6 ms·

Still puts him ahead of Herodotus. When Aristophanes takes the time to write a whole play to mock you, you done goofed.

by smitty1110 3y ago

nverno 3y ago
He was like the original historian, though. Everyone's a critic.
- virissimo 3y ago
  The books of Samuel and Kings from the Hebrew Bible predate Herodotus' Histories by quite some time.
- dmoy 3y ago
  Thucydides is imo the original historian from that era. Herodotus was much more of a storyteller
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - yawboakye 3y ago
    not to nitpick but originally a history was a story/narrative, which inadvertently made the historian a storyteller. herodotus remains unparalleled in that sense, imo.
gadders 3y ago
Herodotus is also a good read.
- smitty1110 3y ago
  Great stories, but even in his day he was considered to be factually incorrect. I'll grant that he makes for a good read (his greek is certainly more engaging the Xenophon), but if you read what he has to say about Cyrus it's pretty obvious he's outright lying. This paragon of rulers, after many years of good administration, is suddenly going to act completely out of character and get himself killed stupidly. And incidentally, Herodotus is the ONLY ancient source that so much as mentions Tomyris, full stop.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    > but even in his day he was considered to be factually incorrect Some of what he said might have been and some parts probably weren't. > Cyrus it's pretty obvious he's outright lying He was telling a story from the perspective of the (or some of them) the Greeks might have seen. It's just as likely to have been hearsay as outright intentional lies. > And incidentally, Herodotus is the ONLY ancient source that so much as mentions Tomyris, full stop How many other ancient sources do we actually have on some of the periods (especially related to Persia) described by Herodotus? Also as far as we can tell the narrative history or even Mesopotamian/Asyrian/Babylonian style chronicles weren't really a thing in ancient Persia so it's not inconceivable that he just wrote down one of the oral stories coming from there (it probably wasn't that clear to the Persians themselves what might have happened to one of their previous rulers after a generation or two). Overall by the standards of ancient historians Herodotus was probably above average.
    - 38529977thrw 3y ago
      > (it probably wasn't that clear to the Persians themselves what might have happened to one of their previous rulers after a generation or two) Let's see: Persians of a generation or two after Cyrus are Dariush and Xerxes. These guys were running a multi-national empire, had invented the satrap system to administer foreign conquests, were in the process of taking over Egypt, digging canals, had a relay system mail network with a catchy motto (per Mr. H himself!) of "neither rain nor snow blah blah blah" (likely in Aramaic), taking the time to carve in a pretty tough to reach spot in a mountain face in western Iran the specifics of which uppity rebel was put down, and how. Did they really lose track of what happened to their grandparents' (generation)? That specific dynasty maintained meticulous records in Persepolis. Those archive and whatever historic records they may have contained however went up in smoke with the rest of the complex when Alexander paid a visit. So, that contemporary Greeks (or any other non-Persians in the greater empire) had little access to Persian empire records and thus relied on oral lore seems to be a given. But that has little bearing on whether Persians were generationally clueless about their grand parents as you allege, or not.
      - 3y ago

Still puts him ahead of Herodotus. When Aristophanes takes the time to write a whole play to mock you, you done goofed.

nverno 3y ago

He was like the original historian, though. Everyone's a critic.

virissimo 3y ago
The books of Samuel and Kings from the Hebrew Bible predate Herodotus' Histories by quite some time.
dmoy 3y ago
Thucydides is imo the original historian from that era. Herodotus was much more of a storyteller
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yawboakye 3y ago
  not to nitpick but originally a history was a story/narrative, which inadvertently made the historian a storyteller. herodotus remains unparalleled in that sense, imo.

gadders 3y ago

Herodotus is also a good read.

smitty1110 3y ago
Great stories, but even in his day he was considered to be factually incorrect. I'll grant that he makes for a good read (his greek is certainly more engaging the Xenophon), but if you read what he has to say about Cyrus it's pretty obvious he's outright lying. This paragon of rulers, after many years of good administration, is suddenly going to act completely out of character and get himself killed stupidly. And incidentally, Herodotus is the ONLY ancient source that so much as mentions Tomyris, full stop.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > but even in his day he was considered to be factually incorrect Some of what he said might have been and some parts probably weren't. > Cyrus it's pretty obvious he's outright lying He was telling a story from the perspective of the (or some of them) the Greeks might have seen. It's just as likely to have been hearsay as outright intentional lies. > And incidentally, Herodotus is the ONLY ancient source that so much as mentions Tomyris, full stop How many other ancient sources do we actually have on some of the periods (especially related to Persia) described by Herodotus? Also as far as we can tell the narrative history or even Mesopotamian/Asyrian/Babylonian style chronicles weren't really a thing in ancient Persia so it's not inconceivable that he just wrote down one of the oral stories coming from there (it probably wasn't that clear to the Persians themselves what might have happened to one of their previous rulers after a generation or two). Overall by the standards of ancient historians Herodotus was probably above average.
  - 38529977thrw 3y ago
    > (it probably wasn't that clear to the Persians themselves what might have happened to one of their previous rulers after a generation or two) Let's see: Persians of a generation or two after Cyrus are Dariush and Xerxes. These guys were running a multi-national empire, had invented the satrap system to administer foreign conquests, were in the process of taking over Egypt, digging canals, had a relay system mail network with a catchy motto (per Mr. H himself!) of "neither rain nor snow blah blah blah" (likely in Aramaic), taking the time to carve in a pretty tough to reach spot in a mountain face in western Iran the specifics of which uppity rebel was put down, and how. Did they really lose track of what happened to their grandparents' (generation)? That specific dynasty maintained meticulous records in Persepolis. Those archive and whatever historic records they may have contained however went up in smoke with the rest of the complex when Alexander paid a visit. So, that contemporary Greeks (or any other non-Persians in the greater empire) had little access to Persian empire records and thus relied on oral lore seems to be a given. But that has little bearing on whether Persians were generationally clueless about their grand parents as you allege, or not.
    - 3y ago