Herodotus’ in his book The Histories presents “more than one story… about an event” with these stories “often differing because [they are] told by different groups in a conflict”. In this way Herodotus sets before his audience what he knows and allows them to judge what is ‘truth’. He himself does not “decide that one account rather than another is to be believed.”
Despite his "fantastic" accounts of giants ants, flying snakes, etc, Herodotus did not accept absolutely everything he was told. Sometimes he casts doubt on reports he was told or dismisses accounts outright but in general Herodotus was accepting of myths. However, Herodotus frequently offers alternate versions of events, including those where there are conflicting accounts. Some alternatives are posed only to be dismissed immediately, others are left to the reader's judgment, whilst generally he tries to choose intelligently. Subsequent archaeological and historical research has shown Herodotus to be reasonably, and often remarkably accurate.
Thucydides’ style of writing is “carefully structured, and highly analytical, deploying a strict chronological method where the recording of events can be organised” and he felt that it was his duty as a historian to go further than merely stating facts and to convey a definite truth.Thucydides uses a techniques inspired by the Sophist Philosophers of set speeches in order to “ articulate the standpoints and interests of the warring parties”.
It has been argued by some historians such as Ann Curthoys and John Docker, that “Thucydides’ great work is shaped to a literary design, that of tragedy”. Thucydides’ writing does have common elements with the tragedy genre, which is apparent in Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War which has an aesthetic shape is similar to tragedy.
Many writers consider Thucydides to be the father of history, which is because, in their opinion, his History of the Peloponnesian War is the earliest example of serious historical research. Thucydides displays rigor and respect for truth and evidence as modern-day historians, and his works are worlds apart from earlier, more literary historians like Herodotus. Thucydides characterizes history as being the realm of politics and war. Thucydides detailed account of the war has been described as a "laser-like" focus. This has made him popular among modern-day historians.
Thucydides largely uses oral history and eye witness accounts which he “checked with as much thoroughness as possible”. It has been argued that through his “reliance on oral communication and eye witness reports that he neglected documentary research”. Thucydides “does not see it as a part of his method to tell his readers who his informants are” and as such the audience is presented only with the sources “as assimilated and analytically reworked” by Thucydides and as such the writing is monologist. Thucydides is critisised for his neglect to state his sources and some historians suggest that Thucydides was a fraud as there is little evidence in is work.
Despite Thucydides lack of evidence sources it is commonly believed that Thucydides has had a greater influence on historians than Herodotus. Herodotus without a doubt was a historian but wrote with enthusiasm aiming to tell an entertaining story and did not analyse and compare sources as Thucydides did and explain the inference between sources. Thucydides , unlike Herodotus , was not openly willing to accept ancient myths, the supernatural and beliefs in Gods and asked questions and instead of leaving it up to the responder, Thucydides would present definite theories on history and in his way contributed far more to historiography than Herodotus. Herodotus was happy to let the responder create their own truth from the stories he told that drew no real conclusions but merely stated facts in an entertaining way.
A great historian possesses a range of qualities and although accuracy is extremely important to a historian to maintaining integrity, it is not the sole quality of a great historian. Herodotus and Thucydides are two great historians whose work may not be entirely accurate, yet they are still considered as Herodotus is known as the father or history and Thucydides is known as the father of so called ‘scientific’ history.
Cicero dubbed Herodotus the father of history as he possessed many qualities of a great historian. He was diligent and methodical in his work and went to great lengths to record the causes, outcomes and effects of the Parisian Wars 490-479BC, recorded the great deeds of the Greeks for prosperity and taught about war and the quality’s needed for victory. Herodotus went to great lengths to get two sides to every story and in writing about the Persian wars endeavoured to portray the conflicting perspectives to the best of his ability. Yet there is a great deal of controversy regarding how accurate Herodotus was, as he largely used oral sources which he did not record verbatim and instead he wrote oral sources as he remembers them being told, he exaggerated and often wrote history so that is was entertaining rather than historically correct. Herodotus’ work at times was also not original and he often quotes others works and lacked the historical quality of anglicising sources and presenting a truth. As a historian he had many good qualities but also lacked many. He was definitely not a model historian and often believed myths and accepted things unthinkingly.
Thucydides is another great historian as he possessed many qualities that made him great, yet like Herodotus, his accuracy can be questioned. Thucydides was the father of ‘scientific’ history and rightly deserved such a title. He unlike Herodotus treated the supernatural and myths with scepticism and like modern historian analysed his sources and explained the inferences between them. Thucydides attempted to find truth in history and was not interested in exaggeration or merely telling a story. Thucydides admits openly that he did his best to record sources as best as possible but it suggests that it was impossible to record sources verbatim. Hence Thucydides accuracy in recording sources is questionable and furthermore Thucydides did not list or acknowledges his sources and it has been suggested that since Thucydides has no evidence of his sources that he may have invented them and that his work is fraudulent. But regardless of these claims on inaccuracy, Thucydides is unquestionable a great historian and clearly accuracy in not necessarily the most important quality of a great historian.
In conclusion, accuracy is an extremely important quality for historian to posses but as Herodotus and Thucydides have proven it is not the sole quality of a good historian and rather historians need to possess a range of qualities and skills such as being meticulous, methodical, able to interpret and analysis sources and most importantly have a desire to record history to the best of their ability. Accuracy is indeed important but a historian and historical work should never be weighted entirely upon its historical accuracy, but rather on their contribution to historiography and our knowledge of the past.