Please read as much of you can of Books I and II of Herodotus' Persian War. Concentrate especially on Sections 1-14 of Book I and Sections 10-27, 123-131, 160, and 174 of Book II.Suppose that, instead of looking for a poet, Zeus and Dionysius were trying to find a great historian to bring back with them to Olympus. Cite a story or two from Herodotus showing why he might be a good candidate for the spot, and explain how this material shows Herodotus' strengths as a historian. If you're not impressed with Herodotus, cite a passage that shows why he ought to be left in Hades.
Herodotus would definitely be a great candidate as a historian for Zeus and Dionysius; the writer includes many vivid details and interesting side stories to create the best possible account of the Persian War. One example of such side story includes the tale of king Candaules and his beautiful wife. The king, so in love with his wife, forces his slave, Gyges, to see her nude to prove her beauty. Gyges gets caught so the queen gives the men an ultimatum, one of them must die for their wrongdoings. Obviously this story lacks some credibility; yet, it exemplifies how Herodotus incorporates propaganda from this era to give a better overview of the Persian War and things that occurred ‘behind the scenes’. Although debatable, this kind of historian would defiantly be entertaining.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the text Herodotus also includes random accounts of philosophy; which is another potential reason why Herodotus would be a qualified historian for Zeus and Dionysius. For example in book one he states, “The wealthy man is better able to content his desires, and to bear up against a sudden buffet of calamity. The other has less ability to withstand these evils…” This aspect, also is not necessary for providing historic information, does create for a smoother, more interesting story.
I think that Herodotus would be a good historian for Zeus because he did a lot of traveling to places, interviewed people and did investigative work for his reports on what was happening. I think that reading different people's perspectives on history is okay, and in the case of Herodotus it is very entertaining and exciting. Maybe he does add some extra details at times, but that is what makes it entertaining. For example, the story in Book 1 about the letter sent to Cyrus in a rabbit's belly that was sewn up in order to make sure that nobody else saw the letter except Cyrus. Harpagus wanted to tell Cyrus that they wanted him to be head of the throne. As a historian, Herodotus could have just told us that a letter was sent to Cyrus, just telling us the bare facts, but instead he adds many entertaining details that make the story more interesting.
ReplyDeleteMichael Abu-Sirriya
Herodotus would definetely be worth bringing back. He gives vivid details but doesn't go into depth on things that aren't worth going into depth on. At first while reading this I thought Herodotus gave his opinion a little to much. But I found that after giving his opinion he always backed it up with details usually given to him by some source such as priests. On page 101 Herodotus says, "Egypt, I consider, is the whole extent of territory inhabited by Egyptians." At first I thought why does he think this but then on page 102 he says, "The opinion I have expressed about the extent of Egypt is supported by an oracle delivered from the shrine of Ammon..." Herodotus is a good historian and my only complaint is he could use fewer words when he trying to make a point.
ReplyDeleteI'm really a fan of Herodotus, he is worth bringing back to Olympus. I really like his use of details throughout the book. I really can't pick out one story example as to why he is worth it, I just really happened to like him pretty much through the entire book. I think what I enjoy the most is that he is very entertaining.
ReplyDelete-Alicyn Even
JEREMY BEULAH:
ReplyDeleteHerodotus should be able to go to Olympus, beacuse he gives detail and information for example Book I and section 10-27 the one you gave us to read and how he gave background information and transitions from this that was going on in this time period.
Herodotus wouldn't be a bad choice for Zeus to pick as the historian for Mt. Olympus. He does a good job of laying out the information, but he also does a good job of analyzing the history. As someone points out above, Herodotus also throws in some philosophy, which adds a differenet flavor to his writting.
ReplyDeleteHerodotus wrote, "If, then, they once had no place to live in, why did they make such a business of the theory that they are the oldest race in the world." Herodotus was analyzing the history and landscape of the Egyptians and the Eqyptians' coastline. I also thought it was interesting the three major landform or continents were Asia, Europe, and Libya.
Herodotus has a lot of strengths in his writing. you can notice that he is using multiple sources to define what actually happened such as the story of Io on pages 2 to 3 when he claims to have used both Greek and Persian documents.
ReplyDeleteThis is some cases also makes him weak because there are so many sources and so many different ways of telling the story, it is hard to tell what actually happened. (difficult for anybody)
Joe Adam
I think Herodotus would make a great historical guide. I like the way he tells the stories. I found it very interesting that he decided to keep a neutral position on everything he learned during his travels. He actually states this is his intention in Book 1 section 5, "I have no intention of passing judgment on its truth or falsity." Also in Book 2 section 123 he says he's "to record the traditions of the various nations just as I heard them related to me." This willingness to record all stories as told makes him a good choice for a historical guide.
ReplyDeleteHerodotus seems to use many of the techniques of the modern historian. First, he cites his sources, and often cites more than one if the story seems incredible, then explains why his sources are to be credited. One example of this is in 1.24, in which he tells how Arion is rescued by a dolphin. He cites the Corinthians as a primary source, and states that the Lesbians corroborate the story.
ReplyDeleteHerodotus is also very good at explaining to the reader what is going on in the world in general around the same time as the events he is focused on, as well as giving background information on key players. This sort of contextual information gives us a view of the bigger picture. He even gives very detailed information on the geography of the areas under discussion, such as he could discover. An example of this is his description of Egypt in Book 2, which, though often incorrect, is rather impressive.
The one fault I notice in his work is a considerable tendency to digress from his stated purpose. He adds a lot of very interesting information and stories when he does this, but this is something historians try to avoid (albeit, not altogether successfully).
John Kath:
ReplyDeleteHerodotus would be a great historian to bring to Olympus. The opening paragraph very clearly states his purpose for telling history. it is simple yet somewhat beautiful. In the next few pages he goes on to tell why exactly the Greeks and Persians don't like each other. It gives the reader a chance to see things from both sides. That is one strength of Herodotus, he doesn't give a biased history.
The best part about Herodotus is that he tells it like a story. it is not like reading an old and stuffy history book that has names and dates with no charachter. Herodotus weaves interesting stories, and points into the big picture and that is what makes history come alive.
Herodotus would be, in my opinion, a candidate for either side, both good and bad. Good because he does seem to have the right information about what all happens during that time. Bad because some of the information that is presented seems either made up or the information was right but seems like he couldn't have gotten away with what he was talking about.
ReplyDeleteHe does tell of what is going on with battles being fought and the war about to begin. He also makes you feel like you are there experiencing what is happening, which is what people who are telling stories about history are suppose to do.
Herodotus would be a good candidate for the role of historian of Mt. olympus because he is a good historian. His writings give a history of hings and events without him giving his own opinions on each subject. He is very unbiased in the writings that he has and just gives the facts. He is also very good about tracing the lineage of kings back multiple generations and relating them to a prophecy made by the oracles. His writings show the work he must have put into them through research in multiple places.
ReplyDeleteBaker Haar
Herodotus would be a great choice for Zeus and Dionysus for a few reasons. Just on the first page, one can immediately see that he is describing the origins of tension between Greeks and Persians. He is answering a specific question, starting from the beginning, like a good historian would. Not only that, but he also includes information from both sides. A great example of that is when he says, also on the first page, "This, according to the Persian account (the Greeks have a different story), was how Io came to Egypt; and this was the first in a series of unjust acts."
ReplyDeleteHerodotus would be a good choice for Zeus and Dionysus to welcome to Olympus. He tells a story, and he tells it well. Also, like James said, he looks at both sides of the story, just like a good historian would. A good example of this occurs early, on page 5. After talking about the Persians and Phoenicians say, Herodotus writes: "So much for what Persians and Phoenicians say; and I have no intention of passing judgment on its truth or falsity." He does later say he relies on his own judgment and Greek "facts", but he does at least point out that there are opposing arguments and he addresses them, like a good historian would.
ReplyDeleteHerodotus would be a good choice to be the historian of Olympus because he paints a vivid picture with words. This is a result of him being very descriptive in his writing; he does not leave out details. This is shown when he talks about the two lad of Argos and how they rushed their mom to the celebration of Hera in the ox-cart because that was of utmost importance. You can vividly see the boys rushing with their mom in the back to the celebration. Also he demonstrates both sides of the story.
ReplyDeleteRobbi Kannas
When Herodotus is telling the story of trade in Hellas, he, when introducing Io, writes, "Amongst these was the King's daughter, whom Greek and Persian writers agree in calling Io...". By this account he is clearly cross referencing both sides of the story and multiple accounts as well, which is a necessity in writing an accurate account.
ReplyDeleteIn Book II he writes, "...was succeeded [Cheops] after his death by...Chephren. Chephren was no better...he built a pyramid but of a smaller size (I measured both of them myself.) By this account he displays another great characteristic of a historian Zeus and Dionysius would want to take with them - he gains vital hands-on experience which leads to extremely accurate information.
- Jefferson Gunderson