A Brief Textual and Stylistic Analysis of Herodotus
and Thucydides
Art Madsen, M.Ed.
The writings of two of the most highly respected historians of Ancient
Greece have been well known for more than 2400 years. Throughout the intervening
centuries, since their lengthy manuscripts were originally composed, much
scholarly attention has been devoted to analysis of their accounts of famous
wars and battles dating from the 500 to 400 B.C. era.
In fact, Herodotus has become known as the "Father of History"
in the sense that his writings preceded those of any other Western scholar
who recorded historical events. He used recognized structuring techniques
in his writing, unifying time, events and analytical interpretation in
ways which distinguished him from mere writers of fictional literature
or epic poetry. Thucydides followed Herodotus by several decades and began
to further perfect historical style and content in his accounts of major
events.
This brief essay, therefore, will explore in what ways these two Greek
historians differed, and will analyze how two approaches, separated by
a generation, may have affected the accuracy, objectivity or credibility
of the writings selected for review.
Herodotus focused his attention on the Greco-Persian War (specifically
concentrating on the year 480 B.C.) which threatened the City States of
Greece and the Ionian Coast. The events he recounts are among the most
famous in the history of Greece, and realistically reflect the intensity
of the battles portrayed. Herodotus narrates events, motives, strategies
and even the emotions involved in these confrontations with the Persians.
He tells how Xerxes, the Persian leader, sent spies behind Greek lines
to judge the strength of the enemy and relates details concerning the intelligence
gathered. He seems to rely on fairly subjective observations at times,
however, and is heavily influenced by mythological or questionably accurate
facts, speaking of the son of Hercules, for example, or invoking Greek
Gods at critical points in his narrative. His successor, Thucydides, seems
to rely less on these rhetorical devices and his account of the Peloponnesian
War is consequently somewhat more credible. Because Herodotus does not
quote precise sources, his narrative reads something like an Homeric Epic
poem and, by modern standards, loses some of its authenticity. He does,
however, provide personal descriptive touches which "ring true"
such as his portrayal of the Persian warrior-princess, Artemisia (p. 55).
The reader is swept along in the narrative, anxiously anticipating the
next series of events.
A generation later, Thucydides, an Athenian by birth, unlike Herodotus
who was born of Greek parentage on the Ionian Coast, seemed to emulate
Herodotus in some respects, but surpassed him in other ways.
While Herodotus wrote to record men's events, Thucydides went a step
farther. He wrote so that men would not repeat the same mistakes in centuries
to come. Both historians knew that future generations would be reading
about the events of the Fourth and Fifth Centuries B.C. for millennia to
come.
With the Greco-Persian War behind them, the Greeks lived peacefully
for a brief period. However, the Peloponnesian War erupted involving Sparta
and Athens within a mere 75 years after the Persian defeat. Using a dialogical
approach, at times, and factually based descriptions , at other times,
Thucydides relates the details of this war. He relies on specific sources
and, therefore, enhances the value of his narrative in the eyes of the
reader. He is more objective than Herodotus, although he occasionally speaks
of "treachery" and passes judgment on men and events. There is
a sense of compelling movement and a resultant credibility to his narrative.
In my estimation, Thucydides is far easier to believe, relies on fact
and is credible by virtue of his scholarship. Both historians are admittedly
"great"; however, one influenced the other and, consequently,
Thucydides incorporated stylistic improvements in his recorded accounts.