Herodotus tried to sound objective, but he obviously incorporated a lot of his interpretations into the storytelling. What's refreshing is that his interpretations are based on the criteria of plausibility. He believed things as so because his reasoning concluded that it was the most plausible. Gods still play a part, but what determines the success is human. Some parts of The Histories read Machiavellian, with its political trickery, schemes, manipulations of public sentiments; but for Herodotus the bottom line is democracy is better than dictatorship (as it is for Machiavelli). Many characters were portrayed as incredibly wise, among which Deioces and Croesus are the most unforgettable to me. The gist of the wisdom Herodotus intended to impart is moderation and balance. "It is always the largest building and the tallest trees on which Zeus hurls his thunderbolt. It is the god's way to curtail anything excessive." Great nations were almost always doomed by the rulers' excessive passion to expand territory and march forever onward. The greatest ruler, Herodotus believes, is the one who balances courage with fear, passion with modesty.

"When the moment finally came to declare their purpose, the Babylonians, in order to reduce the consumption of food, herded together and strangled all the women in the city - each man exempting only his mother, and one other woman whom he chose out of his household to bake his bread for him."

As the British Government bludgeons the nation with its ideologically-driven 'Austerity Budget', note that the ancients had a strategy or two for surviving straitened times themselves. And they managed to protect 'front-line' services. Who doesn't like to wake up to the smell of freshly-baked rolls? Now, how does one get one's hands on Theresa May?

"...As for Samos, the Persians took the entire population like fish in a drag-net, and presented Syloson with an empty island. Some years later, however, Otanes contracted some sort of disease of the genital organs and that, in conjunction with a dream he had, induced him to repopulate the place."

Seriously. Wtf?! I mean, who hasn't dreamed of personally repopulating an island [I know I have:], but just how fertile does a guy have to be that an std leaves him debilitated to the degree that he can only re-seed an entire race like some Zeus on the loose? I thought all these dudes preferred boys so what's with that? If I didn't know Herodotus had such a downer on hearsay I'd swear someone was pulling his leg.

"...for I have never heard of a man who after an unbroken run of luck was not finally brought to complete ruin. Now I suggest that you deal with the danger of your continual successes in the following way: think of whatever it is you value most - whatever you would most regret the loss of - and throw it away: throw it right away, so that nobody can ever see it again. If, after that, you do not find that success alternates with failure then go on using the remedy I have advised."

Harsh.

"...He was blind for ten years, after which he received an oracle from the city of Buto to the effect that the time of his punishment being now ended, he would recover his sight, if he washed his eyes with the urine of a woman who had never lain with any man except her husband.

He tried his wife first, but without success - he remained as blind as ever."

Jeez, there has to be an easier way to discover you're a cuckold.

This Landmark edition of Herodotus' Histories deserves no less than 5 stars so that's what it gets from me. If I rated it on how much I actually enjoyed reading it, it would have to be 3 stars with parts being 5 stars and 2 stars and everywhere in-between. I went through this pretty quickly without trying to study it. I skimmed some of the parts that dealt with the minutia of particular topics that didn't have a lot of interest to me. Unless you're interested in just about every ology and ography you're going to be bored in some parts.

This edition is absolutely fantastic with lots of maps, pictures, and wonderful annotations.
I'm glad to own it so that I have it for reference when reading ancient historical works that relate to the 5th century BC. It has an awesome dated outline of the text that makes it extremely easy to find things. I lost my place a couple of times and it was no problem getting back on track with that outline.

Besides the edition getting five stars, I also give Herodotus five stars for creating such a thoughtful comprehensive work of events and ideas in his time.

If you are an English speaker there is no reason for you to consider buying any other edition of this text. Brilliantly translated, filled with just the right amount of footnotes, maps and pictures, and there is an appendix for pretty much everything you could think of.

A generation had no living memory of the greatest danger that the Greeks had ever lived through, but one man decided to change all that and gift posterity with a new genre. The Histories written by Herodotus details 80 crucial years from the rise of the Persian Empire to the defeat the remnants of Xerxes expedition and the events that led to the latter.

Using knowledge gleamed from extensive travel across the ancient world Herodotus begins his historical narrative by giving the ‘legendary’ encounters between the peoples of Europe and Asia before delving into the more ‘historical’ events that lead to Xerxes’ grand expedition. Herodotus details the history of the kingdom of Lydia that was the first to conquer populations of Greeks, those in western Anatolia, and how its great king Croesus lost his war to Cyrus the Great thus placing those same Greeks under the rule of Persia. The history of the Medes and their conquest by the Persians is related then the subsequent history of the Persian Empire until the Ionian revolt which led to the intervention of Athens and setting the stage for Darius expedition to Marathon. Intertwined with the rise of Persia was Herodotus relating the events within various Greek city-states, in particular Athens and Sparta, that contributed to the reasons for first Darius’ expedition and then to Xerxes’. Eventually his narrative would go back and forth between the two contending sides throughout the latter conflict as events unfolded throughout 480-479 BC.

The sheer volume of material that Herodotus provides is impressive and daunting for a reader to consider. Not only does he cover the political and military events, but numerous past historical and general culture aspects as well as lot of biographies and antidotal digressions that add color to the overall piece. Given that this was the first history ever written it’s hard to really criticize Herodotus—though Thucydides apparently had no problem later—but some digressions I wish Herodotus had left out or not heard at all.

The Histories by Herodotus is one of classic historical works that needs to be read by anyone who enjoys reading history. Whether or not you love the style of writing or even the topic, this book is important because it literally is the first history book.

When reading this book, I was a bit obsessed, something that is not out of the ordinary for me when reading a book that I thoroughly enjoy, and I found myself incessantly offering up unsolicited little tales from the histories to friends and family, finding good use of these stories in many situations in my life, especially when someone was complaining about the present. Little consolations, you could call them. Calls to reality. Someone would say,

"Oh, thank God it’s Friday, this week has been pure hell!"

to which I would respond,

"be glad it’s not the week that the Persians came to your city like they did to Barce, whose men ended up impaled on poles around the city walls, then whose wives' breasts were cut off and pinned on the wall next to them. That sounds a little bit more hell-like to me. I mean, it’s all about perspective, right guys!?"

Or when the people in my life complained about how bad the world is today, I would shell out gruesome tales from Herodotus to remind them just how good it actually is for us in terms of pain and suffering. I found this whole sharing-of-Herodotus thing to be quite cathartic. Maybe, I should take up writing inspirational, encouraging, and consoling hallmark cards utilizing gruesome tales from ancient history. Not an entirely bad idea, I don't think. Sharing some of these stories is a wonderful way of dropping a bomb on political discourse between the right and the left too! The left complaining about oppression, justice, and inequality, brought on by the right And the right complaining about the impending doom of the apocalypse brought on by the left. It is very easy through many of these tales to bring a better perspective to both of these extreme views. But, my dad ended up asking me a question that I think is important to address, something that we should all contemplate, he was understandably annoyed I think, by the fact that I had talked about nothing else but Herodotus for several weeks, and asked, “Why should I care about this Herodotus guy at all. Who cares?”

So, as fascinating to me personally as all of these enquiries of Herodotus are, and as consoling as they are to me personally, my dad’s comment put the brakes on my excitement and got me thinking. Well, what exactly is the point to all of this? And Why should I care? All of this history is kind of pointless unless we’re able to utilize this information in some way.

So, why read Herodotus?
Or, why study history at all?

I’m gonna offer up what I think are three important reasons. That are helpful to all of mankind.

1. History teaches us to think critically
2. History helps us understand the present
3. History teaches us to be humble

History provides us with the tools to think critically, as students of history we evaluate evidence rationally and with an open-mind, letting the evidence guide us. It is obvious in the world that we live in today with constant misinformation and the seemingly ever expansive lack of critical thinking abilities employed in modern discourse that our society would largely benefit from the use of the critical thinking skills that are required of us as students of history.

History provides us with the tools to better understand the present, and through the critical analysis of past events history helps us to better maneuver future dilemmas. The famous aphorism “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it” rings true in that as the Preacher of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun” Humanity is sinful and broken and falls into the same old traps over and over again in new ways. History helps us to identify these patterns.

Lastly, and most importantly History teaches us to be humble. We all have the tendency to believe that we are the most important beings in the universe, that there is no time before or after our own existence that is as important as today. Especially within our consumerist, psychological, identity-based, self-focused society where we are always looking inside ourselves and zooming in on our time and what is happening immediately around us. We see the world and the events happening around us as the most important, but if we zoom out from our small existence and our small place in time, Like the psalmist was humbled when contemplating the vastness of the night sky, in Psalm 8, wondering who man is that God is mindful of him, we too will begin to be humbled when looking into the vastness of History as we contemplate the reality of our small existence in comparison to the deep space of time that expands out from the present to both past and future. As GK Chesterton said in his book, Orthodoxy: “If a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small.” And the study of history does exactly that.

These first principles of history are found in abundance in Herodotus.

Herodotus (unlike most people of his time and of ours for that matter) does not see the world in terms of black and white. Bad and Good. He does not see Greece as the only ones in the universe that matter. He is aware from the research he has done, and through his contemplation of history and culture that mankind is immensely complex. That each person brings with them a different perspective and worldview seeped through with hundreds or thousands of years of cultural infusion.

He is constantly moving about from tangent to tangent due to the fact that he cannot help himself from being drawn in by these people, and places, with all of their differing customs and traditions, and in his exploration of these things, he leaves for us a sort of guide on how to navigate a complex world of differing worldviews. Something that has never been as relevant to mankind in the way that it is today. Especially in a place like the United States of America were walking down a random street in L.A. or New York, would easily provide a cultural sensory-overload as you take in differing food smells, languages, appearances of different people and imagine their accompanying worldviews. How are we to make sense of anything in a world like this?



I watched a great interview with Tom Holland whose translation of The Histories was published in 2013. He brought to my attention the exemplary tale of Cambyses who was Cyrus’s elder son. He takes over after Cyrus’ death and immediately takes on the Egyptians. He struts into Egypt following his victory over them in battle, and some of the Egyptians were worshiping a calf who they believed to be the God Apis. Cambyses is angered with the Egyptians for celebrating this calf believing that he should have received the same type of celebration. Herodotus then goes on to give us more examples of this Cambyses guy making a fool of himself. That he violated graves in Memphis, mocked the Egyptian Hephaestus in his temple and burned the Cabiri at their shrine. Making it obvious that Cambyses was a bit of a petulant tyrant.

Herodotus writes,

“[3.38] In view of all this, I have no doubt that Cambyses was completely out of his mind; it is the only possible explanation of his assault upon, and mockery of, everything which ancient law and custom have made sacred in Egypt.”

“If anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably - after careful considerations of their relative merits - choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things. There is abundant evidence that this is the universal feeling about the ancient customs of one's country.”

What Herodotus does here through this amazing story is to show us a bit of the workings of his own mind. His empathetic perspective toward the Egyptians concerning Cambyses lack of consideration concerning the Egyptian culture and their religion. And his incredibly wise and non-partisan perspective toward all men. He understood that we all believe our cultures and customs to be the best, and that because of that Cambyses would have had to have been completely out of his mind insane to make a mockery out of someone’s beliefs.

He continues,

“One might recall, for example, an anecdote of Darius. When he was king of Persia, he summoned the Greeks who happened to be present at his court, and asked them what they would take to eat the dead bodies of their fathers. They replied that they would not do it for any money in the world. Later, in the presence of the Greeks, and through an interpreter, so that they could understand what was said, he asked some Indians of the tribe called Callatiae, who do in fact eat their parents' dead bodies, what they would take to burn them. They uttered a cry of horror and forbade him to mention such a dreadful thing. One can see by this what custom can do.”

Custom, tradition, and culture help formulate our perspective, for each one of us. Herodotus realized this, and hoped to teach others this valuable lesson. To lock ourselves into black and white thinking where we leave no room for caution and grace when dealing with fellow human beings is foolish and ignorant.

And I think I will end this review with what is another beautiful case in the latter part of the histories where Herodotus once again shows us a bit more of the workings of his mind. It is In Part 7 if I’m not mistaken when Xerxes is up on a hill looking down over the Hellespont and his vast armies, Herodotus writes of Xerxes weeping, when asked why he is crying Xerxes responds,

“There came upon me, a sudden pity when I thought of the shortness of man’s life, and considered that of all of this host, so numerous as it is, not one will be alive when a hundred years has gone by.”

And Herodotus through this passage writes into Xerxes with these words a tragic Greek perspective, exemplifying an empathetic view of the great Persian that brought about the destruction of Greece, and showed him to be a man of wisdom who like Herodotus understood from the contemplation of time and history, something that King David of Israel, and The preacher of Ecclesiastes, Homer, Sophocles, etc, all contemplated as well, which is the great futility of human endeavors when viewed through long scope of History.

I for one am glad that Herodotus wrote this book, and started this wonderful western tradition of research and enquiry concerning past events, and I hope that just as it effected Herodotus’ worldview and perspective to be more open-minded and humble toward his fellow man, the study of history would likewise do the same for all of us who enjoy to peer back into the annals of the past. May we defy the age that we live in, and step out of the increasingly polarized dialogue of modern politics to contemplate the immense complexity of the age we live in, may we be graceful to people who think differently than ourselves, and may we be humbled to think about all of the ways in which our existence is fleeting and our human endeavors are futile.

"Inquiry" is the proper title of this work, from the Greek ἱστορία, but Herodotus will never be known as "The Father of Inquiries," so I guess he's stuck with the History tag. It is helpful to know that the goal of Herodotus was not strictly an accounting of events -- his primary purpose was to ask questions about remarkable things (including foreign cultures, bizarre landscapes, strange animals, and amazing tales) and report them in a way that might eventually explain the reasons for the Persian War. History as we know it was only a part of his overall project. Herodotus was influenced not only by Homer in the way he reports his findings, but also by the Ionian intellectual revolution that spawned the first scientists. He's a really curious guy, and his curiosity isn't limited to military or political events.

The most amazing tale of his time and place was the rise of the Persian Empire and their improbable defeat at the hands of a much smaller coalition of Greek city states. That story is the crowning concern of the Inquiry, but leading up to that are examinations of all of the people and lands which were at some point in contact with the Persians, especially the Egyptians, the Scythians, and of course the Greeks. There are numerous "digressions" on almost every conceivable subject, but each side trip circles back to the path to the heart of the book: the nature of and reasons for the Persian-Greek conflict. In the process he reveals something about the character of humanity in general. He makes no final conclusions about this, but he opens the way for rich discussion.

“Of all men’s miseries the bitterest is this: to know so much and to have control over nothing.”

“The only good is knowledge, and the only evil is ignorance.”

This is one of those books that offers both entertainment and intellectual stimulation in equal measure. While its status as one of the earliest works of history often places it on a pedestal, I found it to be an enjoyable and engaging read for its unique blend of storytelling and historical observation.

One of the key takeaways from this text is Herodotus’ understanding of human nature and fate. His famous quote, “In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons,” encapsulates the tragic cyclical nature of life and death, particularly in times of conflict. The narrative often oscillates between profound reflections on the human condition and captivating tales of ancient peoples, making it both a philosophical and historical work.

Herodotus also frequently reflects on the complex and paradoxical nature of human behavior. In his observation that “Human beings are more inclined to believe a lie that is told in a convincing way than to be persuaded by a truthful fact,” he strikes a timeless chord about the human tendency to value appearances over truth. This theme resonates deeply, especially in today’s age of misinformation.

The book also contains fascinating accounts of wars, battles, and the rise and fall of great empires. One passage that stood out to me was when Herodotus said, “Great deeds are usually wrought at great risks.” This is a reminder that courage and sacrifice are often the underpinnings of history’s most significant moments. Whether recounting the Persian Wars or detailing the exploits of ancient kings, his storytelling captures the drama of these events in a way that makes them feel alive and vibrant.

Though Herodotus’ work is often fragmented, with a mix of history, mythology, and personal anecdotes, it still manages to hold together as a cohesive narrative. His insight into the complexity of power dynamics is reflected in the quote, “The most important thing in life is not to be afraid of what happens.” This attitude permeates his historical accounts, where power and control often come at a cost, but the resilience of individuals and societies is what ultimately shapes history.

Overall, I really enjoyed reading The Histories—it was both thought-provoking and entertaining. There were moments when the storytelling felt a little scattered, but those moments of insight and timeless wisdom more than made up for it. Herodotus’ reflections on life, fate, and human nature provide a rich, sometimes humorous, and always fascinating lens through which to view the past!

Herodot - turista i istoričar? Nije baš pravedno predstaviti ga u ovakvom redosledu, ali da je putovao, putovao je... Zamišljam te avanture pešice, na konjima, zapregama, brodovima… Koliko vremena da se stigne na sva ta mesta, a bilo je i opasno. Egipćani nisu ni želeli da putuju velikim plavim morem, držali su se Nila, a ni Grci se nisu oduševljavali kad se udalje od obala. Herodot ne samo da je proputovao Grčku, posetio Skitiju, već je dospeo do Persije, proveo par meseci u Egiptu, stigao i do južnih egipatskih oblasti, današnjeg Sudana.

Ovog fascinantnog Grka, rođenog 484 p.n.e. u današnjem Bodrumu, Ciceron je nazvao Otac istorije, a Plutarh Otac laži. Tek ovo je nepravedno - njegova zadužbina u obliku Istorije je kolosalna. Koliko je Herodot danas citiran, može da znači da bi bez njega gomila istorijskih činjenica bila izgubljena. O Skitima skoro da i nema drugih zapisa, čitava istorija jednog vremena ne bi postojala. Da je neki Herodot posetio stare Slovene...

Neki njegovi zapisi jesu u najmanju ruku nesigurni, ali ja imam pomalo romantičarski (naivan?) pogled na to. Sigurno nije namerno prenosio neistine, već je skupljao informacije i preneo dalje. Ponekad su priče pojednostavljene, umesto istorijskih dokumenata dobijamo seriju anekdota, ali ovo jeste sjajan pogled na grčku istoriju, mentalitet tog (i drugih) naroda. A opisom običaja dobijamo ne samo početak istorije, već i početak etnografije.

A kad sam već kod te reke anekdota, ona znači i da se ovo čita kao literatura. Nema suvoparnog prenosa činjenica, ovo su priče koje te zovu da im se vratiš. Teško se zaboravlja priča o odrastanju persijskog vladara Kira Velikog ili o tome kako je Kserks kaznio lokalnog vladara koji je molio da mu ne odvede svih pet sinova u rat (presekao ih na pola i proterao celu persijsku armiju putem između njih).

Istorija je podeljena u devet knjiga koje simpatično nose imena devet muza, a počinju pričom o kralju Krasu iz kraljevstva Lidija, kao početku evropsko-azijskog konflikta, a Kras se kasnije neočekivano pojavljuje na nekoliko mesta. Grci protiv Varvara (“barbari” su tako nazvani pošto su Grci njihov govor razumeli samo kao “bar bar bar”, a tako su nazivali sve ne-Helene). Nastavlja usponom Persijskog carstva pa dugačkim putovanjem u Egipat.

Ima iz tog dela o Egiptu interesantna pričica koja govori o Herodotovoj oduševljenosti detaljima, ali i o njegovoj naivnosti. Obilazi tako sa svojim vodičima groblje i nailazi na razbacane kosti i lobanje. Ovo se dešava pedesetak godina nakon velike bitke na tom mestu, a kad upita svoje vodiče kakve su to kosti, odgovaraju mu da su ostale tu nakon bitke. Pedeset godina kasnije? Već i ovo navodi na sumnju, ali sledi još nerazumnije objašnjenje - pogledajte kako Egipćani imaju deblje lobanje, pošto su navikli da nose šlemove i kape, dok Persijanci imaju tanke lobanje zato što hodaju gologlavi, pa im sunčevi zraci tanje kosti.

U Egiptu se bavi i pogrešnim prevodom hijeroglifa na piramidama, pa tako ti znakovi navodno govore o tome šta su radnici jeli i pili za vreme gradnje istih, što nema nikakve veze sa stvarnim prevodom. Moguće da je vodič bio nepismen, nije hteo to da prizna, pa je izmišljao dok su išli? Ipak, proces mumificiranja je opisan dosta verno i pošto egipatski mumifikatori nisu ostavljali nikakve zapise o tom procesu (valjda su ljubomorno čuvali znanje u okviru branše), ispada da je Herodotovo upustvo za mumifikaciju najbolje koje imamo.

U poslednjoj trećini Istorije, Herodot se vraća u Grčku i tu sledi klimaks - grčko-persijski ratovi. Ovo je zapis o tada skorijoj istoriji, o događajima od pre par decenija, kao kad bismo danas pisali o o ratu u Vijetnamu. Imao je mnogo izvora, preživelih svedoka, sigurno i zapisa iz tog doba. Prvi put imamo delo koje se bavi skorašnjim događajima umesto o legendama. Jonska pobuna protiv Persijanaca, pa manje bitke koje slede i prvi vrhunac sa atinskom pobedom kod Maratona (490 p.n.e.). Nakon Darijeve smrti, detaljna priča o velikom Kserksovom pohodu u kom želi da kazni Atinjane za nesreću svog oca. Nakon junačkog poraza Spartanaca kod Termopila, Atinjani nekim čudom (može se reći ni sami ne znaju kako) uspevaju da poraze persijsku flotu u pomorskoj bitci kod Salamine 480 p.n.e. Ako je antička grčka civilizacija temelj evropske i generalno zapadne civilizacije, koliko bi samo evropska istorija bila drugačija da nisu?

Ima i ovde stvari kojima na prvi pogled nije mesto u istorijskom delu. Uticaj bogova, na primer. Na trenutke je kao da čitaš Ilijadu, pa su ljudi u glavnim ulogama, ali bogovi redovno intervenišu i povlače niti. Čak i kad ne tvrdi da je neki događaj posledica odluke božanstva, ne postoji velika odluke koja nije donešena na osnovu žrtve bogovima i toga “da li je žrtva bila ugodna”. Uzmeš kozu ili bika, zavisno koliko je veliko pitnaje, žrtvuješ ga, onda je seciraš i na osnovu toga kako izgledaju jetra ili srce, proceniš da li treba da primiš bitku ili da se povučeš.

Ali čak i ti religiozni izveštaji diraju u srce. Detaljan opis dana koji prethode bitci kod Salamine govori kako Atinjani šalju ambasadore u proročište u Delfima kako bi proverili šta da rade povodom nadolazeće persijske invazije. Dobijaju odgovor “Bednici, a što sedite? Bežite na kraj sveta! Ostav’te domove vaše i brežuljke okruglog grada. Jer mi ni glava čitava, ni telo ostati neće… Čist’te se sad iz hrama i na nevolje spremni bud’te.”

Kad su već pali u očajanje posle ovoga, vrate se još jednom, sa novim žrtvama i mole za ugodnije proročanstvo: “Gospode, smiluj se na ove grančice s kojima smo ti došli i proreci nam nešto bolje o našoj otadžbini, u protivnom slučaju nećemo otići iz hrama, nego ćemo ostati tu dok ne umremo.” Srećom, dok sam ovo prepričavao ćerki, seckao sam luk za ramstek, pa nije mogla biti sigurna zbog čega tati suze oči.

Herodot pokušava da bude objektivan i ne predstavlja varvare kao proste divljake, ali ipak se radi o ratu između sila porobljavanja (Persije) i sila slobode (Atina) i njegova strast izbija sa svake strane. I ta strast se kroz ovo (inače, prvo preživelo dugačko delo u prozi) prenosi i na čitaoca. Priznajem, ponekad nije lako ispratiti sve sitnice - poznavanje grčke mitologije je skoro pa preduslov, a ne treba zaboraviti da je ovo istorija bez godina, pa je fino pratiti Vikipediju za dobijanje osećaja o vremenu - ali vredi truda. Herodot u uvodu kaže da je ovo delo pisao “radi toga da se vremenom ne bi umanjio značaj onoga što je čovečanstvo stvorilo, te da velika i divna dela, i ona koja su stvorili Heleni, kao i ona koja su stvorili varvari, ne bi bila zaboravljena, i zato da bi objasnio zašto je između Helena i varvara dolazilo do ratova.” Čitamo ga 2.500 godina kasnije, moglo bi se reći da je uspeo u tome.

P.S. Pre čitanja odgledao sam sjajan
Yale-ov kurs u 24 predavanja o istoriji antičke Grčke.

4,25 stars- English hardcover

This history is truly remarkable.

Herodotus showed me that history is in the eye of the beholder: the facts are there to be interpreted through the eye of the historian and there are many ways to interpret depending on your worldview and experience.

That said, Herodotus physically explored his world to a remarkable degree, and this some 2,500 years ago.

I surely liked two things: that he rigorously identifies his sources and articulates any concerns: " I saw this", "I was told this and I accept it", and "I heard this but do not necessarily accept it".
And, he follows a piece of material along its path through time; and when finished returns to his narrative. Not for him the "times,dates,places" of recent western history.

If you are in doubt of his ancient power to enthrall, look at his account of the conflict between Cyrus 1 Shah of Shahs and Tomyrus warrior Queen of the Massagetae.

I believe him to be a wonderful writer with many messages for the present from long ago.

I realy recommended it!

احساس می کنم داشتم سیندرلا و هفت کوتوله می خوندم
صد رحمت به گزنفون و کتزیاس
پر از اشتباهات و غلط های تاریخی غیر قابل بخشش بود ❗
۱) اول از همه اینکه ایرانیان بربر نبودند و هیچ وقت برده داری نمی کردند برخلاف گزافه گویی های هرودوت
۲) نویسنده از همان آغاز کتاب که منابع ایرانی را دروغ و تبلیغات پنداشت و هرودوت دشمن ایران را یگانه منبع معتبر انگاشت !
۳)این کتاب از پادشاهی کمبوجيه به بعد فقط به گزافه گویی و افسانه سرایی و دروغ بافی پرداخته و از خشایارشاه چهره ای زشت آفریده

وقتی هرودوت از آمار ۵/۵ میلیون سپاه ایران سخن می گوید واضح است که خشایارشا کل جمعیت ایران رو با خودش به میدان جنگ برده بوده :)


❌
!کبوجیه گاو آپیس را نکشت و مومیایی فرعون را نسوزاند
با مردمان مصر به خوبی همچون پدر عزیزش رفتار کرد

اگر به نوشته های خصمانه هرودوت نسبت به ایرانیان چشم پوشی کنیم و به وقایع تاریخی که صحت دارند و افسانه نیستند بپردازیم متوجه می شویم که وقتی خشایارشا وارد آتن می شود به قدری با مردمان یونان به خوبی همچون پدر بزرگ عادل خویش کورش دوم رفتار می کند که مردم او را مورد ستایش قرار می دهند و جالب ترین نکته این است که خشایارشا با لباس مردم محلی یونان وارد معبد دلفی و آکروپل می شود و ادای احترام می کند به خدایان یونانی ! این کار خشایارشا بسیار برای مردم تاثیرگذار می شود که برای تشکر و قدر دانی از خشایارشا مجسمه وی را می سازند و در معبدآکروپل و دلفی قرار می دهند
و متاسفانه جفت معابد آکروپل و دلفی در جنگ های داخلی یونان و شورش های مردم مورد تخریب قرار می گیرند و به آتش کشیده می شوند. جالب اینجاست که هرودوت تاریخ نویس یونانی که از نظر اکثر مورخان وی را افسانه نویس خطاب می کنند او به دروغ در کتاب خود می نویسد که خشایارشا معبد آکروپل را سوزانید و به ناموس مردم تعدی کرد!!!!!! و همین دروغ و تحریف تاریخ هرودوت باعث می شود که اسکندر مقدونی در سال های آتی کینه معبد آکروپل را به دل بگیرد و تخت جمشید(پرسپولیس ) را به آتش و ویرانگی بکشاند ! افسوس

Unreal book, at the intersection of Greek, Lydian, Persian and Egyptian history, and at the intersection of history and legend. Full of fascinating anecdotes and surmises, signs and wonders.