Strengths And Weaknesses Of Herodotus

It could be argued that the biggest weakness of Herodotus’ writing was the style with which he wrote. Where a modern historian deals with facts, Herodotus often dealt with hearsay and myth, intertwining them with factual observations in a way which historians today would never do. Much of this is due to the manner in which ‘History’ was conducted during his time; even Thucydides claimed that, when it came to speeches at least, it was necessary to ‘make the speakers say what, in [his] opinion, was called for by each situation’[9]. Felix Jacoby argues that History as we know it ‘did not exist in the ancient world’[10], and this presents a problem when evaluating the strengths of any ancient historical work. It becomes clear whilst reading Herodotus’

This is an element of Herodotus’ work that has split critics throughout history: on the one hand Herodotus has been praised for the variety of oral sources that he made use of, but the reliability of these sources has often been questioned. It is important to remember that 5th Century Greek culture was saturated in myths and ‘traditions’, and it’s influence will undoubtably shown itself in Herodotus’ work. This is particularly apparent in the story of the battle of Marathon. J.A.S. Evans argues that, whilst Herodotus didn’t hold the battle in particularly high esteem, it was seen as very important to certain groups of people, ‘too important to be left to historians’[13]. It is apparent that Athenian tradition assigned the battle a lot more importance that Herodotus did, and this evidently contaminates the sources he used. Evans clearly shows the weakness of Herodotus’ sources when he compares Ionian and Athenian traditions regarding the battle of Marathon. In the Persian army were a number of Ionians; it is not clear whether they were sent by the Ionians, although it seems unlikely. Ionian tradition remembers them as ‘brave espionage agents’[13], whilst Athens doesn 't acknowledge them: ‘it had its own quota of legend about Marathon’[13]. This clearly points to the dubious nature of the sources used in “The Histories”. Whilst these

In conclusion then, it would seem that Herodotus’ accounts of the Persian Wars are altogether rather problematic. The combination of sensationalism in order to dramatise his accounts, his use of weak and one-sided sources, and his partiality towards the audience he was writing for all point to a very unreliable and therefore weak source. However as the only contemporary account of the Persian Wars, it’s value, and thus Herodotus’ value as a reporter of the time cannot be