What Are The Strengths And Weaknesses Of Herodotus

Throughout history historians have debated the reliability of Herodotus’ “The Histories”. Cicero, the well-renowned Roman philosopher described him as ‘The Father of History’ but many historical critics since have labelled him ‘The Father of Lies’. This essay will attempt to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of Herodotus’ writing as a historical source. One of the primary problems with Herodotus’ works is due to the characteristics of historical writing at the time. Roman biographer Plutarch criticises Herodotus for the sensationalism present throughout his works.[1] Whilst Herodotus wrote primarily to ‘prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time’[2], it is important to note that he wrote his works for auditory consumption;

Along with the problems with using his accounts as a source, Herodotus’ own sources also bring into question the reliability of his works. Herodotus travelled across Greece and Persia, often dealing with people who had limited knowledge of the stories they were telling, and generally had ambiguous reasons for telling stories in a certain way[3]. This meant that however thorough and impartial Herodotus himself was, the sources of his information will inevitably impair the accuracy of “The Histories”. Furthermore, Herodotus is guilty of his own biases. Throughout his writing Herodotus often favours Athens, using their ‘traditions’ over other accounts. Although Herodotus was not born in Greece, it is clear when reading his works that he feels himself on the side of the Greeks as opposed to the ‘barbarians’[4]. Despite its weaknesses, the importance of Herodotus’ writing cannot be overlooked; J. Saltzman argues that “The Histories” is ‘the only full-length, near-contemporary account’ of the Greco-Persian wars[5], highlighting it’s significance to historians

between the Persian Empire and a number of the Greek states. In 490, king Darius led the Persian army into battle in Marathon, where they were defeated by the Athenian hoplite army. A little over ten years later, Xerxes, the new king of Persia, and his army defeated the Spartan forces when they were shown a way around the Pass of Thermopylae by Ephialtes. The following battles were fought on two fronts; the naval battle at Salamis, in which the Athenian navy defeated the Persians, and the land battle of Plataea during which an alliance of Greek states finally defeated the Persian army. The fact that we take these facts as history is almost entirely down to Herodotus. This simple fact solidifies his significance to historians studying this period of history, as the only near-contemporary account of the time. Cicero and Sallust support this when they argue that ‘the fame of any age is only as great as the skill of the historian chronicling it’[6]. Although “The Histories” are undeniably the most complete source we have for the period in question, it is arguable that other historical methods such as archeology should be used in conjunction with Herodotus’ writing. Indeed, archeology has been used to both prove and disprove parts of “The Histories”: archeological evidence has shown his description of Babylon was exaggerated[7], on the other hand though, his accounts of Scythian’s funeral rites