n  Hubris in History: A Recurring Terrorn

n  “The conversion of legend-writing into the science of history was not native to the Greek mind, it was a fifth-century invention, and Herodotus was the man who invented it.”

~ R.G. Collingwoodn

The prime subject of The Histories is the twenty years (499-479 B.C.E) of war between Greece and Persia for domination of the Greek world. However he intersperses this main narrative with plenty of personal interest stories, “wonders” about firsts and bests, historical parallels and occasionally his own biased judgements, but always making it clear that he is interested only in presenting a viewpoint — he leaves the act of judgement to the reader. We can safely say that it was Herodotus who helped create the concept of the discipline of “history,” in part by stressing and criticizing his sources and accepted traditions. My job is to record what I have been told, make of it what you will - that is the dominant warning note wherever H’s authorial voice intervenes in the narrative. That should be the disclaimer all history books should come with.

All the main themes of the book are evident in its beginning and ending, in keeping with the circular narratives that H prefers to adopt. All the intervening incidents act like reinforcements of the overall thrust inherent in the beginning and ending.

The Beginning: The Parallel Rise of Freedom & Empire

We begin with an insecure Hellenic world, just shaking off the shackles of tyranny and tasting real ambition for the first time. Meanwhile in the other end of the world, an existing empire is being shaped into a fearsome tyrannical force by the new Persian rulers. Soon the Persian empire starts to extend ominously outwards and gobbles up most of the known world. This infringes on a core idea of H — the concept of natural limits and over-extension. Persia is meant to fall. “The Small shall become the Big; and the Big shall become the Small.”

As long as empires are driven by ambition, history is doomed to repeat itself.

The gods set limits and do not allow human beings to go beyond them; Herodotus makes it clear that the Persians have to fail in their plan to conquer Greece, because they have overreached their natural boundaries. Xerxes announces his campaign by telling his advisers that he intends to conquer Greece so that ‘we will make Persian territory end only at the sky’ (7.8).

The Middle: The Clash of Civilizations

Then we are taken through the many over-extensions of the Persian empire under a succession of rulers (in Ionia, Scythia, etc), until they are poised to encroach upon the newly non-tyrannical Greek world. Here we enter the climactic middle of the narrative and is drenched in the details of the gory encounter. Many heroes, legends and dramatic material is born here and we emerge on the other side with a clear sense that it was Athens, without the yoke of tyranny, that was able to bring down the fearsome war machine of the Persian empire. David has won out against Goliath. This is achieved due to much luck and much pluck, but in the final analysis H seems to imply that the fault was with the hubris of the Persians.

It needs to be pointed out that: H is quite clear that as human beings Persians are on the whole no better and no worse than Greeks. Structurally, however, Xerxes’ great expedition to Greece stands as a monument to the dangerous blindness of massive empires and grandiose thinking—but it is also the backdrop against which H has been able to present to us the Greeks’ love of their homeland, their valor against incredible odds, and their deep desire to preserve their freedom.

So, even as this main narrative concludes, we are shown what is the inevitable result of Hubris that over-extends its own reaches. And of how tyranny in any form is not going to triumph over people who have tasted what freedom means.

The Ending: A Reenactment of The Beginning

Herodotus could have ended there. But he doesn’t. Instead he takes us to the Ending to rub in the message and to instill that message with its true significance — what is its bearing on the future? For, an investigation of History is meaningless unless it can educate us about the future. And it is the future that H ironically points to as he takes us through the concluding sections of his Histories.

For now it is the turn of the Greeks to over-extend. In the thrill of victory and in the thrall of a thirst for revenge, in the spirit of competition with its own neighbors, Athens and Sparta launch out on its own imperialistic enterprise to mainland Asia. This is to culminate in H’s own day with the Ionians looking upon Athens as the equivalent of a Tyrant.

The beginning of this period saw the triumph of the Greek mainland states over the might of the Persian Empire, first in the initial invasion of 490 and the battle of Marathon, and then in the second invasion of 480/79, with the battles of Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea, and finally Mycaleb in Asia Mnor.

This unexpected victory against what seemed like the mightiest empire on Earth resonated in Greek consciousness through the fifth century and indeed beyond. The Greeks in general, and the Athenians in particular, because they had played the major part in the triumph of “Freedom”, saw these victories as a triumph of right over might, courage over fear, freedom over servitude, moderation over arrogance. It helped crystallize and reinforce Greeks’ attitudes to their own newfound way of life and values, intensified their supreme distrust of monarchy and tyranny, and shaped their attitude to the Persians. And after what they visualized as the great struggle for freedom, the people of Athens entered upon a spectacular era of energy and prosperity, one of the great flowering periods of Western civilization.

In more practical terms, Athens’ naval success in the Persian Wars and its enterprise immediately after led to the creation of the Athenian Empire, which started as an anti-Persian league and lasted for almost three-quarters of a century (479-404).

H seems to imply that Athens should learn from these investigations of the past, see what Tyranny can do, see the dangers of over-extension, understand the need for balance, respect certain international boundaries, and stay its own overreaching hand.

And indeed within fifty years of the Persian defeat the dream had faded, and before the end of the century Athens, over-extended abroad and overconfident at home, lay defeated at the mercy of her enemies, a Spartan garrison posted on the Acropolis and democracy in ruins. Much in the intervening years had been magnificent, it is true, but so it might have remained if the Athenians had heeded Herodotus. He had portrayed the Greek victory as a triumph over the barbarian latent in themselves, the hubris that united the invader and the native tyrant as targets of the gods. The Persian downfall, or at least the defeat of their imperialistic ambition, called not only for exultation but for compassion and lasting self-control.

As should be quite obvious, there is much to learn in this for modern times too, but with an added twist. For Hubris did not end its romp through history there. It took on new wings once history started being recorded. Now every new emperor was also competing with history. Alexander had to outdo Xerxes. Caesar had to outdo Alexander. Britain had to outdo Rome. Germany had to outdo Britain. USA had to outdo Britain, etc. A never-ending arms-race with imperial history and the accompanying Hubris that powers it.

So Herodotus, even as he recorded History so as to blunt its devastating force on the lives of men, also unwittingly added new impetus to its influence, by adding the new flavor of recorded glory to the existing receptacle of legendary glory. Hubris drank it up.

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!

Some parts are amazing, while some are utterly boring. The best bits for me are the more ethnographical fragments, where Herodotus describes various ancient peoples, their origins and their customs and mores (lots of sex, wine, weed and blood). It is interesting how he tries to trace processes of cultural diffusion in ancient times: who took what customs, rituals or gods from whom and his argumentation for each case, sometimes reminding me of modern cultural relativism.
Additionally, there are many memorable and fun anecdotal moments, especially involving the Spartans.
Another thing I enjoyed is to observe Herodotus' mix of what we would call today rational thinking with mystical/mythological beliefs. We have gods speaking through oracles and curses deciding battles or ants the size of a dog, but at the same time a kind of learned skepticism rises its head. Usually, Herodotus promises to tell the stories exactly as he had heard them, but sometimes he lets us know that he himself is skeptical about them. For examples, he tells us a story about one-eyed men, then adds that he doesn't believe such men exist. Or a legend about speaking birds then dismisses it as a metaphor because obviously birds can't speak.
I also liked his habit of telling several versions of a story and comparing them (the Egyptians say this, but the Persian version is that...). He constantly notes who tells the story in a certain way so that we can be aware of the possible bias or motivation behind a certain version of events.
The stuff that bored me to death was long geneologies, measurements of a lot of ancient buildings and towns and generally everything involving numbers. Unfortuntely, the Histories are full of this stuff. Non-specialists might wanna skip them and enjoy an otherwise interesting read.

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.

What an interesting read. This book is such a gem. The Histories reads like you're sitting in someones house listening to him talk about his knowledge of the world. Herodotus' digressions are charming in the extreme. There is such a real sense of wonder, sometimes even to the point of accepting the incredible, to Herodotus' inquiries. From my studies, I came into this read with an idea instilled into me from my professors: that Herodotus is so obscured by the shadow of Thucydides "objectiveness" that he is just some funny source from antiquity. To be quite frank, that strong desire for historicity ruins the enjoyment that comes from Herodotus. The histories is great exactly because it is so playful (to us). Herodotus is deeply interested in learning and it comes off in this book. He tries to make sense of the world, and to me, this is what I love about the work.

 Going off of my friends from school, I might be in the minority in preferring books 1-5 over 6-9. I still loved the Greco-Persian wars but it wasnt as charming as the discussion of the rise of Persia. That being the case, the descriptions of the rise of Pan-Hellenism and Athenian imperialism was very interesting. So too was the brief glimpses of the reception of Athenian imperialism (yes, I know. That's a charged word for some) from a non Athenian source.

I don't think there's anything I can say about Herodotus that hasn't already been said, and I doubt anyone needs a review to tell them whether they should read his histories or not; it seems to me the only real basis for a review is on the efficacy of the particular edition relative to others that are available, and thus the five stars for this Landmark Edition.

This is the second of the Landmarks that I've read (the first being The Landmark Xenophon's Hellenika), and for someone like me, who is not a student of the antiquities, but only an interested general reader, the difference between the Landmark Editions by Robert Strassler and most other editions are like night and day. A couple of years ago, I read Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, and though I liked Rex Warner's translation, I felt as though I was only able to grasp part of the story because of the paucity of supplemental material. After reading Herodotus and Xenophon in the Landmark Edition (and re-reading Book I of Thucydides in the Landmark), I know that my understanding has increased by orders of magnitude.

I would say that the biggest reason is the maps. I still can't explain to myself why the inclusion of maps makes such a difference when reading these accounts, but whatever the reason, after being able to locate all the sites that these ancient historians are talking about, it seems as though I'm much more involved in the story. The old Penguin paperback I read of Thucydides had three maps at the back of the book. In contrast, the Landmark edition of Herodotus has 127 of them. For the majority of the book, this translates into a map every three or four pages.

Another aid that I found useful were the footnotes. As I said, I'm just a general reader, and many of the place names and references in these ancient texts were unfamiliar to me. In each instance where a name occurred afresh on a page, it was footnoted and referenced to a particular map. I suppose it could be argued that the editors went slightly overboard with this (Greece or Hellas is mentioned many, many times, of course, and each time it is footnoted and referenced. The same with place names like Europe and Asia), but certainly better to over-footnote than under-footnote. As a consequence, by the time I read both Xenophon and Herodotus, I had begun to get a pretty decent idea of ancient Aegean and Mediterranean geography.

Robert Strassler, the general editor and primary force behind the Landmark Editions probably says it best: "Modern readers who lack special schooling or assistance of some sort understand progressively less about what is happening as they proceed in to the book, and soon find the going arduous and confusing. After all, how much can readers expect to comprehend of a historical narrative if they are not informed of the date of location of many events, cannot envision the temporal or geographic relationship between events, or are unaware of the meaning and significance of important aspects of those events? This ignorance creates a barrier which obscures the reader' perception, diminishes their interest, and separates them from an essential quality of the narrative: its historicity, At its worst, the text becomes something like a literary exercise, a dreary recitation of disconnected incidents at unknown places concerning artificial characters whose names cannot be pronounced. At best, it reads like a modern fantasy novel, but all too often it is a bad novel, a boring novel." This description fits my earlier experience with Thucydides to a T.

As to the narrative itself; of the three ancient historians that I've read, I had more trouble sustaining interest in Herodotus than the others, primarily because Herodotus' account is not only a narrative of the Greek and Persian wars, but a travelogue and ethnographic report (as Herodotus found it or heard about it from his sources) of the ancient world. This is also the exact reason why some people really enjoy Herodotus. But when he reports on the actions of the different personalities of this time, he is often fascinating.

This edition has a new translation by Andrea L. Purvis, a lengthy introduction by Rosalind Thomas, and 21 different appendices covering various aspects of the ancient world and specific items in Herodotus' account. I haven't compared Purvis' translation to any others, but I never had any issue with its readability--and that's about all I'm competent enough to say about translations from ancient Greek.

I can't recommend these Landmark Editions enough, if one is interested in any of the historians that have thus far been treated and is a general reader rather than a student of these periods--I did hear at one time that there were still a couple more historians that Robert Strassler was considering giving the Landmark treatment to (Polybius was one). I hope so, and even if Mr. Strassler retires, I hope someone else considers this kind of authoritative approach to other ancient writings.

I know I made a New Years resolution to only read economics and personal investing books, but dammit I walked by this on my bookshelf too many times. And I was at Keplers the other day fondling the new Landmark edition (which weighs about 20 times my paperback edition), which got me in the mood for some nutty stories about the ancients.

This is what I call a "Godfather" book because as you read it a lot of cultural references will suddenly make sense. (I didn't watch the Godfather until relatively late in life -- like 25-ish I think. After watching it I understood what all the parodies and jokes were about.)

Anyway, The Histories is like gym class with swords. Everyone's fighting someone else over land, kidnapped daughters, misunderstood oracle predictions, etc... In between the battles we will get some background on different cultures that Herodotus encounters. Some of the details are not for the delicate -- we read about public tupping; we learn why Egyptians wait a few days before turning over female corpses to the undertakers; we learn who lies with their wife "in an unnatural way" to avoid having kids.

I recommend printing out a map and looking it over for a while before jumping into the book. There is a nice map in the wikipedia entry for Herodotus. In my paperback edition (1964, Penguin) there are only two maps, and they have some major omissions. The first book doesn't make a lot of sense if you don't know where Medes is or what part of Greece is Ionia.

I'm traveling a lot this week, so I'm looking forward to escaping into this book for a few hours at a time.

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.

A really interesting historical document. There's an appropriate balance between action and analysis, but with an introduction that is quite too long. Sometimes there are too many flashbacks and digressions about all kinds of details. But nevertheless a great read, as a story teller Herodotus is unparalleled, illustrating that - regardless of issues of method - history is and always will be a narrative.
It's clear Herodotus sees history as the story of great men and their greed, ambition, courage and sacrifice. But also dreams (predictive value), oracles (always right!), and a few times even the intervention of the gods play a key role. Fate is present in the background.
Noteworthy is the light adoring undertone concerning the Persians, especially Cyrus; on the other hand the Greeks are described as a bunch of scum (especially the Ionians), only Sparte is treated by Herodotus in a neutral way.

I love Herodotus. I always come back to him... He's the first of his kind, and his *historia* set the foundations for modern historiography/Ethnographic.

He's got a cool style, He mixes mythology with Historiography, and it has a fun and alluring nature. His descriptions of the "other" remind me of our conceptualization of the Orient, he's the first of his kind in many ways, and he holds a special place in my heart...

10/10 constantly revisiting

Herodotus, considered the first historian...but more than history, he either through his travels or "interviews" with others, describes topography, customs, dress, politics etc of the ancient world, along with traditional history and in this case the many battles that occur as powers rise & fall. It certainly filled in a section in my history education that was lacking especially in regards to Persian history! Yes, there are tedious parts, but also such unexpected gems that fall into your lap, or quite the joke. Lots of surprises. I probably couldn't have done it without it being a group read, well worth the effort!

Although it's been some time since I read the Histories, I think about it now and again and think it's worth sharing a few comments for anyone considering spending some time with it.

Herodotus travelled extensively through the ancient world, interviewing people and collecting stories. The Histories covers everything from how the Egyptian priests mummified the dead to the upbringing of Persian kings to what happened at Thermopolae. Note that Herodotus finished his Histories within 55 years of the battle of Thermopolae -- so there is little accurate information that can be added to this other than the results of archeology. (Sorry Hollywood.)

Since Thomas T.'s review (below) does a great job of outlining what the book covers -- I'll just discuss how it compares to similar work.

Herodotus' work is generally more entertaining that Xenophon and Thucydides but also "looser". Unlike them he is not reporting history in which he is taking an active role. Despite Xenophon's tendency toward self-aggrandizement, the Anabasis is (and reads like) an eyewitness account. Thucydides lived through the Peloponnesian wars, was infected, recovered and helped others during the great Athenian plague. He knew what he was talking about, was an eyewitness to much of it and, as a general, had the military knowledge to put the actions of both sides into context. Unlike Xenophon, Thucydides work shows little if any self-aggrandizement. However, of the three authors, Thucydides is the most difficult to read.

To modern eyes, Herodotus sometimes reports things that seem farfetched (eg: flying serpents) and occasionally turns his stories into morality tales. However, he does try to be clear when he is reporting hearsay. Compared to other literature of the time (he predates and "instructs" Thucydides and Xenophon) the Histories was about as objective as it got. Short of archeology, it is the best source for the account of the Persian Wars.

On this edition - I really like Robin Waterfield's translations! I've also read his translations of Plato's Philebus and Theatetus and Xenophon's Conversations with Socrates. Since I don't read ancient Greek I can't comment on accuracy but his translations of books of that era seem the most readable of any I've encountered.

Finally - there is an apocryphal story that Herodotus read his Histories in the ancient olympic stadium and that Thucydides, a young man at the time, was there to hear it -- a great image and something I'd like to think is true.