The Greeks and Roots of Historical Science

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The fact that history as a science originated precisely within the framework of ancient civilization can be considered absolute. This does not contradict the other factor that this science as a narrative existed earlier, in the Ancient East. However, with the Greeks (and the Romans who followed their path), there was a breakthrough in the full sense of the word in this field. Greek historiography has developed over several centuries, and during this time, it has gone from mythologizing the past to a more scientific, objective approach and creating a new literary genre of comparative biographies. Homer serves as a vivid example of the mythologization of the events that have taken place, on the basis of whose works the works of many ancient Greek historians are founded.

As it is known, Herodotus is called the father of history. Moreover, he was named so already in antiquity itself. With a similar epithet, Halicarnassus appears in Cicero, who sang the well-known inspirational “hymn” to historical discipline. However, there might be some doubts regarding whether this assessment of Herodotus is legitimate. Strictly speaking, science cannot give an absolute answer since he is the first of the authors from whom the entire preserved historical work has been saved. It cannot be ruled out that if we had the works of Hecateus of Miletus at disposal, one would recognize him as the true father of history. Still, his contribution to the field cannot be considered less than fundamental.

In his work, there is an approach that can be seen as more or less similar to the one that we would call the approach of the modern historian. Even at the very beginning of his The Histories, Herodotus directly says that his main task is to preserve the memory of historical events and deeds of people. Creating his work, Herodotus tried to analyze several sources, compare the information received from them and different interpretations of events, evaluate which sources can be trusted and which should not. It might be claimed that the Greek always tried to separate what he learned from rumors and stories from what he saw with his own eyes and knew from his own experience.

No less important than the presence of different sources is in the writings of Herodotus the fact that, unlike the works of Homer, the gods no longer exist with him on an equal basis with people. They are not the same participants in all events of the time. However, here one still needs to make a small reservation, namely, to say that Herodotus was a man of his time, and he believed in the gods, which could not but be reflected in his work. The fact is that one of the distinguishing features of Herodotus’s narrative is the presence in it of two ways of describing the historical process: rational and sacred. The rational approach describes events and their causes the way we are used to – as a result of the desire of this or that person, as a result of some objective reasons. At the same time, the sacred approach interprets events from the point of view of the presence of a divine will, which controls the fate of people, from which no one can hide, no one can escape.

Of course, the existence of a sacred approach to the description of historical events can make one doubt whether Herodotus really deserves the title of father of history. At this point, it might be assumed that he really does. The dual approach of Herodotus reflects his dualistic worldview and, at the same time, the worldview of most of his contemporaries, which is very valuable to us. The Histories by Herodotus could be called “Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece,” telling not only about the Hellenes but also about the inhabitants of neighboring tribes and people.

However, there is another person in the history of Ancient Greece who also has every right to be called the “father of history,” and this person is Thucydides. Despite the fact that these two historians lived at about the same time, their texts are strikingly different from each other. The work of Thucydides, bearing the same name as the work of Herodotus, The Histories, is already the next step in the development of ancient Greek historiography. Unlike Herodotus, Thucydides describes only those events of which he was a contemporary and which are well known to him.

It is worth noting that, like Herodotus in his studies, Thucydides very carefully and carefully approaches the question of the reliability of certain sources. He compares the stories he has heard from different persons, trying to establish the truth as accurately as possible. First of all, he relies on what he saw with his own eyes, of which he himself was a witness. Thucydides also emphasizes that it is incredibly difficult to establish the truth because each of the witnesses interprets the events seen in his own way, often depending on which side he was.

The works of Thucydides represent a greater historical authenticity than the work of Herodotus. Thucydides describes only events contemporary to him, while Herodotus describes a very long period of time and events that he did not witness. This can be confirmed by the fact that, unlike Herodotus, Thucydides does not even have traces of a sacred approach to describing events. Its text is as strict, dry, and objective as possible. Without embellishment, one will not find various myths and legends in it. The gods in it no longer interfere in human destiny and do not influence it in any way. This can be called another step forward in the development of historiographic science.

Unlike Herodotus, who makes a lot of digressions, explaining certain words, talking about certain people and nations, Thucydides sets out events in an extremely logical, coherent, and clear manner, without any digressions. On the one hand, this makes the whole chain of events more understandable. On the other hand, this method is more suitable for those readers who already know a lot about the modern Thucydides world and who do not need to explain every new name that appears. Ordinary readers may not really like the dry style of Thucydides, who did not care much about the literary side of his work, about making his text interesting to read just as a literary work.

However, it is worth giving credit to Thucydides for the fact that he tries to confirm each of his theses with one or another argument determined by analysis. His judgments are based on this analysis; they do not hang in the air, as is sometimes the case with Herodotus, who often simply retells what he heard from one or another mouth. Then, in the opinion of many, it was with Thucydides that historical science as such began because he approached the description of the historical process with all seriousness, rationally, realizing the importance of what he writes.

In ancient Greek historical science, the tradition of heredity is traced: later authors rely on the works of their predecessors, research them, use them to prove their own point of view. Hence, for example, in the writings of both Herodotus and Thucydides, one can find references to the works of Homer, to the information that he stated in them. In turn, representatives of the next generations rely on the texts of Thucydides and Herodotus.

During its existence and development, the ancient Greek science of historiography has changed a lot. From a semi-mythological, semi-fairy-tale narrative, a serious historical has arisen. Realizing the importance of the works they created, the ancient Greek authors tried to carefully analyze the material received, to observe an objective approach to the description of events so that subsequent generations could learn about what happened once in Hellas and beyond.

It should be admitted that Ancient Greece has given a lot to the modern world and European culture. These are the Olympic Games, and theater, and a rich architectural and literary heritage, and many philosophical ideas and texts, and much more. Undoubtedly, very important for the entire subsequent development of human knowledge is the emergence in the ancient Greek world of historiographic science, which underwent numerous changes on its way, passed from myth to reality.

Bibliography

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (3^rd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Immerwahr, Henry. “Historical Action in Herodotus.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 85 (1954): 16–45.

Immerwahr, Henry. “Ergon: History as a Monument in Herodotus and Thucydides.” The American Journal of Philology 81, no, 3 (1960): 261–290.

Pelling, Christopher. “Bringing Autochthony Up-to-Date: Herodotus and Thucydides.” The Classical World 102, no, 4 (2009): 471–483.

Scanlon, Thomas. “Echoes of Herodotus in Thucydides: Self-Sufficiency, Admiration, and Law.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 43, no. 2 (1994): 143–176.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Greeks and Roots of Historical Science

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)