Herodotus Assessment
In the ancient time period, the recording of history was connected to the activity of narrators and thinkers that did not aim to write historical, but rather literary. At the same time, the history genre belonged to literary prose. The initial works incorporated the features of two different sides of human activity: science and art. Due to this fact, the Greek narrative authors traditionally attracted the attention of readers. A special place in the development of history belongs to Herodotus’s work, which is considered as the first example of both historical and literary prose. In this essay, the assessment of this narrative will be examined, as well as work’s value for the research of ancient military and cultural history.
Herodotus called the “Father of History” by Cicero was born at the beginning of the fifth century B.C., in fact, approximately in 484 B.C. Both his biographic data and work are showing the fact that he was from the Dorian town of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor. One of the most important historical authors spent most of his years far from his native town because of the political reasons, due to the fact that he runs away from the tyranny of Ligdamid who ruled in Halicarnassus. For example, Herodotus spent a long time in Samos, which history was perfectly described in his writings. Most of his movements across the lands can be found in his narratives or some later evidence. Notably, Herodotus has been to places east of Greece, where Greek colonies were founded and hence in Egypt, Macedonia, Thrace, Phoenicia and the coast of Asia Minor, as well as the northern coast of the Black Sea. He also traveled inland to the continent, namely up to Elephantine along the Nile, to Babylon and Sardis. His writings of different cultures and visiting different regions have made him one of the most important authors, from which the ancient time history and culture can be examined.
The fact that Herodotus has visited a range of places on Greek mainland can be questioned. Ancient data present information on his coming to Thebes and Corinth, although his favorite location was definitely Delthi, where he researched on priestly predictions and its ideology. In general, Herodotus’ travels lasted for approximately 8 to 10 years. Afterwards, in the beginning of forties, he came to the Athens. Scientists believed the idea of writing the history of the Greek-Persian wars has its origins there. For this purpose, Herodotus revised his initial four books he had already created and added five more which were specifically devoted to the history of the Greek-Persian wars. The history of the Athenian polis definitely takes a central place in his narrative. Moreover, a range of fact is illuminated with the specific Athenian point of view. Herodotus was in close relations with Protagoras and Sophocles, who joined an Aspasia’s group (a coterie organized by Pericles’ wife who gathered the most prominent thinkers and scientists of that time). The content of Herodotus’ work provides the evidence he joined the group and was close to Pericles. Besides, he was perfectly aware of the topography of Athens, their see sights, and history. As a result various further historians, namely Plutarch, blamed him for getting money from the Athenians for flattery.
Herodotus, who honored the united fighting of Greeks against the Persian ruler did not show any national or local conceit. He treated the Eastern religion, science, and culture with great respect while considering the Egyptians and Babylonians as the teachers of Greeks in these areas. Correspondingly, his narratives contain valuable and unique information of not only the Greek, but also the Eastern culture as well. According to Herodotus, the contradictions between barbarians and Hellenes are based on the cultural, but not on racial characteristics: the barbarian who had learned Greek language and customs could automatically become Hellene. The admiration of the Eastern tradition can be explained by the fact that Herodotus was educated in Halicarnassus that achieved a high grade of prosperity over the Persian rule. From his childhood, Herodotus believed that Artemisia, who was a local tyrant by appointment of the Persian ruler was one of the most prominent historic personalities. What is more meaningful is that the historian believed that from the very beginning gods had given Asia to the local rulers, currently, Persians, while Europe belonged to the Greeks. That is why Herodotus considered the attempt of Greeks to occupy Asia as the act of aggression and vice versa: “So far it was a matter of mere seizure on both sides. But after this (the Persians say), the Greeks were very much to blame; for they invaded Asia before the Persians attacked Europe.” As the collisions between the European and Asian habitants started from Trojan campaign, Herodotus regarded the Greeks as the first aggressors in this fight.
In this context, the military history takes a central place in Herodotus’ works. According to Peter Krentz, they contain the earliest references to Greek military. Also, the military practice of the Persians is reflected in such issues as the immunity of heralds claimed by Xerxes and the knowledge of Greek military tactics described by Mardonios. It must be noted that this Persian commander treated Greek warfare mastery with great skepticism:
“Besides, from all I hear, the Greeks usually wage war in an extremely stupid fashion, because they are ignorant and incompetent. When they declare war on one another they seek out the best, most level piece of land, and that is where they go to fight. The upshot is that the victors leave the battlefield with massive losses, not to mention the losers, who are completely wiped out.”
At the same time, Herodotus stated the distinctive feature of the Hellenes with applying of the specific warfare strategy. Utilized against less structured troops and warriors without metal protective devices, the Greek hoplite phalanx was highly efficient. Meanwhile, in the time covered by Herodotus’ narratives, the tactical benefit was compensated by the numerous shortcomings of Greek warfare organizing. The crucial disadvantage was the amateurishness of troops, which were gathered by each city-state on the occasional ground from the unprepared and poorly equipped citizens.
Further on, the distinctive feature of Herodotus’ narratives is related to the fact that he naturally viewed the Greek military history as the fabric of their cultural history. The example can be found in his description of the Lakedaimonians’ rule forbidding them to parade and fight before the full moon. Herodotus also describes the Greek customs accompanying the war, namely “aristeia” - the award for personal courage in a fight. These awards are not mentioned in later historical narratives about individual feats signifying more in the Archaic period.
The further examination of Herodotus shows the connections to Athenians’ warfare mastery and collective feats. Describing the battle at Thermopylae, he notes that Athenians used hand-to-hand weapons and applied no arches or cavalry. He also notes that they attacked at the run and performed such an attack for the first time in Greek’s history. The successful outcome encouraged the Athenians to reform their troops. They recognized the physical and mental authority of accumulated infantry charge and kept eliminating hoplite troops from their phalanx. The next step was installing a bigger cavalry troop and initiating an archery division after the incident when a bowman had killed the Persian horse commander at Plataia. Apart from these detailed descriptions, Herodotus’ military narratives are highly valued due to the inserted commanders’ speeches. This provides a more complex picture of the military culture of Greeks from their opponent’s point of view.
On the other side, Herodotus’ descriptions of civil affairs of Athenian’s policies are no less valuable as military affairs from the historic point of view. He came to Athens when the ruling circles of this polis implemented the policy of rapprochement with Persia and exclusion from Sparta. The Herodotus work was in accordance with this policy, as well as the interpretation of the events. It would be unfair to conclude that Herodotus wanted to see the Athenian polis a new Persia. He treated Persian and Spartan populations as entirely different in their aims and characteristics. This can be explained by that Herodotus life in the period of unprecedented intellectual and ideological existing within the Greeks lands. Thus, innovative philosophic and religious tendencies contradicted the traditional beliefs and customs, which posed the social conflicts. Ultimately, the issue of the stable political order was highly important for Herodotus.
The historian considered that the best political order for the Greeks was the democracy (isonomia); although his ideal of such democratic city-state was Sparta. According to Herodotus, the distinctive features of democracy are the absence of an unlimited despot, elected officials, and the regular People’s Assembly. At the same time, he believed that best institutions for each population are those they had inherited from their ancestors. Further on, the monarchic order was the most beneficial one for Persians. This point is essential for the evaluation of Herodotus’ cultural beliefs, as the concept of the polis in ancient times has been much wider that just a political phenomenon. According to Greg Anderson, the city-state was at the same time both a knowable administrative system and a deal of the imagination: “It is a complex entanglement of raw materials that are at once physical and cultural.” Ultimately, the political beliefs and statements of Herodotus are naturally included in his narrative and present valuable data for the research of the overall historic epoch.
All in all, it is important to apply the inner critique of the source when one works with Herodotus’ “histories.” He is a recognized observant and conscientious narrator, but his principles of representing facts, with providing everything told to him even if he does not believe in, can be one of the numerous critiques of Herodotus work. Meanwhile, the way of representing facts caused a positive outcome as Herodotus had saved a lot of reliable knowledge for future generations of researchers that could not be saved in the opposite case. This method actually prevented Herodotus from the unsophisticated rationalization of data received by him so that he provided the ability to explore not only a range of historical facts but the religious and mythological beliefs of this historical time. Being tolerate to the Eastern culture and inhabitants, Herodotus managed to avoid pro-Hellenic biases in his descriptions of Greek victories over the Persians. Accordingly, he even deserved the nickname “barbarian-lover” from the further generations of ancient historians. Further on, Herodotus is an impartial narrator of the topic of the tensions between Athens and Sparta, which were struggling for supremacy over the most period of Herodotus’ life. On one hand, he admired Athens development of education and culture and made friends with a lot of Athenian intellectuals. On another hand, he provided the thrilling reflection of Spartan military feats in the battle of Thermopylae. Herodotus sums up that the credit of common victory belongs to the Athenian polis.
Bibliography
Anderson, Greg. “The Personality of the Greek State”. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 129 (2009).
Herodotus. Histories 1-9 (ed. A. D. Godley). Cambridge, 1920. Retrieved 26 May 2016 from http://www.mikrosapoplous.gr/en/texts1en.html
Krentz, Peter. “Fighting by the Rules: The Invention of the Hoplite Agôn”. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Vol. 71, No. 1 (2002).
Plutarch. Of the Malice of Herodotus. Agathon Assosiates, 2009. Retrieved 26 May 2016 from http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/moralia/malice_of_herodotus.htm#43
Romm, James, and Shirley, Samuel. Herodotus. On the War for Greek Freedom. New York: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003.
Waterfield, Robin, and Dewald, Carolyn. “The Histories” by Herodotus”. Oxford Paperbacks, 2014.
Wheeler, Everett L., and Straus, Barry. “Battle”, in the Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
