[velvetbrain]

Do you know any quotes from Herodotus' work which may suggest he likes to exaggerate events?

The only one I can remember is the quote in which he describes the courage of a Greek soldier at the battle of Marathon, who in a desperate attempt to stop the Persians from fleeing, grabbed one of the ships with his hands. His arms were then dismembered and then he used his teeth...

Do you think Herodotus is a reliable historian?

[Jwb2]

Yes. Well, he was a chronicler. It was common for them to exaggerate what they wrote to make it more interesting and therefore readable. None of the dialogue actually exists but generally speaking he's unbiased. His work was sponsored by the Athenians however, so there are examples of him being slightly biased towards them. - I'd give some examples but my book is upstairs and I become very lazy after I've just done an exam :L

[Martyn*]

He had a certain pro-Hellenistic bias in his accounts.

[ugk4life]

(Original post by Martyn*)
He had a certain pro-Hellenistic bias in his accounts.

hi there.

have seen a couple of your posts and it seems to me you are pretty clued up on history esp that 2000 plus years ago.

was wondering your thoughts on the vedic civilisation in india?

[AntisthenesDogger]

Yes he was reliable.

Thucydides later appraises his work and various scholars noted the genuineness of it.

Sure he may have exaggerated some claims but he was essentially the first historian. He didn't (I assume) write it as a subject form.

[Pensivedore]

Well he is called the "Father of History" and his use of historical method influenced many later hisorians. He did, however, have a "pan-Hellenic agenda" so he's not completely reliable, especially on the Persian wars since he was writing about it during the Peloponnesian war, about 50 years after the Persian wars, in order to unite the Greeks. This sort of suggests that he probably did exaggerate, especially on the bravery of the Greeks and the unity of Sparta and Athens during the Persian wars. on

[The Lyceum]

What level are you writing at btw? I'm aware of several academic works which would be helpful in this area. In particular see the work of Pelling and some of the articles in the Brill Companion if you're able.

Generally speaking no he's not overly reliable, neither he nor Thucydides ought to be wedged into history as we fully understand it (though the latter was a massive influence). You have to consider the nature of his work, one of enquiry and work from there.

Wonderful repository of stuff from an ethnographic point of view.

[velvetbrain]

At the moment I am not studying Ancient History, but I hope to study it at A level in September. Which would you recommend studying, modern or ancient? I've just finished working in Stockholm for two years so I haven't really had the time to study.

Do you know anything about the Punic Wars? Anything about Livy or Polybius?

Most of what I know is from books.

[scottstacey]

(Original post by velvetbrain)
Do you know any quotes from Herodotus' work which may suggest he likes to exaggerate events?

The only one I can remember is the quote in which he describes the courage of a Greek soldier at the battle of Marathon, who in a desperate attempt to stop the Persians from fleeing, grabbed one of the ships with his hands. His arms were then dismembered and then he used his teeth...

Do you think Herodotus is a reliable historian?

I couldn't tell you an exact quote but one example that springs to mind is when Cyrus rebels against Media and a general under Astyages rebels by the name of Harpagus this was due to him being fed his son by Astyages earlier on seems a bit unlikely to me. Another example would be the crushing of the Babylonians in the Babylonian revolt in which a chap called Zopyrus cuts off his ears and nose which is replicated in a story written in Livy's history of Rome so is possibly a recurring theme in Ancient History. He wasn't very reliable at all but he is certainly the best we have about the persians especially in comparison to Ctesias. What you have to remember is that historians works were meant to entertain in the ancient world and so exaggeration is likely. Herodotus is particularly unreliable when it comes to Cambyses II.

[The Lyceum]

(Original post by velvetbrain)
At the moment I am not studying Ancient History, but I hope to study it at A level in September. Which would you recommend studying, modern or ancient? I've just finished working in Stockholm for two years so I haven't really had the time to study.

Do you know anything about the Punic Wars? Anything about Livy or Polybius?

Most of what I know is from books.

I would indeed yes but I think recommending scholarly tomes which require a good knowledge of Greek as well as the cultural/historical context is a bit too much for an A level student, unless you have oodles of cash to buy these things and all the time in the world.

Well Herodotos, Polyvios and Livy are all really different despite all being historians so that's a pretty broad question.

For Polybius there is a relatively recent translation on the Oxford World Classics series which is apparently readable, with a foreword from R Waterfield who is arguably the leading expert on that text. That should be a good grounding I guess.

Livy...well has a million problems, perhaps almost as much as Poly. if you can get hold of some of the basic introductions to the general time frame you'll be fine, something like Syme's "Roman Revolution" is really cheap and easy going actually.

Herodo. well I don't think the Cambridge Companion is too pricey, and the articles there are relatively easy to follow too and should answer most questions.

I guess the best thing to do would be to just read and enjoy at this point.

[AntisthenesDogger]

My opinion is to read various works from the different time periods and make your decision based upon which time-frame interests you more.

Bear in mind if you want to take the classics route an understanding of Latin and preferably Attic Greek (Maybe some Koine) will be needed.

Livy and Polybius are interesting reads, but nothing of the easiest. Herodotus is easier to comprehend from his translations. Tacitus and Plutarch might also be of interest to you if you want a scope of more diverse works. I'd suggest Catullus too, but he wasn't much of an historian.

Yeah I digressed. And you can just google the Punic wars, the Wiki pages are rather detailed. But if you want a specific point to start on; Research Scipio in the second Punic war.