What are the strengths an weaknesses of Herodtus' account of the Persian wars?

Having discussed how valuable a source “The Histories” has become for students of the Persian war, we must also contemplate the reliability of Herodotus’ own sources. The word “history” in itself derives from this case when Herodotus called his travelled narrative “The histories” which is in fact the Greek word for enquiries.  John Gould gives a favourable view on Herodotus’ ability to attain a host of sources and manipulate the truth from them. Indeed using the example of Thersandros’ story just before the battle of Platea (9.16), Gould concludes that “the source, the methodology and the resulting narrative all have the look of rock-solid adequacy”. There are admittedly many stories which have proved slightly inaccurate and to which Herodotus has given a completely incorrect conclusion to such as Archias the Spartan whose reliability as an informant is tarnished by the fact that he basis it mostly on his families biased tradition. However these sources cannot take anything away from Herodotus’ effort to attain them. It is common knowledge that his travels took him great distances obtaining a large collection of different logioi both named and unnamed, Greek and foreign. Herodotus used a variety of techniques to manage all of his sources, frequently beginning tales “those with a story to tell” then finishing the story only to give his own assessment based on other informant’s tales. However evidently many of these stories are wildly extravagant, for example Scyllias of Scione, a famous diver who is reported to have joined the Greek navy at the battle of Artemisium by submerging at Aphetae and swimming underwater for ten miles. Though Herodotus offers it as his considered opinion that Scyllias accomplished the journey on a boat, it is tales such as these that give W. Kendrick Pritchett his main target of ammunition in his book “The Liar School of Herodotus”.  Here a number of historians including Fehling, Powell and Pritchett argue that the wide range of such tales suggest that the truth behind “The Histories” is diluted by these myth like stories. It would appear that Herodotus was willing to record all he had been told and put it forward as history rather than determine what actually happened in cases like our area of study; The Persian Wars. However this argument that lies as well as truths were recorded in “The Histories” is overshadowed by Herodotus’ own claim; “I feel obliged to tell what is told to me, but I do not feel at all obliged to believe it… it is my principle throughout the whole of history to record what I have heard said by each of my informants”. This, as Usher stresses, indicates that “Herodotus cannot be accused of credulity when some of them (informant’s stories) seem far-fetched”. This shows another reliable technique of Herodotus as he manipulates the sources to allow the audience to determine history (each varying in their tolerance of strain on their credulity) frequently helped along with a venturing conclusion of his own (Usher also points out that most stories such as Scyllias are either highly believable or very questionable).  It is therefore plausible to assess the view that a major strength of Herodotus’ account of the Persian Wars lies with the sound consideration of many differing sources.

However despite Herodotus’ mastery use of informants many historians, mainly his critics such as Fehling criticise the style in which “The Histories” was written. “The Problem of Herodotus” as we should call it is that the narrative “speculates on the reality of the world it presents, not only by authorial interventions and constant references to its sources, but also by such devices as the tale told in indirect speech and by the presentation of alternative and competing narratives”. This to put it briefly has instigated critics such as Thucydides to classify Herodotus as a “storyteller”. Indeed no one can take away the beauty in which “The Histories” are written. De Selincourt praises Herodotus’ written style “(his) greatness lies in the mastery of writing a single artistic whole of unsurpassed beauty and grace”.   However to suppose as boldly as A.W. Gomme claims (his account is nothing but a fine piece of writing without historical value) would be to suggest that the works are indeed story’s and that the distinction between myth and history that T.J. Luce claims Herodotus achieved, is not true. This is supported by the fact that Usher states “the ultimate inclusion (of the informant’s tales) in the history was determined by one criterion only – that they were worth telling”.This implies that we cannot take for granted the extreme dramatisation of the histories and consequently which cannot be used as a precise account of the Persian Wars.  De Selincourt does attempt to defend Herodotus “His book was written not for private reading but for public recitation”. Although this is plausible to an extent as many 5th century Greeks were illiterate, Thucydides was freely able to produce a much more historical based work a mere half century later. Despite his written style obviously being a huge strength in a literary sense, it poses the historic dilemma of fact or fiction, so we must therefore assess that “The Histories” gives an over dramatised version and as a result weak historical account of the Persian Wars.

  Surplus to Herodotus’ dramatised account, it is often noticed by his critics that a biased opinion leans favourably to one side during “the Histories”. J.L. Myres points out the fact that throughout his works, Herodotus consistently portrays Athens in good light in comparison to other states. Myres explains this fondness on the back of the fact that the polis of Athens presented Herodotus with a gift of ten talents, but when “he asked the Thebans for a reward, without success so thereafter maligned them”. Despite Luce stating that Herodotus took a neutral stand as a historian,  he was nevertheless an Ionian Greek and to say that he did not sway more towards the heroics of the Greeks at such battles like that of Salamis would be foolish. We have already uncovered that the Histories were written to grip the imagination of an audience and the audience quite clearly was a Greek one and not a Persian. Though admittedly Herodotus devotes a lot of study to the Persian way of life, it cannot be denied that Herodotus relished the opportunity to describe the bravery of the Spartans at Thermopylae or the tactical acuteness of Themistocles at Salamis.   Therefore before we conclude we must consider the level of bias Herodotus may have directly or indirectly had.

The conclusion to this question may appear to be straight forward. Indeed having assessed facts, sources, style and leniency it is fair to agree that Herodotus’ account of the Persian Wars is not altogether accurate. A sense of dramatisation is a recurring theme throughout the argument against Herodotus as is so proven by the exaggerated facts, the inclusion of many unrealistic sources, the “storytelling” style in which it is written and finally the level of biased leniency towards the original audience. We can gather therefore that “The Histories” is a weak account of the Persian Wars. However, an argument that counter balances this claim is rightly referred to at the end. No matter how inaccurate scholars perceive “the Histories” to be, it still remains one of the only original sources that can tell us as 21st century historians of what truly occurred during that epic phase in history known as the Persian Wars.  

Bibliography

J.Myres, Herodotus Father of History, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1953

J.Gould, Herodotus, Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1989

S.Usher, The Historians of Greece and Rome, Methuen & Co, 1970

A.De Selincourt, Translation of the Histories, Puffin Classics, 1960

W. Kendrick Pritchett, The Liar School of Herodotus, Gieben, 1993

I.C. Brown, The Historian as Philosopher – Herodotus and the Strength of Freedom, History Today Online, 1981

T.J.Luce, The Greek Historians, Routledge, 1997

---