HSC Extension History

Historians: Herodotus: Herodotus is often credited as being the ‘father of history’. He was the first historian to attempt to explain events scientifically, without ascribing it to fate, chance or the gods. He was also the first to write down history for the sake of history and not entertainment, although his work was designed to be spoken, thus his work is more objective than other works at the time, such as Homer’s. Herodotus wrote about events that were still in living memory, so his sources are more reliable. Herodotus also visited many of the places he wrote about. Many modern historians say that Herodotus still had traces of the Homeric style, but there are key differences; he wrote in prose, not a poetic style as Homer did, Herodotus’ subjects were in living memory. Herodotus travelled far, interviewing many people, trying to get two or three different perspectives. However, he has been accused of merely making up sources to fit his judgements, and many of his judgements are anachronistic. Herodotus embarked on his research to “preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements of both our own and other peoples”. Thucydides Thucydides was also writing history for education and not entertainment, and is hailed by some as the father of “scientific history”. Thucydides did not include any fantastical stories. He drew from multiple sources, attempting to find the commonalities between them in order to write an objective and reliable account. Unlike Herodotus, his work was not designed to be spoken, and was written about more recent events. Thucydides main motivation for writing about the Peloponnesian War was that it ‘would be great and noteworthy above all the wars that had gone before’. Thucydides uses speeches as well in his works, attempting to write them as accurately as possible. Thucydides is often considered the ‘father of scientific history,’ since he rigorously checked all of his sources. Thucydides wanted to analyse the causes of events, not just to recount them. In this he is one of the earliest historians to attempt to teach a lesson with history. Thucydides’ history was written from the perspective of the upper classes; history from above. Nowadays historians attempt to write about all social classes. In addition, Thucydides attempted to enter the minds of the people he was writing about in order to explain what they were thinking, which is seen by some as fraudulent, as he couldn’t know what they were thinking. “The absence of the fabulous from my account will seem less pleasing to the ear” but is more likely to endure “as a possession for all time.” Polybius Polybius was a Greek historian who befriended a Roman General, who fought in the Punic Wars. This means that Polybius had first hand accounts of his subject, in fact he was present at the defeat of Carthage in 146 BC. Polybius wrote history to educate. He believed that history is instructive; it can provide moral, military and political guidance. The methods Polybius employed to research were: 1. Studying written sources 2. Visiting geographical locations 3. Detailing first hand accounts, ie. interviews with eyewitnesses. Polybius wrote about people he had personal acquaintances with. He also provided criticisms of other historians, but he has been accused of merely being jealous. Polybius has moved away from the style of Herodotus, believing that fantastical stories have no place in his history. He saw that the purpose of a historian “should not be to amaze his readers with a series of thrilling anecdotes,” or “speeches which might have been delivered”. He said the historians aim is to “record with fidelity what was actually said or done” “From this time forth History becomes a connected whole,” Polybius wanted to analyse the links between the histories of cultures across the world. His aim was to describe the underlying causes of events. Tacitus Tacitus was a roman historian who was close to figures of influence in Rome at the time. He wrote four main works; Agricola, Germania, Histories, and Annals of Imperial Rome. His works were often biased due to his political affiliations. Cn. Julius Agricola was his father-in-law, and he was critical of the emperor in failing to conquer Germania. Much of his writing is coloured by his views of Roman politics. However, he had great access to many written sources, many of which are lost to us today. Tacitus attempted to “write without indignation or partisanship.” He tried to write without bias and avoid just narrating events. Rather, he tried to explain causation for events. He had a wide variety of sources, since he was so high up in Roman society, and many of these are lost today. Although he tried to be unbiased, the sources he used were sometimes clearly one sided, for example the diaries of Agrippina the Younger. Tacitus had risen to power within a system he disliked. This opinion bled into much of what he wrote. In his Annals he wrote “It seems to me a historians foremost duty is to ensure that merit is recorded, and to confront evil words and deeds with the fear of posterity’s denunciations.” So, in his view, the aim of the historian was to highlight the negative aspects of history. This opinion is evident amongst his writing on the system he disliked so much.