Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:18 am Post subject: Father of History
I'm sure that the debate on who is the true father of history must be connected to each person's definition of history. Both Herodotus and Thucydides both have a clear influence on more modern accounts of history. I think that history is defined by a combination of facts, traditions, observations, and direct quotes, stylized by the writer but not straying too far from its objective truths. This is difficult to judge because every event of history could be interpreted different by how a person experienced the period in which they are documenting. In my opinion, the historian that is more devoted to calling truths than promoting his writing is the more deserving father of history, and I would assign this title to Thucydides.
Herodotus may have come earlier than Thucydides, but that does not mean that he automatically should be associated with fathering history. He was, however, the first person to make a collective text that covered people, lands, and events, using oral evidence of his travels including phrases and speeches, as well as his interpretations of events with some substantial evidence. He seemed able to back up his claim, but his text was often highly subjective. It is clear that Herodotus was highly inclined towards making his writing sound elliquant and appealing to his readers, due to his references to poets and sometimes biased accounts of events. His work had less research and evidance, and used much more of a storytelling approach. He did have a huge influence on ages to come, including the ideas of Renaissance writers, as well as his own vocabulary and concepts that are still used in history today (fate&fortune, change&growth, national character&laws).
Thucydides
His work had more objective truths. He was less biased because he was able to experience several perspectives after being setenced to exile from Athens. He knew that what he was writing about was important, and he worked hard to stray as little as possible from fact. He was more devoted to history than the appeal and style of his writing, though his voice was highly distinguishable throughout his works. He sometimes used his opinions to interpret details on events, but claims to have much better research and evidence and accuracy than Herodotus. Thucydides also used oral and written sources, and included inscriptions and both material and archaelogical evidence with his accounts of events. Thucydides was the true father of history mostly because of his devotion to truths, sacrificing his own ego to the greater good of history.
The choice of whether Herodotus or Thucydides is the father of history is dependent on the individual’s definition of history, and depending on each persons theory I think either answer is valid.
To me, history is retelling and informing people of the past. So basically, I don’t see history as the past itself. Much of the history we learn is biased, incomplete, or flawed. This is natural; one person recording their point of view with their limited information will never be the entire truth-it is impossible. Because of this I don’t associate history with truth (necessarily).
Because (to me) history doesn’t require absolute truth, I think that Herodotus is the father of history. He was the first one to really make and attempt to gather events from the world around him and present them in a way that people years to come would be able to learn about them.
It also mentions how he incorporates myths, stories, oracle tellings and other forms of ‘less reliable’/not fact based information. Even if some of these are not factual history, they are just as important. When we learn about a place or culture in a historical context, cultural traditions, stories and beliefs are included in that. What he included was very informative about the culture even if factually it was incorrect.
Nice work, Sasha and Tasha (that makes me laugh even when I write it...). I'm a little concerned because I don't see anyone else up here yet... Are folks OK? Does anyone need a little guidance/structure? I'm a worry wart, sorry. But let me know if you're getting bogged down so we can get you unstuck.
Basically, I’m with Tasha, but I started writing this (again) before she posted. So.
Last year in a class on The Odyssey, Karl Daum went off on a fantastic rant about how we can’t judge ancient societies with modern values. I thought about that a lot as I read through Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ works- certainly Thucydides seemed more thorough in backing up arguments and checking facts. Still, Herodotus came twenty-five years earlier, and I don’t think its fair to judge him based on a definition of history that might not have existed before Thucydides. So, my first question is- what was Herodotus’ precedent like?
If Herodotus was the first to record facts exactly as people- really, any individual- remembered them, I would feel comfortable calling him the “father of history”. Compared to Thuydides’, Herodotus had the disadvantage of writing about subjects inherently harder to research. Current politics can be documented more accurately than what Herodotus described as “preserving from decay the remembrance of what men had done”.
Herodotus’ poorly-vetted sources and general, chatty tone might make his writing difficult to take seriously word-for-word. To me, that doesn’t preclude him from being the “father of history,” or from positively influencing his successors- nor does it detract from the value of recording events that would have otherwise been left undocumented. If I may connect this to science…. scientific literature in Victorian times was often horrifically informal (I was just reading a paper that referred to a female duck as “Sir ducky’s mistress”). javascript:emoticon('') Still, early anecdotal observations can be extremely useful, sometimes totally shifting way a field is studied, even if the data is crap.
Another connection I made is between Herodotus and Studs Terkel, a historian famous for revealing undocumented corners of American history through interviews with everyday people. Terkel had a phenomenal influence on his field simply using anecdotal, not statistic-based studies to uncover events that would have otherwise been lost forever.
Bringing it back to the Greeks: Without Herodotus, Thucydides’ work would have had lost a valuable point of reference. Thucydides would have had little to compete with or improve upon, and little precedent to relate to.
So, by virtue of simply having done it first, Herodotus has the upper hand (in my mind). Even if Thucydides recorded history more accurately, Herodotus collected ideas of equally immeasurable value.
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 7:53 am Post subject: can you really find a right answer here?
i agree with sasha and tasha in that any individual opinion on which of these two is the true father of history is going to be subjective and vary widely depending on your own definition of what history is. They both wrote histories of famous periods of time, about famous cities and changes in power and such.
i LOVED the bit Herodotus had about good fortune breeding arrogance and how there are hard and soft cities. however, if there are so many doubters about the factuality of his work, and if he really wrote most of his work based on not only his personal subjective opinion, but on oral conversations he had during his travels, then i can't call him the father of history. if he tried to persuade people into believing something other than the truth, then he wasnt doing his job as a historian. anyone who intertwines their own opinion and their history writing cant be considered the father of history. he even said that there were historians before him, that he had predecessors.
Thucydides on the other hand, was less about making the history fluffy and poetic, and more about telling the real stories of what actually happened. he wanted, above all else, to tell the truth. but even if he did try to put the truth ahead of his opinion, the truth may still have escaped him, because there is no sure fire way of knowing something happened unless you were there to see it happen. the truth is so malleable that most accounts of famous battles and civilizations are undoubtedly flawed. however, out of the two of them, Thucydides was the greater historian, and, in my subjective opinion, is the father of history.
I agree with Tasha and Sasha that Herodotus or Thucydides being the father of history depends on what your definition of history is.
My definition of history does not give me any help in deciding which of the two is the "true" father of history. Because while, I feel that history should be as close to the absolute truth as possible, the less "true" sources that Herodotus used in his writing such as the Oracles hold a huge amount of cultural significance, which is also very important when understanding history. Herodotus' accounts of what happened seemed to have a greater focus on the story aspect of the history, whereas Thucydides was much more purely fact based.
While Herodotus was clearly trying to convey the past in an accurate account, it seemed like he would not necessarily fact check as well or as thoroughly as Thucydides did. For example Thucydides used material evidence to support his history, whereas Herodotus seemed to go much more by word of mouth. Herodotus' account read more like a piece of historic fiction (although it was not fiction) and Thucydides read much more like a bland history text book.
If I had to pick, I would probably say that Thucydides was the father of history, because his version was more truthful, thorough, and I can see many more parallels between his work and modern history texts than I can with Herodotus.
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:12 am Post subject: My response
Hey everyone,
Sorry if this seems to be a repeat of what other people have said, but this is how I personally interpreted this.
I consider Herodotus the true father of history for a couple of reasons:
1) On page 15, it mentions the fact that Herodotus used accounts of cities and of rulers. Accounts are primary sources and I believe that true history is found within the words of those who experienced such events. Whether its letters, accounts, diaries, and records, primary sources bring out the stories of those who lived through events and bring them into context. Without primary sources, one can only assume what people experienced during such events. History is all fact.
2) I see Herodotus as an early form of a journalist. Histories was written off a large conglomeration of oral stories from his travels. As we learned, he travelled to several places. Investigative journalism was created by looking at an event or a conflict at various perspectives on both sides. This, to me, seems like an objective way of recording history. In Histories, he added "alternative versions" of these events. This means he brought many different perspectives into the story.
Thucydides was also a great historian. However, Herodotus introduced the ideas of primary sources and the fundamentals of journalism. To me, history revolves around different perspectives all mixed into one large account.
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:16 am Post subject: FATHER O HISTORY
(started writing this after reading only first two responses: Sasha and Tasha)
I agree completely with Sasha and Tasha in that one's decision on who was the father of history depends on what the definition of history one is using to decide with actually is. What does one include in their definition so as to include all aspects of history? What aspects of history are important (I think this is really what decides what your definition actually is)? I think we should also keep in mind how the world has changed from when these two men wrote their histories to the modern day, because their definitions of history are much different than ours and it might be interesting to acknowledge what they thought of as history.
My own personal definition of history runs more along the lines of what Thucydides beleived was history. To me, history has been verbalized in text's and readings in the form of facts that are backed up thoroughly along with plenty of analysis and subjective thinking on the part of the author. History is just that: opinionated recordings of actually happenings. This is why I beleive Herodotus was a little more of a storyteller than "the father of history". His research may have been a good example of a historical narrative, but that in itself is not a history book. I especially do not like the fact that he used somewhat untrustworthy sources and actually put in references and bits about mythology. I do see where Tasha is coming from when she this is an example of cultural history, but I thought Herodotus was using these mythys and "flying snakes" as a truth in his history, and even people back then recognized that flying snakes didn't exist (I think). Thucydides was less of a story teller and more of a recoder and fact dispenser which is what history is made up of. With these facts he came in with awesome analysis and it seemed that his research was a lot more dependable than Herodotus's. I don't doubt that Herodotus put plenty of actual fact into his writing, but I believe that because he made it into more of a narrative while Thucydides focused on giving fact and analysis make Thucydides the better candidate for the title "father of history."
Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:29 am Post subject: more ambiguity
I suppose I just have to agree with everyone else, though I don't feel very original...
the one vaguely interesting thought I came upon when reading was this: Herodotus is the father of history, but Thucydides was the first historian.
It seems that Herodotus really came up with the concept of "history" (does anyone know what people thought of that term before him?) and he proposed why we needed it. In a fairly philosophical manner, too, he was able to determine that people should reflect on their past and that someone should provide cultural mirrors. That said, I remember writing "THIS SOUNDS LIKE A TABLOID" in the margin of pg. 17 when it said "he prefaces reports with phrases such as 'the spartans say', the greeks say'" One could argue, however, that you can learn a lot about modern culture through tabloids. Right? Maybe?
As important as that cultural aspect is, his reliability is admittedly very dubious. Its hard to defend the notion that Herodotus "did not accept everything he was told" when he's writing about various giant animals and insects with flying snakes. (?!?!)
... I trust Thucydides.. I really do. His goal was accuracy, and it sounds like he was about as close as it got back then. He really made a meticulous practice out of being a historian through obtaining that accuruacy, but I fear I didn't retain very much at all from what he wrote. the "romance" Thucydides speaks of in speaking about what he thinks his writing lacks is, in fact, culture. In my definition of history, names and dates would mean nothing if not for the reaction society had to them. And it seems Thucydides lacked the abilities to make those connections.
So, really, the ideal father of history would be a combination of these two historians... It seems sort of a facile argument to say one aspect of history is more important than the other, especially in talking about these two guys.
i actually disagree with everyone so far. heroditus sounds more likethere's this nifty quote from william cronan, an environmental historian we read a lot of in (surprise, surprise!) environmental history. he says that "[b]historical wisdom usually comes in the form of parables [/b](stories), not policy recommendations or certainties"
also (SKIP THIS NEXT QUOTE IF YOU’RE JUST SKIMMING THE BLOG OVER)
"recognizing the historical contingency of all knowledge helps us guard against the dangers of absolute or decontextualized "truths"...an historical, social-constructionist perspective takes seemingly transparent, absolute facts and places them in cultural contexts which render them at once more problematic, more interesting and more instructive. paradoxically, by making reality more continegent the historicist approach to knowledge lends greater realism to our understanding of nature and culture alike"
BASICALLY, I want to emphasize the story component of history. Everyone’s hating on Heroditus because he told his history more like a novel and was pretty blunt about his biases. We’ve decided that the pragmatist historian does history more correctly, or like paves the way better, but that assumes that by conveying history in a more pragmatic (also sounds like BORING) manner that he’s getting all the facts right. What we’re totally neglecting to understand is that the “facts”, even if told more boring-ly aren’t necessarily more accurate BECAUSE history, as I see it, is an amalgamation of viewpoints, of different stories that overlap and that we piece together to try to envision the most full reality of past events that we can. It’s a bunch of STORIES, and you can convey it in a really sure-of-yourself manner, but it still doesn’t necessarily make it a unanimous fact. It’s a fact from one viewpoint. Heroditus was all about this social-constructionist amalgamation that William cronan talked about in my nerdy quotes. “he had put together the many varied events of Asia and Europe and a description of their peoples and lands in a single work (pg 15)”. He was so ahead of Thucydides because he acknowledged that he combined all these different viewpoints to make “fact” (or PARABLE), as we see it in history books today. Thucycdides said his parable was the fact.
Thucycdides “drew almost exclusively on political and military material and refrained from digressing from the narrative. Although this results in a very detailed account of the war, we gain only a faint impression of what else was going on in the Mediterranian world. (pg 26)” ALSO I really think having history be more accessible to readers is NOT A BAD THING. History is supposed to be about people. Novels aren’t fascinating sources of information because they’re necessarily more colloquial, it’s because they’re more about people than about facts. People like reading about themselves, and I think it’s especially appropriate in history because by making this collage of viewpoints, we use it to sort of predict what may happen with people in the future. We can’t apply it to ourselves if the people themselves have been kind of taken out of it. heroditus's history was sooooo much more true to people. it so more accurately reflected culture.
this is another reason why I don't like forum posts. 90% of the time there is a general concensus, and people think the same exact thing, but instead of just saying "i agree" and leaving it at that, (not that it's a constructive thing to say, but only because the details of what one agrees to is implied) people (including myself) basically re-state what other people said before them. I think that instead of all answering the same question, it might be more useful to each be assigned our own questions so that everyone can bring something valuable and different to the posts. anyone else agree? yes? no?
if not, then here is a complete contradiction of what i just said, so that people know that I, too, did and understood the reading, and extracted similar ideas regarding this topic:
Like Sasha, Tasha, and most everyone else, I also agree that history is subjective, and that how people answer the question of who was the true father of history is based on their interpretations of history.
Something that might help, is looking at the definition of history, because in order to form our own definitions, it helps to learn what others, specifically those at dictionary.com thought that history meant. Soo here you go:
his⋅to⋅ry /ˈhɪstəri, ˈhɪstri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA
Use history in a Sentence
See web results for history
See images of history
–noun, plural -ries. 1. the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient.
3. the aggregate of past events.
4. the record of past events and times, esp. in connection with the human race.
5. a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history.
6. acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings: Firsthand observers of our space program see history in the making.
7. a systematic account of any set of natural phenomena without particular reference to time: a history of the American eagle.
8. a drama representing historical events: Shakespeare's comedies, histories, and tragedies.
******************************
was anyone else suprised that Shakespeare had histories? i didn't know about that.
****
I think that the reason why our personal definitions are so important here are because if you have a cultural or religious upbringing that supports an element of fantasy as being history, then you might think that Herodotus was the father of history, BUT, if you have been raised to see facts and data as the most important elements of history, with little or no assumptions as to what could have happened in the "unknown" part, then you probably see Thucycidides as the rightful "father of history." This concept, in it's self oddly relates back to part of the reading about culture, saying that if you could choose between any cultural upbringing, you would pick your own. This is because we think the way we have been brought up to think, and chosing a different culture would put you in a place where you would think something else, and would you really be "you" if you didn't think/act/grow up with the same upbringing as [you do/did] now?
Based on the context of MY life, and MY upbringing, I would say that Herodotus is the father of history based on the facts that he
a. came first
b. had inovative and original ideas
c. recorded events as he percieved them to have happened
and I also think that there is always SOME bias, and inaccuracies, (no matter how dominant) in every piece of history, because of the whole cultural thing, so i think that he tried to record at least his version of what might have happened is commendable, and therefore deserves recognition. I happen to like Thucydides's approach more, but that is irrellavant.
*Q*
soo i noticed a good amount of similarities between tonight's reading and 300. I didn't know Xerces (sp?) actually existed, and i think that that's pretty cool. Based on YOU'RE definition of history, was the movie 300 history or not?
again, if something was unclear, or you would like to talk about any of this stuff- don't hesitate. edeangelis@csw.org
stand corrected, sophie disagrees. for the record- i started writing mine before that was posted... soo my suggestion still applies. maybe to less of an extreme, though.
"this is another reason why I don't like forum posts. 90% of the time there is a general concensus, and people think the same exact thing, but instead of just saying "i agree" and leaving it at that, (not that it's a constructive thing to say, but only because the details of what one agrees to is implied) people (including myself) basically re-state what other people said before them." wasn't meant to diminish what anyone was saying, i just think that if we had more options, we might be able to add something new. i think that everyone has made the best with the question that was given.
i'm done now. -no more last minute adjustments.
When considering the question of what is history, one must first consider why is history. First and foremost the answer to 'why history' is 'for knowledge' (as apposed to for entertainment). So why do we seek this knowledge? because in historical fact lies sociological implications which leads to self awareness, the aim of our most basic driving curiosity. In short, we want to know why we behave the way we do; as a people and ultimately as individuals.
So if this is the aim of history, to what end is it the responsibility of a historical narrative to ascertain this understanding and satisfy our curiosity? This question yields the distinction between the responsibility of a historian versus that of a sociologist. Perhaps Herodotus bit off more than he could chew in assuming both positions, whereas Thucydides came along and created the divide in stating the now unquestioned importance of unassuming narrative, which without Herodotus' initial forays into such uncharted waters, would never have been possible.
So who's the father? I think its clear that one did it better than the other but ultimately the title must go to the pioneer. Such semantical disputes are futile however, and what's important is that one comes away with a clear understanding of their fundamental differences.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
') Still, early anecdotal observations can be extremely useful, sometimes totally shifting way a field is studied, even if the data is crap.
