Paper Summary:

The paper examines Herodotus' work "Histories" and Thucydides' work "History of the Pelopennesian War" and shows how both these writers accomplish their goals of objectivity and a respect for history in totally different ways. The paper analyzes how Herodotus' work is almost purely anecdotal, while Thucydide reports a major figure's lineage rather than telling it as a story. The paper highlights the pros and cons of each writer but shows how their limitations are actually due to their subject matter. The paper opines that both of these works have great value, simply in different ways.

From the Paper:

"It is fair to see from the Histories that Herodotus view of history is anthropological. Like Thucydides, he recognizes the value in examining the center of the human spirit. To Herodotus however, this is history. The actions and reactions, the stories of these people; this is what creates history. To this end, Herodotus is almost purely anecdotal. Detailed descriptions of war are glossed over almost as an annoyance, where human interaction takes the forefront. This is a great departure from modern historical method, like that of Thucydides, where a major figure's lineage is reported rather than told as a story."

Visitors who viewed this Comparison Essay also liked these:

• Comparison Essay # 7317 : "Comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides"
• Analytical Essay # 21343 : "Herodotus"
• Comparison Essay # 18734 : "Ancient Greek and Roman Historians"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: