Ok, I am going to say I am officially done reading The Landmark Herodotus as of December 21, 2018. I finished the body of the text long ago but had been holding out with the intent of reading several of the critical essay appendices. I believe I did read one or two of those critical essays, but I don't expect to read more of them any time soon.
My main recommendation is yes, if you are going to read Herodotus, you should most definitely read The Landmark Herodotus. Having all those maps right there at hand while reading is really essential to getting the most out of the book and not having your eyes glaze over as often.
For much of what he writes, I have a sense that I've been hearing references to these same things all my life. Even though it's boring in places, there's a precious vibrancy to hearing the primary source.
It really is amazing to have this account of happenings thousands of years ago. A wonderful grounding in the history of the ancient world.

Herodotus tells a story of how Croesus, King of Lydia, the richest and 
most favored leader of his time, asked Solon the Athenian, a leading question.
 He would not have asked it if he had he not been worried about the answer.
'Who, he asked, 'is the luckiest person in the world?' He must have been eaten
 with doubt, and hungry for reassurance. Solon told him of three lucky people in
 old times. And Croesus more than likely did not listen; so anxious was he 
about himself. And when Solon did not mention him, Croesus was forced to say, 'Do
 you consider me lucky?' Solon did not hesitate in his answer. 'How can I 
tell?' he said. 'You aren't dead yet.'

Later, Croesus sent to the great Oracle at Delphi to know whether he should go to war against the Persians, and the oracle replied: "If Croesus goes to war he will destroy a great empire." Pleased by this answer, Croesus made his necessary alliances and preparations and went out to meet the Persian army. Croesus and his troops were defeated. Croesus’ wife committed suicide and Croesus was dragged before King Cyrus in chains. Croesus figured out that the great empire that would be destroyed would be his own, not the Persian. Most modern-day scholars and historians believe that Croesus died on the pyre where he was placed by Cyrus.

Herodotus opines: "No one is stupid enough to prefer war to peace; in peace sons bury their fathers and in war fathers bury their sons." But the Greeks were great believers in fate, so he adds "However, I suppose the god must have wanted this to happen."

Astyages had a daughter called Mandane, and he dreamed one night that she urinated in such enormous quantities that it filled his city and swamped the whole of Asia.

These Landmark editions are an amazing resource. The Father of history reveals the story of the Persian Wars and by achieving such he contextualizes with anthropological glosses on all the relevant parties. Each succession, each tradition is explored. Is there speculation and conjecture? Well, of course. The approach aspires to an objectivity, affording itself a modernity away from the paen or heroic song. Logistics becomes the order of the day, people grasp that such and not portents or divine favor are what matter. Internecine squabbling appears to be the yoke of civilization. The anecdotes which punctuate are the feats which resound.

Accordingly the Psylli took counsel among themselves, and by common consent made war upon the southwind---so at least the Libyans say, I do but repeat their words---they went forth and reached the desert; but there the south-wind rose and buried them under heaps of sand: whereupon, the Psylli being destroyed, their lands passed to the Nasamonians.

The maps which dominate the Landmark Edition are essential to grasping this sociology of war. The appendixes in the back of the tome were intriguing, particularly exploring the estimation of the sizes of the armies and the consequent impossibility of provisioning for such. I was rather familiar with these arguments, as Delbruck is adamant about the challenges of even feeding mid-sized minatory bands, much less what constitutes nations at war. Incredibly cumbersome, it has been one of the few benefits of the stay at home order: after work, there have few distractions to pull one away from Herodotus.

Herodotus, as advertised, writes with a breezy, conversational, scandalous tone; the Histories can be confusing, and the events related in them are only sometimes of any real interest, but it's fun to just hang out and listen to Herodotus tell stories.

That said, if you were to choose to read excerpts instead of the whole, I wouldn't judge you. Over 700 pages, it all starts to run together pretty badly. Book Two is really fun; Books 6 - 8 cover Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis, the famous, decisive battles in the Greco-Persian War; that's pretty cool stuff, and also fairly straightforward in terms of telling a story.

Like the Iliad, the Histories are incredibly violent. Take the story of Zopyros from Book 3, who turns himself into a Trojan Horse; he mutilates himself - chops off his own nose and ears! - to make his story of being a deserter more believable to the Babylonians, then sacrifices 7,000 of his own troops to build up credibility with them, before finally betraying them and opening the gates to Babylon to allow the Persians to retake it. That's some cold shit, right? There's plenty more where that came from.

The Landmark edition is as good as everyone says it is. Tons of maps (okay, an utterly gratuitous number of maps, but so what? Everyone loves maps) and interesting supporting photos. The Appendices are of varying quality. The main problem with the Landmark edition is that it's coffee table-sized, so it's a total pain in the ass to read.

What I read: Histories by Herodotus

What I expected: Thucydides + Persians

What I got: Mountable battle dolphins
The complete discography of Kid Rock
Eyewitness testimony that Ethiopians produce pitch black semen (no homo)
"Our flying snakes will block out the sun!"
On all levels except physical I am a Mede *Whips the sea*
"Herodotus can I borrow 100,000 Persians?" "1,000,000 Persians? What do you need 5,000,000 Persians for?"
The Virgin Greek pederasty, the Chad Persian piss fetish

“Only YOU would go around carrying a copy of Herodotus.”

What did my friend Richard Halverson mean by ‘only YOU?’

Doesn’t everyone find the big H. interesting and funny?

My summers as music apprentice at Chautauqua Opera gave me tons and tons of free time and (if you’ve ever been there, you know) opportunity to read things outside any syllabus.
While waiting for some prima donna director to mount the perfect ‘Turandot’ I spent hours buried in ‘The Histories.’

Now, I am re-reading this – and finding it as wonderful as before.

Herodotus is not your ordinary historian. He makes things up (my kind of guy). He uses legends and dialogue to explain things—but then again if it weren't for Herodotus there would be no historians.
Herodotus' account is vivid, pertinent, exciting, insightful, and often hilarious as he recounts the people, places, customs, and occurrences in early Greece leading up to the Persian invasion.

Perhaps the most significant portion of this book deals with Xerxes and his invasion of Greece. This story contains the famous Battle of Thermopylae in which the 300 Spartans hold the Persians at bay.
Herodotus bridged the gap between oral story telling and the more detailed factual accounts of later writers, such as Thucydides. Fantastic, readable if not completely reliable!

Sięgając po “Dzieje” na fali chwilowej fascynacji greckim antykiem obawiałem się, czy na pewno podołam lekturze. Teksty źródłowe potrafią być na tyle specyficzne, że trudno czerpać przyjemność z ich czytania, zwłaszcza gdy liczą sobie z grubsza 2500 lat. Obawy te okazały się na szczęście zupełnie bezpodstawne.

Herodot z Halikarnasu, nazywany ojcem historii, posiada również mniej szlachetny przydomek - ojciec kłamstwa. Już w antyku podważano jego twierdzenia, a spór wśród badaczy o to, gdzie Herodot, umyślnie, bądź nie, skłamał, trwa do dziś. Zdecydowałem się tym zbytnio nie przejmować, niech czynią to ludzie mądrzejsi ode mnie. Ufny niczym dziecko chwyciłem wyciągniętą przez Herodota dłoń i pozwoliłem mu prowadzić się przez fascynujący świat śródziemnomorskiego antyku.

Najważniejszym atutem “Dziejów” jest w mojej opinii okazja do spojrzenia na świat oczami człowieka, od którego dzieli nas 25 wieków. Zaskoczyła mnie wnikliwość i podejrzliwość Herodota wobec usłyszanych przekazów. Wielokrotnie zaznaczał, że coś wydało mu się mało prawdopodobne (azjatyckie latające węże), a na przyjęte przez ówczesnych za pewniki twierdzenia o świecie starał się znaleźć logiczne uzasadnienia. Jednocześnie nie podważał istnienia, lub wpływu bogów na życie zwykłych śmiertelników, przypisując rezultaty bitew ich interwencjom. Fascynująca była też dla mnie wiedza Herodota o wzajemnym przenikaniu się kultur i zapożyczaniu tradycji i wierzeń - sam doszukiwał się rodowodu niektórych z greckich obyczajów w kulturze i mitologii egipskiej.

Na osobne omówienie zasługuje polskie wydanie w serii Biblioteka Narodowa. Wstęp prof. Romualda Turasiewicza znacznie ułatwia lekturę “Dziejów”, wyjaśniając zarówno kontekst historyczny i literacki. Przypisy profesora oraz Sławomira Sprawskiego pozwalają natomiast oddać się lekturze bez obaw, że czegoś nie zrozumiemy, lub źle zinterpretujemy. Przekład Sławomira Hammera zachowuje antyczny klimat dzieła, nie czyniąc jednocześnie z lektury drogi przez mękę. Na końcu książki znajduje się również słowniczek helleńskich terminów oraz tabela miar, które czynią lekturę o wiele przystępniejszą.

Gdybyście jednak wciąż nie czuli się zachęceni do sięgnięcia po “Dzieje”, rozważcie, czy chcieli/chciałybyście dowiedzieć się więcej na następujące tematy:

Końskie genitalia, a objęcie przez Dariusza tronu Persji
Scytowie jako inspiracja dla rodu Boltonów z “Pieśni lodu i ognia”
Trakowie - pierwsi ludzie pozbawieni złudzeń
Ludzkie gazy w starożytnej dyplomacji
Pustynne złoto i jego strażnicy - krwiożercze mrówki
Wypiek chleba jako metafora n3kr0filii

I wiele, wiele innych, których odkrycie pozostawiam Wam.

I feel quite a sense of accomplishment having finished Herodotus' 'Histories'. It is a formidably large text that I am sure will overshadow any other historical non-fiction I decide to read this year. For that reason, I am not even going to attempt anything as onerous as a chronological review of its contents here.

The Histories is comprised of nine books that chart the events of successive Persian dynasts, including Cyrus the Great, Cambyses, Darius, and Xerxes. Epithetically known as the "Father of History," Herodotus is a candid raconteur: he tells stories with an intimacy and ingenuousness that immediately draw you in.

Many tales of impetuous or improvident kings have a proverbial quality to them, reading more like perennial myths that have been orally bequeathed over generations - which can lead one to doubt their veracity. The most salient example occurs in Book One, where Grecian king Croesus seeks counsel from the Delphic Oracle as to whether he should attack the Persians under Cyrus. Ever cryptic, the Pythia's response was that if he did, a great empire would perish. Croesus mistook this to mean Cyrus's empire, not his own, much to his chagrin. Later, captured and fettered, Croesus's wit and sagacity endear him to Cyrus the Great, who decides to employ the erstwhile king as his chief advisor. Every cloud has a... Persian rug capable of flying through it, I suppose…

The Histories often read like you were being taken on a magic carpet ride through antiquity. Book Two explores the Egyptian Empire, delineating the customs, rituals, rulers, and the myriad of ways in which they contrasted with the Greeks. There are fascinating anecdotes that document a sort of cross-pollination of cultural influence; for instance, the Egyptian ruler Amasis' yearly edict that each citizen has to declare the source of their income to the provincial governor; a failure to prove honest income was punishable by death - a law subsequently borrowed by Solon of Athens.

Prosaic details of everyday life are punctuated with barbarous accounts of violence, such as that of the insane ruler Cambyses, who, in an egregious demonstration of his own martial skills, shoots an arrow through the heart of a young boy - the son of one of Cambyses' servants - to somehow prove that the Persians have been talking nonsense about him, and that he is, in fact, not insane! After hitting the mark, the boy drops dead, and Cambyses exclaims, "You see Prexaspes? I am not mad! It is the Persians who have lost their wits!" Afraid for his own life, Prexaspes is forced to congratulate Cambyses on a good shot.

It is striking how nonchalantly Herodotus documents abhorrent acts of savagery; there is scarcely a page that doesn't detail a castration, evisceration, or one tribe rummaging through some freshly extracted animal entrails to decipher a portent of some kind. Moreover, accounts of gratuitous sacrifice are common throughout the book, as are the methods that distinguish the peoples enacting the atrocities. At one point, the Taurians capture shipwrecked Greeks, decapitate them, and offer their bodies to Iphigenia; the daughter of Agamemnon who, in Aeschylus's play, is sacrificed by her father so that he might secure a favorable sea-wind in order to sail back from Troy.

It is hard to imagine a world replete with the ubiquitous barbarity of this magnitude, but I suppose in attempting to, we can appreciate exactly why these peoples were in a state of continual war: their way of life and the survival of their children depended on them not succumbing to the force and brutality of their neighbours. This was a world devoid of morality in any recognisable sense; instead, it was a world of constant provocation, hostility, and superstition. Each tribe was well aware of the modus operandi practiced by the victors. For instance, in retribution for previous atrocities committed by the Ionians, the Persians would invade the land, kill the men, rape and enslave the women, castrate the boys turning them into eunuchs, and dispatch the girls to the king.

What I found most interesting was Herodotus' perspicacity; the meticulousness with which he details the object of his focus - equally impressive is his inclusion of etymological and genealogical information that serves to buttress the account he provides. Take the following, for example: "The Greeks called the Persians the 'Cephenes'. Then Perseus, the son of Danaë and Zeus, arrived at the court of Cepheus, the son of Belus, married his daughter Andromeda, and fathered a child whom he named Perses. Perseus left this son behind because Cepheus had no male offspring. It was from this same Perses that the Persians then derived their name”.

The final books, eight and nine, were cumbersome to get through; this is predominantly due to the fact that a huge war involving an infinitesimal number of tribes is being recounted, and Herodotus goes heavy on the genealogy here; and I mean Old Testament heavy. By the end of the book, my head was swimming in names: Lacedaemonians, Boeotians, Lydians, Milesians, Corinthians, Scythians, Mycenaeans, Thegeans, Phoenicians, and on, and on, ad nauseam. Perhaps if I had approached the final chapters with fresh eyes, I might not have found them as arduous to get through; admittedly, fatigue did set in towards the end. But fundamentally, this is a monumental book of inestimable significance. It is understandably considered to be one of the most important texts in Western history.

“Herodotus was the Father of History.” Fans of The English Patient will remember how often the main character, the enigmatic Hungarian count-turned-archaeologist László de Almásy, utters those words (quoting Cicero in the process). Indeed, Almásy’s personal copy of Herodotus’ Histories, with mementoes from various periods of his life pasted inside, becomes the key to his story of an ill-fated love affair amidst the turmoil of war. And more than 2000 years after Herodotus of Halicarnassus first set down his history of the major states and empires of the Mediterranean basin from the beginnings of recorded history, students of history still turn to Herodotus to learn how history should be written. The Father of History he remains.

When Herodotus wrote the Histories in 440 B.C., the Persian Wars were just forty years in the past, like the Vietnam conflict for Americans today; accordingly, it is no surprise that Herodotus opens the Histories by describing the thematic terms in which he plans to frame his work of history:

“Herodotus of Halicarnassus here displays his inquiry, so that human achievements may not be forgotten in time, and great and marvelous deeds – some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians – may not be without their glory; and especially to explain why the two peoples fought with each other.” (p. 3)

Please note that Herodotus is engaging in a task of inquiry-based learning. Like all the good historians who have come after him, he is not starting with an axe to grind; he plans to ask questions and see where the factually correct and truthful answers take him. He focuses upon observable facts from his time – the recent conflict between Greek and non-Greek states, and specifically between Greece and Persia – and works to ascertain where the original causes of those conflicts may be found. The reader notes also Herodotus’ determination to be fair-minded, and to assign credit or blame wherever it is legitimately due.

Herodotus was not only a diligent researcher but also a seasoned traveler; accordingly, he writes with the authority of lived experience and observation in passages like the one where he comments on what various writers have claimed regarding the Nile River in Egypt: “I have observed for myself that Egypt at the Nile Delta projects into the sea beyond the coast on either side; I have seen shells on the hills and noticed how salt exudes from the soil to such an extent that it affects even the pyramids” (p. 99).

Herodotus offers comparably extensive description of local customs, as when he describes various tribes of Libya. The women of the Adrymachidae “wear a bronze ring on each leg, and grow their hair long; when they catch a bug on their persons, they give it bite for bite before throwing it away” (p. 299). The Macae, by contrast, “wear their hair in the form of a crest, shaving it close on either side of the head and letting it grow long in the middle; in war they carry ostrich skins for shields” (p. 301).

Among the many features of classical historiography that Herodotus seems to have given the world is the tradition of reproducing important speeches at full length, even when it is not clear who the contemporary authority for the speech is, or how accurately the speech was transcribed. A characteristic example occurs when the Achaemenid emperor Cambyses II responds to a prophecy that someone named Smerdis will usurp the throne by having his own brother Smerdis murdered – only to learn afterwards that a real rebellion against him is being fomented by two Magi, one of whose name is Smerdis! Fatally wounded by an accidental sword injury, Cambyses still has time to give a long speech in which, among other things, he takes responsibility for what he has done: “Failing to grasp the true nature of what was in store for me, I murdered my brother for nothing, and have lost my kingdom just the same” (p. 199).

For modern readers, a highlight of the Histories is likely to be Herodotus’ account of how the Athenians under the leadership of Miltiades defeated the Persians at the battle of Marathon in 490 B.C. Herodotus’ pride in the Athenians’ valour is palpable in passages like the one where he describes how “the Athenians came on, closed with the enemy all along the line, and fought in a way not to be forgotten; they were the first Greeks, so far as we know, to charge at a run, and the first who dared to look without flinching at Persian dress and the men who wore it; for until that day came, no Greek could hear even the word ‘Persian’ without terror” (p. 401).

Reading that passage made me think of how many American historians of the Revolutionary War, particularly during the early 19th century, emphasized the way Americans' hearts swelled with pride as George Washington’s Continental Army showed itself capable of standing up to tough British regulars in the war’s early battles such as Lexington/Concord and Bunker Hill. No doubt those historians had read their Herodotus as part of their classical education; consciously or unconsciously, they emulated Herodotus’ structure and approach in their own work. True, the casualty figures that Herodotus cites for the battle of Marathon – 6400 casualties for the Persians, to only 192 for the Athenians – may seem, from the Greek perspective, too good to be true; but the historical importance of the event, and of the way in which Herodotus recounted the event, nonetheless remains evident.

(Please note, however, that you will not find in Herodotus the well-known story of Pheidippides, the courier who is said to have made the 26-mile, 385-yard-long run from Marathon to Athens, gasping out to the waiting Athenians the words “Joy to you, we’ve won!” before falling dead. For that story, you must go to the Roman author Lucian, writing 500 years later.)

Herodotus’ account of how the Spartans, under the leadership of their warrior-king Leonidas, defended the pass of Thermopylae in 480 B.C., at the height of the Second Persian War, is another highlight of the Histories that is likely to resonate with many modern readers, especially in this era when the Spartan heroes of the Frank Miller graphic novel 300 (1998) and its two film adaptations have established a firm foothold in modern popular culture. Herodotus emphasizes the arrogance of the Persian emperor Xerxes in dismissing the warnings of the exiled Spartan king Demaratus that “You have now to deal with the finest kingdom in Greece, and with the bravest men” (p. 489). (Xerxes comes across as a thoroughly evil man in the Histories; the story of the cruelty he inflicted when his passion for the wife of his brother Masistes went unfulfilled is blood-chilling.)

One of the finest passages of narrative and descriptive writing in the Histories – one that has no doubt inspired many writers of military history in the 2400 years since Herodotus composed this work – sets forth the climax of the battle of Thermopylae, after the Spartans have been betrayed by one Ephialtes, a Greek who showed the Persians a mountain track that would enable them to render the defence of the pass impossible:

“As the Persian army advanced to the assault, the Greeks under Leonidas, knowing that they were going to their deaths, went out into the wider part of the pass much further than they had done before; in the previous days’ fighting they had been holding the wall and making sorties from behind it into the narrow neck, but now they fought outside the narrows. Many of the barbarians fell; behind them the company commanders plied their whips indiscriminately, driving the men on. Many fell into the sea and were drowned, and still more were trampled to death by one another. No one could count the number of the dead. The Greeks, who knew that the enemy were on their way round by the mountain track and that death was inevitable, put forth all their strength and fought with fury and desperation. By this time most of their spears were broken, and they were killing Persians with their swords. In the course of that fight Leonidas fell, having fought most gallantly…” (pp. 493-94)

And Herodotus includes the epitaphs inscribed at Thermopylae after the Greek victory in the war – one that has been reproduced as a modern stone inscription, for present-day visitors to the pass:

Ὦ ξεῖν', ἀγγέλλειν Λακεδαιμονίοις ὅτι τῇδε
κείμεθα, τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι.

“Go tell the Spartans, you who read:
We took their orders, and here lie dead.” (p. 495)

It is perhaps the most famous passage in all the Histories, and one that has unquestionably had a profound influence on the way later historians have written about similar battles in later years. For American readers, the battles of the Alamo and the Little Bighorn are likely to stand out as relevant examples.

The continuing influence of Herodotus’ Histories can be easily seen in many areas of modern life. Students of the American Civil War, for example, will recall that Shelby Foote, in composing his epic three-volume history The Civil War: A Narrative (1958-74), consciously drew upon his own reading of Herodotus in crafting a work of history that is truly Herodotean in its storytelling sweep and stylistic grace.

And because I grew up in Cold War times, I recall how often American leaders during the Cold War spoke of an “inevitable conflict” between West and East, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. And I wonder how many of those leaders had read their Herodotus and had been influenced by his presentation of the “inevitable conflicts” of his time – between West and East, between Hellenes and “barbarians,” between the Greek city-states and the Persian Empire. As long as the history of nations and their wars is set down, Herodotus and his Histories will continue to exert that sort of influence.

Herodotus writes with more narrative power than most novels. He has more insight into the human condition than all psychology departments. If hubris is what happens to arrogant kings in Herodotus’s account, then King Croseus is the hero of this story. He humbles himself when he is beaten and as a result is a wise counselor to the Persian kings. Most kings, however, aren’t like Croseus.

The story isn’t straightforward. He begins with the claim that he will give the background to the Persian war. He does. He also gives the background to everything else. Remember how in the Iliad when Homer would introduce some random dude, spend ten pages giving his backstory, only to have him killed off on the next page? Herodotus does the same thing.

There is a method to the madness, though. It’s quite brilliant. All of his random sidebars add up in the very end to present a coherent narrative. Further, there is a movement in his narrative which highlights liberty over despotism, which is the argument the Greeks used to unite themselves against Xerxes.

The ultimate showdown, first at Marathon, then at Thermopylae, and finally at Salamis, isn’t quite the “all of a sudden” event that the film 300 suggested. Much of Asia Minor was long understood to be Persian territory. Also, many Greek cities were quite friendly with Persia and no one saw a contradiction The tension, urged on by dreams and omens, developed over decades.

The climax of the story is Athens, not Sparta (which makes sense, given that Herodotus wrote this in the early stages of the Peloponnesian Wars). This compromises his neutrality, though it does make for good reading. “Here I am forced to declare an opinion which will be displeasing to most, but I will not refrain from saying what seems to me to be true. Had the Athenians been panic-struck by the threatened peril and left their own country, or had they not indeed left it but remained and surrendered themselves to Xerxes, none would have attempted to withstand the king by sea….As it is, to say that the Athenians were the saviors of Hellas is to hit the truth. It was the Athenians who held the balance; whichever side they joined was sure to prevail. choosing that Greece should preserve her freedom, the Athenians roused to battle the other Greek states which had not yet gone over to the Persians and, after the gods, were responsible for driving the king off. Nor were they moved to desert Hellas by the threatening oracles which came from Delphi and sorely dismayed them, but they stood firm and had the courage to meet the invader of their country” (VII:139).

Book I: Greece and Persia before the War

Book I has all of the elements of dark comedy and poignant tragedy. It isn’t a straightforward tale, though. He begins by explaining the background to the war with Persia, but it looks like he is getting sidetracked.

Book II: Egypt

Did Egypt copy Greece or did Greece copy Egypt? Herodotus argues that Greece took much of its religious terminology from Egypt (116). Nevertheless, while there is overlap, there are also differences. Egypt didn’t have quite the overt phallic symbolism that Greek rituals had (115), though it had obscenities of its own sort.

The Egyptians also were the first to put forth the idea of the immortality of the soul (145).

Analysis

Custom is stronger than any Nomos and rulers disregard that at their own peril. Herodotus notes: “For if it were proposed to all nations to choose which seemed best of all customs, each, after examination, would place its own first; so well is each convinced that its own are by far the best. It is not therefore to be supposed that anyone, except a madman, would turn such things to ridicule. I will give this one proof among many from which it may be inferred that all men hold this belief about their customs. When Darius was king, he summoned the Greeks who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that there was no price for which they would do it. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrid an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is, I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is lord of all” (III:38).

While Herodotus doesn’t draw the explicit point, a point which I think Thucydides will later draw, this is why global government is always doomed to fail.

What role do humans play in history? Herodotus is very clear that God (more on that later) and Nemesis respond to human Hubris. The “gods” (whatever that word means) also punish excess in vengeance (IV:205).

Herodotus ends with wisdom from Cyrus, who was urged to become lord over Europe: “It is only reasonable that a ruling people should act in this way, for when will we have a better opportunity than now, when we are lords of so many men and of all Asia?” Cyrus heard them, and found nothing to marvel at in their design; “Go ahead and do this,” he said; “but if you do so, be prepared no longer to be rulers but rather subjects. Soft lands breed soft men; wondrous fruits of the earth and valiant warriors grow not from the same soil.” The Persians now realized that Cyrus reasoned better than they, and they departed, choosing rather to be rulers on a barren mountain side than dwelling in tilled valleys to be slaves to others” (IX:122).

খুবই ছোটবেলায় চাচার মুখে শুনেছিলাম, "ইতিহাসের জনক হেরোডটাস"। সেই ছোটবেলা থেকেই মনের গভীরে সুপ্ত-বাসনা ছিল, "বড় হয়ে হেরোডটাসের বই পড়ব"; অবশেষে আমি বড় হয়ে গিয়েছি, আমি হেরোডটাসের 'হিস্টোরিস' পড়ে ফেলেছি। তবে কে জানত আমার মত হেরোডটাসের ভাগ্য তার চাচার সাথে জড়িত থাকবে। তবে দুঃখ হল এই যে প্রায় সকল "প্রথম প্রেমের" ছ্যাকা খাওয়ার মত, হেরোডটাসের 'হিস্টোরিস' আমাকে হতাশ করেছে; যেন অনেক আশা বুকে নিয়ে সম্পুর্ণ নিরাশ হয়ে ফিরে আশা। যাই হোক, প্রথম প্রেম তো সসময়ই প্রথম, চাইলেও ভোলা যায় না। ......

হেরোডটাস জন্মেছিলেন হেলিকার্নাসুস (বর্তমানে তুরস্ক) নামক এশিয়ান গ্রীক কলোনীতে। অনেক সম্ভ্রান্ত পরিবারেই জন্মেছিলেন হেরোডটাস, তার চাচা ছিলেন গ্রীক মার্চেন্ট আর পরিব্রাজক। খুবই ছোটবেলা থেকে চাচার কাছে মুগ্ধ হয়ে শুনতেন পৃথিবীর বিভিন্ন প্রান্তের আজব আজব সব কাহিনী। কিন্তু তার চাচার ভুলের কারণে মাত্র ২৩ বছর বয়সে দেশ ছাড়তে হয় হেরোডটাসকে। তাই হেরোডটাসকে বলা হয়, "Historian not by choice, rather fate"। ভাগ্য তাকে ইতিহাসবিদ হওয়ার জন্য তৈরি করেছেন। হেরোডটাসের আমলে আরোও শতাধিক হিস্টোরিয়ানের নাম জানা যায়, কিন্তু এক হেরোডটাস ছাড়া আর কারো লেখা সারভাইভ করে নি। এটা অনেকটা ঐতিহাসিক সত্য যে, হেরোডটাস তার বেশিরভাগ কাহিনী হেকাটিয়ুস থেকে কপি করেছেন। তাহলে প্রশ্ন জাগতে পারে, কিভাবে হেরোডটাসের মত সেকেন্ড গ্রেড একজন ইতিহাসবিদের লেখা সারভাইভ করল? এই প্রশ্নের উত্তর খুজতে আমাদের যেতে হবে, গ্রিসের গোল্ডেন এইজ বা সোনালী সময়ে যখন পেরিক্লিস ছিলেন গ্রীসের স্ট্র্যাটেগয় বা কমান্ডার পেরিক্লিস প্রথম স্টেট ফান্ড ব্যবহার করে একটা পাবলিক লাইব্রেরি তৈরি করেছিলেন যেখানে প্রায় ৩০ হাজার প্যাপিরাস সংগৃহীত ছিল। যে কেউ চাইলে এথেন্সের এই লাইব্রেরীতে তার বই/লেখা জমা রাখতে পারতেন। কথিত আছে যে, হেরোডটাসের বয়স যখন পঞ্চাশাধিক তখন তিনি এথেন্সে আসেন (৪৪৭ বিসি) এবং তার "হিস্টোরিস" লেখা শুরু করেন। তিনি এথেন্সের মুক্তমঞ্চে যখন তার লেখা বই পড়ে শুনিয়েছিলেন, এথেন্সবাসী নাকি মুগ্ধ হয়ে ৬০ ট্যালেন্ট (প্রায় ৬ লক্ষ ডলার) পুরস্কার দিয়েছিলেন। তবে বইটা পড়লে বারবার কেবল এটাই মনে হয় যে, হেরোডটাস এথেন্সবাসীকে মুগ্ধ করার জন্যই এই বইটা লিখছিলেন।যাই হোক, পেরিক্লিসের বানানো সেই পাবলিক লাইব্রেরিতে হেরোডটাস তার হিস্টোরিস ডোনেট করেছিলেন এবং ঠিক এখান থেকেই হেরোডটাসের হিস্টোরিস সম্পুর্ণ অক্ষতভাবে উদ্ধার করা হয়েছে। ইতিহাসের নির্মম পরিহাস।

প্রত্যেক হিস্টোরিয়ানই কোন না কোনভাবে বায়াসড, হেরোডটাস বায়াসড গ্রীসের (স্পেশালি এথেন্স) প্রতি; হাজার হোক তার মাতৃভূমি, বায়াসড হওয়���টাই স্বাভাবিক। হেরোডটাস থিউসিডিডিস এর মত লজিক্যাল আর কোহেরেন্ট না। অনেক বেশি আউলাঝাউলা তার লেখা। আমি জানি না সিসেরোর কেন মনে হইছে হেরোডটাস ইতিহাসের জনক তবে আমি আমি স্ট্র্যাবোর সাথে একমতঃ "There is too much nonsense in Herodotus!" হেরোডটাসের মতে, "ইথিওপিয়ানদের সিমেন কালো!, নেবুচাঁদরেজার কে মহিলা, আল্পসকে বলেছেন নদী, জারক্সিসেস আর্মি হিসেব করেছেন ৫ মিলিয়নের উপরে যেটা প্রায় ইম্পসিবল!, হাজারো মিথকে তিনি সত্যি হিসেবে ধরে নিয়েছেন"। আবার মাঝে মাঝে অনেক বেশি রেশনালিস্টিক কথাবার্তাও লিখেছেন। There are So much Bullshits as History!! হেরোডটাসের হিস্টোরিস পড়ে বারবার মনে হয়েছে এটা একজন লোকের লেখা না; হয় এটা কয়েকজন মিলে লিখেছেন অথবা অন্যের চোথা মেরে দিয়েছেন।

(কন্টিনিউ)

If Herodotus only kept to his main story, the growth of Persia and its eventual halt by Greece, the book would probably be only 200 pages long. Thank God he didn't do this. The Histories is a narration of the known world and the people living in it. When introducing a new character, even unimportant ones, he gives very interesting backstories. One of my favourite stories is about Cleisthenes of Sicyon who organized a competition whose winner was to marry his daughter Agariste. Cleisthenes tests the suitors' courage, character, education and manners by spending time with them for a year. Some Athenian guy named Hippoclides pleases the tyrant of Sicyon the most, but then he does something very embarrassing. He dances on a table and then dances while standing on his head, like modern breakdancers. Cleisthenes doesn't want this man to marry his daughter anymore and says: "Son of Tisander, you have danced your marriage away." Hippoclides has the greatest comeback in history and simply replies: "Hippoclides doesn't care!" as if he participated in the competition for a year just to have fun and party. You might wonder what this story has to do with Persia's conquest of Greece. Well, not a lot. Cleisthenes is just an ancestor of the important statesman and general Pericles, who doesn't have anything to do with the main story either.

Herodotus doesn't just narrate about individuals, but also about whole nations. Book 2 focuses mainly on Egypt. Herodotus tells about its geography, the animals living in the country, the religion, its culture and its history. The Egyptians have customs which seem very weird to Herodotus. He explains a typical Egyptian party: "After the meal at a party of well-to-do Egyptians, a man carries round the room in a coffin a corpse made of wood, which has been painted and carved so as to be as lifelike as possible, and whose length is about a cubit or two. The man shows the corpse to all the guests, one by one, while saying: 'Look on this while you drink, for this will be your lot when you are dead'. That is what happens at Egyptian parties." Especially the last remark seems really funny to me. I can see a hint of distate in this sentence.

Herodotus doesn't just write down what he has heard, he also comments whether he thinks the story could be real or is fabricated. That's really great about him. He writes like a real scientist who doesn't just believe everything he's been told. It's really a great book and I recommend everyone to read it. You will learn a lot about how people used to live.