that the success of the war depends on the

accumulated economic resources and their logic of imperialism. This, unlike

Herodotus, who, although he maintained a good grasp of chronological order of the

events, I couldn't be so exact on the dates, but his investigative attitude is of

notable merit, as I used to take an evaluation of the data that I was going to put into

arrangement in his narrative (REGALADO, 2010:39-41), but Thucydides also surpasses

Herodotus, in this respect, in the sense that the latter does not explicitly address the issue of the

testimonies letting the reader find out what they thought about them through application of
his writings, while Thucydides claims that historical research rests on them.

(COLLINGWOOD, 2004:79)
BIBLIOGRAPHY