When documenting history, Herodotus’ main sources were ‘what he has been told’ and ‘what he has seen’. Whilst this may seem risky to rely solely on these secondary sources, in a time where most of the witnesses had been killed and the war itself had taken on mythical dimensions, this was the best he could do to ascertain facts. He had few, if any, written documents to rely on – he queried priests, leading citizens, interpreters, and eyewitnesses, – who were often fragmentary and unreliable. To further strengthen his findings he conducted land surveys and inspected battle sites.
Unlike Thucydides, Herodotus focused primarily on the non-Greek world. After leaving his home town of Halicarnassus, he embarked upon a journey of the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor, the Aegean, Ionian and Mediterranean islands of Rhodes, Cyprus, Delos, Paros, Thasos, Samothrace, Crete, Samos, Cythera and Aegina. He travelled south to the Persian capital of Susa, Babylon and Colchis, and north to Scythia and Thrace. He also ventured to Palestine, Egypt and Tyre. What set Herodotus aside from his other mobile contemporaries and peers was the enormous length of time he spent in each destination, the straightforward, interrogative manner in which he recounted what he saw, and his sensitivity towards different cultures and ethnicities. These travels would have taken many years (some modern day historians estimate twelve years) yet it is through these journeys that Herodotus was able to gain his encyclopedic scope of the events that he documents.
Due to the fact that Herodotus based his findings on secondary sources or “hearsay”, which is contrasting to Thucydides who supported his recordings through his own personal eyewitness accounts, his reliability and accuracy has been questioned. Yet, again differing from Thucydides, Herodotus didn’t feel his duty was to present solely the facts but rather,
he says, ‘my duty is to report all that is said; but I am not obliged to believe it all alike – a remark which may be understood to apply to my whole History.’
It is important to note that Herodotus, being an immigrant into Athens, had to be able to gain support from the Athenian people and therefore, subconsciously adopting and echoing the Athenian mindset, he glorifies their contribution to the Persian wars. Herodotus also had an element of luck as one of the major Athenian statesmen, Pericles, was the son of Xanthippes, the general who defeated the Persians at Mycale. Herodotus consequently realised the momentous significance of the Persian wars and seised his opportunity. As a result, some of Herodotus’ work was swayed into providing a biased or one-sided Athenian view on the Persian war; and this is important to keep in mind. This mentality was already present in other city-states, which felt vexed by the lavish glory Herodotus put upon Athens at the expense of Sparta, which led his common name the ‘father of history’ to be branded ‘father of lies’.
An example of the bias can be seen when he refers to the Persians (in reality, most who are royalty and aristocrats) as ‘barbarians’. This is due to the fact that he was writing for the Athenians, to whom his loyalty is axiomatic, and he has chosen a selection of material that helps reinforce his view whilst excluding some differing information. However, as modern-day historians put it ‘
What too is less important is whether he got his facts right – he very often didn’t, and his work is laden with errors and fantasies – but facts alone do not make good history. His genius lies in the scope and manner of his unprecedented investigation and the relative importance he assigns to events and their causes – narrated rationally in human terms. His earnest and constant desire to understand ‘the other’ is what we post-moderns can continue to learn from Herodotus.’
In contrast to Herodotus, Thucydides, due to his own personal, social, and political perspectives, rejected the supernatural and composed a history that reveals underlying social pressures and political principles. He was born near Athens, the son of an aristocrat, and when he was old enough he joined the army. He then became commander of the Athenian fleet, but failed at Amphipolis against the Spartan army and its general, Brasidas, and was thus exiled from Athens for 20 years. Whilst Herodotus is commonly thought of being the ‘father of history’, Thucydides is regarded as being the ‘father of scientific history’. Often being referred to as a journalist, this is somewhat true due to the fact that he based his records and facts on interviews and eyewitness accounts.
The development of Athens during the middle of the 5th century was, in itself, the best education which such a mind as that of Thucydides could have received. However, being involved in the Athenian army is what proved to be a major catalyst for encouraging him to document the Peloponnesian War. From the collection of Thucydides work it can easily be inferred that his interests were highly political. All of his pieces of history leave out the social life, the art and the literature of the time (he only alludes to the newly built Parthenon as ‘containing the Treasury’ rather than its architectural brilliance).
Whilst being in charge of the Athenian fleet, much of Thucydides is thought to be biased towards the views and feelings of the Athenian people (similar to Herodotus) yet after his expulsion in 424 B.C., he lived on his property in Thrace. There he spent a great deal of time travelling, which gave him the benefit of enjoying the rare advantage of contemplating the war from various points of view. Thucydides thought the war was worth recording because, it was the greatest the Greeks had ever fought. He set out to produce an accurate, unbiased account of the war, whilst visiting battlefields and talked to survivors from both sides. He also analysed the underlying political causes of the war and reported political speeches as a way of showing opposing viewpoints and reasons for certain actions.
In conclusion, Herodotus had to deal with sorting through a range of secondary sources in order to document his findings, and at the same time appeal to the Athenian public. On the other hand Thucydides, the failed general, who, mixed with his aristocratic connections from all sides and brooding upon Athens over years of exile, attempted to create an accurate and precise recount of the Peloponnesian War. Both these points therefore explain the reasons for the differing aims and purposes of each historian, yet it must be remembered that social and political contexts did not only affect the reliability of the work from Ancient Greek historians, but rather has existed throughout time. To this day it is difficult sometimes to decipher what is a statement of fact versus what is influenced by popular socio-political principles.