Greco-Roman Historians Assignment 01 With reference to the ancient works you have studied, and to the short article

by Tony Woodman, discuss how Greco-Roman historians differ from, or are similar to, modern historians. Pay particular attention to methodology and the reasons why ancient historians wrote what they did. Assess the methods of the historians discussed in Study Unit 1, and decide which, if any, achieve the sort of accuracy expected from their modern counterparts.

Historiography has a long history reaching all the way back to Herodotus, the Father of History, who wrote in the 400s BC. There were several others who wrote history long before Herodotus but their works do not fall under scientific historiography of analysing the causes and results of events. Herodotus was the first to do this and those who followed in his footsteps were the first historiographers. It is these men we need to compare with our modern historians and discuss the differences and similarities between them. Comparing Thucydides and Herodotus with J.B Bury and Russell Meiggs or Sallust and Tacitus with N.H. Baynes and A.H.M. Jones we see remarkable differences but also similarities between them.

What made Herodotus different from those who wrote before him was that he attempted to make all his information verifiable. He did this through his own experience or contemporary experience of others who witnessed the events. This is similar to our modern historians, using contemporary sources for information of the past. Unfortunately Herodotus could not visit all the places he wrote about or confirm

all the stories he was told. We know when he visited Egypt and wrote about her past he used much information that was given to him by the priests of the temples. Herodotus had little choice but to accept the stories they told. Today we know that much of the information given to him by the priests were false, thanks to archaeology and other modern research. We find in Book 1.5 that Herodotus discusses the reasons for the war between Greece and Persia. As we have mentioned before, by discussing the causes of the war and by gathering information by making personal inquiry, Herodotus became the first person to write history as a scientific genre. Here we find a major similarity between our modern historians and that of the ancients. A link that binds the two. However, at the same time we find another difference between the ancient and modern. Herodotus used the mythical past to explain the causes of the war. A modern historian today know that the myths were mere stories and has little or no historical reality to them and could not be part of the cause. Herodotus also gives his reason for writing his history to make the deeds of the Greeks and Barbarians last for the generations to come. Today historians write history with very much the same aim as Herodotus. They try to preserve the past by writing it down. This reflects in the saying by Plutarch: Those who do not know themselves before they are born, remains a child for all time. Herodotus also made several geographical mistakes in his histories. Again it was impossible for him to visit all the places he wrote about and he had to rely on information from other sources he could not possibly confirm. Because of the limitations of the time his errors have been accepted but such an error from a modern historian would be highly criticized if not down right unacceptable.

We also find the same mistake made by the mercenary captain Xenophon in his Anabasis, who wrote on the retreat of the legendary 10 000. We know today that he made mistakes in describing the geography of the march. Certain cities and site he described could not be on his march back to the coast.

Looking at Thucydides we find an historian that wrote on the Peloponnesian War and that wrote on contemporary history. The benefit form this is that Thucydides experienced much of the war himself and was part of many of the events that took place. Thucydides gives the reason for writing on the Peloponnesian War that it would be the greatest war of all time and would have the greatest effect on Greece than all the wars before. Today we know that the statement was not true as the Second World War was a far greater war than the Peloponnesian War and had far greater consequences. An historian today cannot make such a statement, as he/she cannot tell the future. Also by assuming that an event is greater than all others before or will follow is a subjective view. Historians are not meant to be subjective but objective. We know that total objectivity in history is impossible but all historians must try to keep their study of history objective. However, by analysing the causes of the war and the effects that it had on Greece Thucydides was on the path of the modern historian. Thucydides gives another reason for writing history; to instruct those who sought a political and military career. He clearly states that his work is meant for teaching and does not serve for cheap entertainment. His statement is supported by the fact that the writing is dense and obscure. It is written very difficultly and not every person is capable of reading it.

In this reason for writing history we find a similarity between modern historians and Thucydides. Instead of trying to please his readers by dramatising events and changing facts to make the story better, like many of the historians of the day, he rather settled for a less exciting story of pure facts that was not aimed at the majority of readers but more to the more intellectual readers of the day. We know that many ancient historians did bend the truth to add literary effect for their audiences as explained by Tony Woodman but to some extent Thucydides reason for writing on the Peloponnesian War (excluding his speeches which I will refer to later) proves Woodmans theory of ancient historians main aim to entertain their audience wrong. Looking at Thucydides speeches we find a major contradiction between the ancient and modern historians. In Book 1.22 Thucydides gives us some insight on his speeches. He claims that his speeches he wrote were as accurate as possible. He claims to have attempted to reconstruct the speeches as best as he can remember them or from the most reliable sources he could find. By looking at the different translations of Book 1.22 we conclude that the speeches recorded by Thucydides are as close to the truth as possible. Some translations even state that he placed words into the speeches that he thought the orator would or should have said. In our modern times it is Hollywood and novels that invent speeches and not historians. Another example of alteration of speeches comes from the famous Roman historian Tacitus and his speech of Claudius on the admittance of Gauls into the Senate. Fortunately for us we have the Oratio Lugdunensis, which gives us the opportunity to check Tacitus version of the speech. We find that Tacitus has used much more rhetoric skill and altered the structure and content of the speech to give it literary effect but the main message of the speech is still the same. What these historians have done would be unacceptable in our modern time.

When we study the works of Xenophon on the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War we find that the historian does not give any personal comment and attempts to keep a subjective view. He does not try to sugar-coat Spartas so called view of freedom and how she enforced her dominance over others after her victory over Athens even though he was a firm admirer of Sparta. He does not let his personal feelings get in the way, as all real historians should do. His objectivity is similar to that of modern historians.

Many historians of ancient times firmly believed that anyone who sought to become a public figure or sought a career in politics or as a military officer needed to study history. Ancient historians such as Polybius, Thucydides and Tacitus all believed that without the knowledge about the past one couldnt peruse such careers. To them this was the main aim of historiography. Today, modern historiography still serves to instruct but not as a textbook for politics or for military careers.

The Greek historian Polybius who was the first to write universal history was very much influenced by the divine. He as many other ancient historians believed that the historical events were influenced by the gods and goddesses of the time. Today there are few historians that believe that there are divine influences in our events and even those who believe that God does have influence in our life they still believe in free will.

We also find that ancient historians such as Polybius used different dating systems such as the four-year Olympiad cycle. It is clear that dating events were important to them just as it is today except for the manner of dating, which is less difficult today.

We find under Tacitus that writing on the history of emperors a similarity and difference. Today we have much more freedom writing contemporary history than Tacitus had because of freedom of the press. In many other countries where autocrats rule it is highly dangerous recording contemporary history and we can see why Tacitus makes mention of the little liberty historians had recording and writing the history of a reigning emperor.

When we look at the article by Tony Woodman we can conclude that Woodman compares the ancient historians with modern novelists and play writers. He highly doubts their authenticity and claims they use little historical fact for a basis of broad entertainment similar to that of modern play writers and novelists. The works of these historians of old should be seen as creative writing and works of the imagination.

In my own opinion I have to disagree with the theory presented to us by Woodman. It is clear that Woodman makes a generalization of all ancient historians. We might not have the ability to check all the historians but we can check the Roman historian Tacitus. The copy of Claudius Speech, the Oratio Lugdunensis can be compared to Tacitus version of the Speech. We know that the structure was altered and the speech a bit streamlined but the mainline of the argument of Claudius Speech is exactly the same and there are no inventions brought in by Tacitus.

All the information we have gathered from the ancient historians has enriched our knowledge immensely, and regarding their works as pure invention must be disregarded. Marathon and Salamis were not inventions; Hannibal crossing the Alps was no invention. I do believe that the historical events described by the ancient historians are very much reliable. I do agree that much of it must be examined before we just accept it but I believe that their main objective was to present us with the truth. The speeches Tacitus placed in the mouths of Boudica or those placed in the mouth of Pericles by Thucyidides might not be the exact same, some even invented, but the aim I feel was to gives us an idea of how things were in those days, present us with a taste of the Peloponnesian War and the last great revolt of the Celtic people. Speeches might have been altered and elaborated by the ancient historians and even invented but we cannot compare modern historians and ancient historians and expect to find exact counterparts. It would be comparing Aristotle who thought the heart was the place of human intellect to Chris Barnard, or Archimedes with Edison and expect them to be exact counterparts. History as a discipline science only emerged in the 19th century and it has evolved over years from Herodotus to Evans. By expecting the ancient historian to be the exact counterpart as the modern historians would be impossible.

Biography

Bury and Meiggs, A History of Greece. 4th Edition. Palgrave 1975.

David Grene, Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War. The complete Hobbes translation. The University of Chicago Press. 1989.

R. Evans, Greek and Roman Historiography:; Study Guide CCL825-R

Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome; Translated by Michael Grant. Revised edition. Penguin Classics, 1996

A. Tronson and Prof. Ursula Vogel; Ancient History, Study Guide for ANH301-V (Classical Historiography). University of South Africa 1983