What I learned from this book (in no particular order):

1.tAncient Greeks are quarrelsome and love to waste each other’s city-states for the pettiest reasons.

2.tFrom all forms of government known to man, democracy is the best. Tyrants and oligarchs suck.

3.tThe Persian Empire is a mighty barbarian nation, but being cowardly, effeminate and slavish, it is eventually defeated by the quarrelsome but brave and civilized Greeks.

4.tAmong the Greeks, the Spartans are the bravest. Gerard Butler with a six-pack King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans heroically perished in the battle of Thermopylae. They also have the particularly icky custom of marrying their own nieces.

5.tThe Delphic oracles are 100% accurate, except when someone manages to corrupt the Pythoness. The Gods are, however, a jealous sort and would strike any mortal who has the presumption of calling himself happiest on earth. Therefore, one should call no man happy until he is dead.

6.tEgypt is a country of wonders, but its citizens’ customs and manners are exactly the reverse of the common practice of mankind elsewhere. For example, the women there urinate standing up, while the men sitting down. The country also abounds in strange fauna, among them the hippopotamus --- a quadruped, cloven-footed animal, with the mane and tail of a horse, huge tusks and a voice like a horse’s neigh.

7.tThe Scythians are a warlike nation that practices human sacrifice. The Scythian soldier drinks the blood of the first man that he kills in battle and cuts off all of his enemies’ heads, which he must show to the king to get his share of the war booty. They also like to saw off their enemies’ skulls, which they make into fancy gold-plated drinking cups.

8.tThe manners of the Androphagi, being cannibals, are more savage than those of any other race. Darius the Persian smote them.

9.tThe Atarantians, alone of all known nations, are destitute of names. The title of Atarantians is borne by the whole race in common, but the men have no particular names of their own. They also like to curse the sun because he burns and wastes both their country and themselves.

10.tIn the Indian desert live ants that are larger than a fox. They like to throw up sand-heaps as they burrow, which are full of gold. This is why India is so rich in gold. In Arabia, there are sheep that have long tails, so long that the shepherds have to make little trucks for their tails. Really.

BUT SERIOUSLY,

Herodotus is a consummate storyteller who had a fine eye for the fantastical, although to his credit, he always qualified his more improbable assertions by stating that they are based on hearsay or other sources that he could not wholly verify. Much of the pleasure of reading his book is found in the lush descriptions of long lost nations and their exotic customs. His 'Histories' does not concern itself solely with history in the modern sense, but it is also a book of travelogue, ethnography, zoology, geography and botany. He is an excellent raconteur, almost always entertaining, except when he drones about speculative geography. We can easily imagine him, a man of seemingly inexhaustible curiosity, interviewing Marathon veterans for firsthand battle accounts, or interrogating Egyptian temple priests about their country’s history and religion. History for him is not a dry recitation of facts and dates, but an intensely human story acted by a vast cast of monarchs, queens, warriors, tyrants, gods and ordinary citizens. Regicides and rebellions are caused by personal passions, such as in the stories of Caudales and Gyges, and Xerxes and Masistes. Dreams compel Xerxes to invade Greece. Divine intervention decides the course of epic battles.

A skein of tragedy runs through the historical drama that he narrates. The gods are so capricious and jealous that “one should not call a man happy until he is dead.” Xerxes, on beholding his massive force on the Hellespont, laments that “not one will be alive when a hundred years are gone by.” Yet while man lives his short existence he is capable of epic deeds, and Herodotus chronicled them all.

The kids bought me this for Christmas and it is a thing of infinite beauty. I’ve been meaning to read these histories for years and never quite got around to it. I had never realised quite how remarkable this book would be.

This version of the book is the third that I now own – I’ve also got a copy of the Penguin Classics and I’ve just finished listening to this as a talking book. But I am going to make my way through this book eventually, as it is hard to focus on many of the details of the wars and so on without a decent map in front of you to refer to – and this book has lots of maps and drawings and other illustrations, although, annoyingly, no illustration of the Egyptian labyrinth which Herodotus said was even more remarkable than the pyramids.

Along the way Herodotus tells some incredible stories. Some of them sound like they are straight out of the 1001 nights. Others make your jaw drop open.

There are also discussions of things like what is the source of the Nile, that really have whetted my curiosity to read more about the 19th century types who finally discovered the source. Now, why was this such a big question in the ancient world? Well, the problem was that the Nile seemed to come out of the desert and that isn’t exactly the sort of place where you would expect to find lots and lots of water. The winds that came for where the Nile seemed to flow out from were also always hot – and so the idea that perhaps the water in the Nile swelled once a year due to the melting of snow (although partly reasonable, obviously) didn’t seem to make a lot of sense when you thought that the river was coming out of a desert (deserts being the natural enemy of snow). It really is fascinating listening to Herodotus discussing these speculations about the source of the Nile and the paradoxes such speculations provided.

In the immortal words of Bob Dylan, “There ain’t no limit to the amount of trouble women bring”. There are interesting asides about the Trojan war and how Herodotus speculates that Helen was probably dead by the time of the war started and so when the Greeks asked for the Trojans to hand her over they literally couldn’t. He can’t see why else they would have allowed their civilisation to be crushed for the sake of one woman, beautiful or not.

There is a woman who commanded a ship on the side of the Persians, there are women who come back as ghosts and complain about being cold (which their husband should know as the last time he tried to bake his bread the oven was cold – this would have taken me a while to understand if Herodotus did not explain that the husband had lain with her after she had died.) But this is not really a history that involves many women – this is a story about blokes doing what blokes like most – killing other blokes.

All the same, my favourite bit of this came quite early in the piece. The story of the theft of Rhampsinitos’ treasure. I’m going to give you the short McCandless version of this as it really is a wonderful story and I can’t leave this review without talking about it.

When Rhampsinitos (an Egyptian king) decided to have a place built for his treasure he didn’t know that the builder would put a stone into the works that could be easily removed. The builder told his sons about this stone as he lay dying and once the builder had died his sons nipped around to the king’s treasury and helped themselves to the riches inside. The king noticed this sudden loss of wealth and set a trap to capture those who were all too frequently popping in and stealing his goodies. The trap was quite successful and one of the brothers ended up getting caught. He told his other brother to cut off his head so that they wouldn’t both be discovered. This his all too obliging brother did. The king then had a body without a head in his treasury, but still had no idea how anyone could get into the treasury room without breaking any of the seals on the locks.

So, he had the body of the thief hung up and guarded so that whoever cried in front of it would be brought before him. The thief who had cut off his brother’s head was then told by his mother that he had better do something to rescue his brother’s body or else all hell would break lose. He came up with a plan to get the guards drunk and to steal the body, which he did and also shaved half of their beards off to make sure they quite understood how stupid they had been made to look. The king was, needless to say, bloody furious. (I did mention this reminded me of the 1001 nights, yeah?) Anyway, the king then decides to get his daughter to work in a brothel, but before she sleeps with anyone she is to ask them what is the worst thing they have ever done and if any of them say anything like they cut off their brother’s head and stole his body from the king’s guards, she is to grab hold of him and call for the police (or whatever the Egyptian equivalent was at the time). The thief decides to play along, and goes to the brothel with the severed arm of a freshly dead corpse under his jumper. When he tells the king’s daughter about his exploits she makes a grab for him and he holds out the dead man’s arm, which she holds onto while the thief cleverly makes his escape. The king is so impressed with this man’s exploits that he begs him to come forward and receive a reward, which he does and ends up getting to marry the king’s daughter – I assume the daughter he gets to marry is the prostitute mentioned earlier, but I guess no one actually ever called her that to her face.

The best bit of this is that it shows something Herodotus does the whole way through these histories. He will be telling one of these stories and suddenly they will start to become completely unbelievable and he will say, “of course, I don’t believe this stuff for a minute, but this is the story I was told in Egypt and what would you have me do? I have to tell you what I was told.”

The other story that held me enthralled was of the self-mutilation of Zopyros – honestly, this is utterly remarkable. It is worth reading the book just for this story alone.

There are lots of occasions where fathers are forced to do horrible things to their sons – my favourite is the story of a king who punishes one of his advisors by feeding him his son as the meat portion of a feast. The king then leaves this advisor in a position where he can revenge himself on the king. You know, if I was to feed someone their own child I would probably kill him straight away afterwards – call me overly cautious, but I’ve a sneaking suspicion that the person who has feed you the flesh of one of your kids is never going to be one of you best friends ever again, no matter what else they do for you.

This book is fantastic and the Landmark edition is like its name implies, really something special.

4,5* (Translated by Robin Waterfield)

Not for everyone, and even I could read it in chunks, but I loved it. Herodotus, the first historian, eschewed myth, which is why he was the first historian, but he wasn't above gossip and chattiness. This awesome volume has superb maps showing the places being discussed and even the routes taken by people being talked about. The notes are voluminous, and the translation is wonderful. I'm not a classicist, and don't know any Greek, but the classicists I know who do know the original, say it is the best translation of Herodotus ever made. So, for a change, try to delve into the ancient world of Greeks. By the way, Herodotus says that Helen wanted to go to Troy, and get out of Greece. Guess why? Today it would be in "Us" magazine.

A remarkable work of history written 2500 years ago. One could legitimately argue that this is the most important history book ever written.

But quite honestly this read is a slog at best and it took me a very long time to complete. The one book of the nine that I truly enjoyed was the second one on Egypt largely because it described the land, people and its customs.

Herodotus felt that the other eight books were best spent on describing the various Hellenistic wars and battles. I can only wonder why that was. I suspect it is because Egypt was very interesting to him but for the other nations in the other books he was either already familiar with them or never visited.

I can’t give good reviews to books solely because of their importance to history.

Having dived down the history rabbit hole with Great Courses audiobooks the past year, focused mainly on Mesopotamia, Greece/Rome, Britain, the Celts, and the Italian Renaissance, it was a no-brainer I'd have to revisit The Histories after I bought it for uni in another lifetime and never got past the first chapter, 30 years ago. It was a very worthwhile listen, especially given the content as the first proper Western historical narrative based on travel, first-hand interviews, and research, though there is plenty of myth woven in as that was integral to Greek understanding of the world. As others have pointed out, it is equal parts storytelling, ethnography, cultural history, and a very detailed analysis of the Greco-Persian wars, with much insight.

Herodotus also gets full marks for repeated disclaimers that what he writes is true *to the best of his knowledge, based on what he has been told*, and that he tries to be as objective as any observer can be, despite all the intellectual and cultural assumptions and biases that inevitably creep in. He does a remarkable job, although it would be a brilliant experiment if there were a Persian Herodotus who could depict events from the other side. Now that would be turning the tables!

I have to admit that I wasn't able to give this one its full due as I listened in all different levels of attention (while "resting my eyes" and such), so not sure I have much more to offer, but I am certainly glad I read it now, at age 48, rather than back at age 18 in my first year at university. There is so much more life-experience I can draw on now to approach the material, its a far richer experience.

These are some excellent reviews that are far more comprehensive and interesting than my light effort, so check them out.

Riku Sajuj’s Review

Jan-Matt’s Review

Grace Tjan’s Review

Ian’s Review

I think I would like to invite my Goodreads friends to browse any Book you like, then take heart to start with Book I as the inception of the whole inquiry unthinkable to those Greek scholars at that time, but Herodotus could make it and you cannot help admiring him when you read his famous preamble:

Herodotus of Halicarnassus here displays his inquiry, so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvellous deeds -- some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians -- may not be without their glory; and especially to show why the two people fought each other. (p. 4)

This preamble, I think, in the 1970 edition may entice you as well:

HERODOTUS of Halicarnassus, his Researches are here set down to preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples; and more particularly, to show how they came into conflict. (p. 41)

Moreover, the one in this 1988 edition published by the University of Chicago Press is also interesting:

I, Herodotus of Harlicarnassus, am here setting forth my history, that time may not draw the color from what man has brought into being, nor those great and wonderful deeds, manifested by both Greeks and barbarians, fail of their report, and, together with all this, the reason why they fought one another. (p. 33)

First of all, don't be intimidated by its length, that is, 543 pages in the 1996 Penguin edition, please find any translation you're familiar with its style or wording then keep reading a few pages once in a while, don't hope to finish it in a few days/weeks since it's one of the masterpieces in ancient history, you need time to think, take notes and ask yourself why.

Secondly, this is definitely his magnum opus for posterity of all nations to read, reflect and interpret in terms of reciprocal toleration as fellow human beings so that we learn not to make unthinkable mistakes again. In many engagements there, you can witness various unimaginably ruthless deeds instigated by the powers that be, fate and godlike valour of those true Greek and Persian soldiers. Those fallen heroes including all innumerable soldiers killed in various battles deserve our respect with awe, admiration and gratitude as our exemplary models of humankind.

And finally, scholars should honour and keep him in mind since Cicero called him 'the father of history' and we can enjoy reading his second to none narrative. However, some chapters might not be interesting when he sometime told us about the flora/fauna seemingly unrelated to the looming hostilities. I take them as relaxing moments and we can learn from what he told us frankly and good-humoredly. Those ruthless war scenes, for instance from Chapter 20 onwards in Book IX, are amazingly described to the extent that we can visualize such ruthless gory scenes with increasingly stupefying horror in which it is hopelessly put into words.

That's it and I think I would reread the University of Chicago version for solace and advice in there whenever I'm free from work. It'd teach us of course to mind our own business, be kind, have mercy towards our fellow colleagues, friends, cousins, etc. since we all have limited time to live on earth.

Note: In fact, I have another Penguin copy with its front cover showing a painted vase depicting two soldiers in action (Persian vs. Greek), not this one so the page numbers as mentioned above may vary. Therefore, I've reposted my review since I don't know how to return to its previous book cover.

When in India, look out for the dog-sized ants because THEY ARE FAST. Just one of many useful travel tips from our boy H.

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.

“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!

Read a little more than a third of the text for a Humane Letters class in Hillsdale College's Classical Education MA program. In terms of sheer entertainment value, Herodotus is hard to beat, and his literary approach to mapping and explaining the world is fascinating—he really falls more into the genre of wisdom literature than chronicle. The great existential truth of the frailty of man is at the forefront of everything that he writes about, and is quite moving in the moments where it shines through fully, as in Cyrus's sparing of Croesus and Xerxes weeping as he gazes over the Hellespont. Ultimately, what makes Herodotus a Great Book is the fact that he is the greatest systematic expositor of the polytheistic worldview, without wishing for things to be different (as in Homer) or striving beyond the limitations of his day (as in Plato). His understanding of Fate, the relationship between the transcendent and immanent, the visible and invisible, and just his explanations of the customs of the nations make it almost a pagan Civitas Dei, and especially worth comparing to the Old Testament histories for a clear stack-up of the respective paradigms of Athens and Jerusalem. It is a book that, in its outlook, defines a huge era, and which, like the works of Homer and Dante, makes an entire cosmos come alive in vivid illumination for readers today.

Oh, and definitely splurge for the Landmark Herodotus. It's one of the highest quality and most helpful critical editions of anything. Andrea Purvis's translation is one of those, in the spirit of Lattimore, that needlessly "Hellenizes" the names in an effort to be more authentic (i.e. "Lykourgos", when literally everyone calls him Lycurgus). It would be like translating the Old Testament and calling Moses "Mosheh" and Solomon "Shlomo". But that's a minor annoyance.

“These are the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done, and of preventing the great and wonderful actions of the Greeks and the barbarians from losing their due meed of glory; and withal to put on record what were the grounds of feud.”

Herodotus’s reference to his “researches” (sometimes translated “inquiries”) uses the Greek word historie, from which we get “history.” This is the first recorded use of the word. 

The main subject of The Histories is the twenty years (499-479 B.C.E) of war between Greece and Persia. Herodotus begins by presenting the alleged origins of enmity between Greece and Persia in mythic times. He adds Persian and Phoenician accounts that he has heard to Greek ones. These stories have to do with the abduction of women. According to the Persians, the Phoenicians began the quarrel by carrying off the Greek woman Io and taking her to Egypt. The Greeks retaliated by abducting the woman Europa from the Phoenicians, and later they carried off Medea of Colchis, which motivated Paris to abduct Helen. Herodotus says that the Persians trace their enmity toward the Greeks back to the Trojan War. The Phoenicians, on the other hand, insist that Io left willingly. 

After summarizing these stories, Herodotus says that he will not discuss further which account is correct, and changes the subject to historical causes more recent than the legendary past: “I prefer to rely on my own knowledge, and to point out who it was in actual fact that first injured the Greeks…” Herodotus traces the beginning of the conflict to when Croesus of Lydia conquered the Greek towns of Asia, but Books I - IV focus on other issues. Most of this part of the book is concerned with geographical accounts, stories of notable people, and ethnographies of the peoples ruled by the Persians. Some scientific issues also come up, such as the cause of the flooding of the Nile. Starting with Book V, in which the Persians suppress the rebellion of the local Greek population in Persian territory (the Ionian Revolt) the narrative becomes more tightly focused.  

Herodotus is a moralist; he presents the story of the Persian Wars as a story of how the hubris of the Persian rulers leads to their defeat, and demonstrates how “the god with his lightning smites always the bigger animals, and will not suffer them to wax insolent… likewise his bolts fall ever on the highest houses and the tallest trees” (Bk VII).

The website Livius.org has commentaries that I found really helpful when I was reading this. 
http://www.livius.org/articles/person...

The website also has an interesting essay, “The Significance of Marathon” on the historiography of the battle of Marathon, which occurs in Book VI.

“It is often said that the battle of Marathon was one of the few really decisive battles in history. The truth, however, is that we cannot establish this with certainty. Still, the fight had important consequences: it gave rise to the idea that East and West were opposites, an idea that has survived until the present day, in spite of the fact that 'Marathon' has become the standard example to prove that historians can better refrain from such bold statements.”

Some great reviews by other readers on GR:

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... (this one’s pretty funny)

some highlights:
Bk I: The story of Croesus & Solon & Cyrus - The wealthy king of Lydia, Croesus, urges Solon, the Athenian lawgiver [magistrate] to admit that he is the happiest of men. (Croesus at this point as captured nearly all the Greek towns along the west coast of Asia.)

Solon warns him that no one can be called happy until he ends his life well. “Call him, however, until he die, not happy but fortunate. Scarcely, indeed, can any man unite all these advantages: as there is no country which contains within it all that it needs, but each, while it possesses some things, lacks others, and the best country is that which contains the most; so no single human being is complete in every respect — something is always lacking. He who unites the greatest number of advantages, and retaining them to the day of his death, then dies peaceably, that man alone, sire, in my judgment, is entitled to bear the name of ‘happy.’ But in every matter it behooves us to mark well the end: for oftentimes God gives men a gleam of happiness, and then plunges them into ruin.”
 
Croesus dismisses Solon’s answer, “since he thought that a man must be an arrant fool who made no account of the present good, but bade men always wait and mark the end.”

Croesus suffers for his arrogance when his son Atys is accidentally killed in a boar hunt. Croesus later attacks Cappadocia, part of the empire of Cyrus the Great (and part of modern Turkey). In the conflict that follows, Cyrus captures the city of Sardis. Croesus's other son is killed in the fighting, trying to protect his father, and Croesus is captured. Croesus tells Cyrus the story of Solon's warning to him years before, and how everything had turned out exactly as Solon had said, although it was nothing that especially concerned him, but applied to all mankind alike, and most to those who seemed to themselves happy... Then Cyrus, hearing what Croesus had said, relented, bethinking himself that he too was a man, and that he was a fellow man, and one who had once been as blessed by fortune as himself, that he was burning alive; afraid, moreover, of retribution, and full of the thought that whatever is human is insecure. So he bade them quench the blazing fire as quickly as they could, and take down Croesus and the other Lydians, which they tried to do, but the flames were not to be mastered.”

Croesus prays to Apollo and a rainstorm extinguishes the flames. Cyrus, “convinced by this that Croesus was a good man and a favourite of heaven” asked him after he was taken off the pile, "'Who it was that had persuaded him to lead an army into his country, and so become his foe rather than continue his friend?' 'What I did, oh! king, was to thy advantage and to my own loss. If there be blame, it rests with the god of the Greeks, who encouraged me to begin the war. No one is so foolish as to prefer war to peace, in which, instead of sons burying their fathers, fathers bury their sons. But the gods willed it so.”

Bk II: Herodotus’s story about Indian burial customs:

“… if one were to offer men to choose out of all the customs in the world as seemed to them the best, they would examine the whole number, and end by preferring their own; so convinced are they that their own usages surpass those of all others. Unless, therefore, a man was mad, it is not likely that he would make sport of such matters. That people have this feeling about their own laws may be seen by many proofs; among others, the following. Darius, after he had got the kingdom, called into his presence certain Greeks who were at hand, and asked -- 'What he should pay them to eat the bodies of their fathers when they died?' To which they answered, that there was no sum that would tempt them to do such a thing. He then sent for certain Indians, of the race called Callatians, men who eat their fathers, and asked them, while the Greeks stood by, and knew by the help of an interpreter all that was said -- 'What he should give them to burn the bodies of their fathers at their decease?' The Indians exclaimed aloud, and bade him forbear such language.”

Bk III: Sosicles of Corinth’s response to the Spartans, who at this point in the narrative plan to reinstate a tyrant in Athens. Sparta’s allies are skeptical of the plan, but only Sosicles the Corinthian argues against it:

“Surely the heaven will soon be below, and the earth above, and men will henceforth live in the sea, and fish take their place upon the dry land, since you, Lacedaemonians [another name for the Spartans] propose to put down free governments in the cities of Greece, and set up tyrannies in their room. There is nothing in the whole world so unjust, so bloody, as a tyranny. If, however, it seems to you a desirable thing to have the cities under despotic rule, begin by putting a tyrant over yourselves, and then establish despots in other states… If you knew what tyranny was as well as ourselves, you would be better advised than you now are in regard to it.”

Sosicles then tells of how Corinth was once ruled by an oligarchy, before it became democratic.

Bk VII: The battle of Thermopylae 
“And now there arose a fierce struggle between the Persians and the Lacedaemonians over the body of Leonidas, in which the Greeks four times drove back the enemy, and at last by their great bravery succeeded in bearing off the body. This combat was scarcely ended when the Persians with Ephialtes approached; and the Greeks, informed that they drew nigh, made a change in the manner of their fighting. Drawing back into the narrowest part of the pass, and retreating even behind the cross wall, they posted themselves upon a hillock, where they stood all drawn up together in one close body, except only the Thebans. The hillock whereof I speak is at the entrance of the straits, where the stone lion stands which was set up in honour of Leonidas. Here they defended themselves to the last, such as still had swords using them, and the others resisting with their hands and teeth; till the barbarians, who in part had pulled down the wall and attacked them in front, in part had gone round and now encircled them upon every side, overwhelmed and buried the remnant which was left beneath showers of missile weapons.

Thus nobly did the whole body of Lacedaemonians and Thespians behave; but nevertheless one man is said to have distinguished himself above all the rest, to wit, Dieneces the Spartan. A speech which he made before the Greeks engaged the Medes, remains on record. One of the Trachinians told him, ‘Such was the number of the barbarians, that when they shot forth their arrows the sun would be darkened by their multitude.’ Dieneces, not at all frightened at these words, but making light of the Median numbers, answered ‘Our Trachinian friend brings us excellent tidings. If the Medes darken the sun, we shall have our fight in the shade.’ ”

Bk VIII: Xerxes reflects on the passage of time: 
“And now, as he looked and saw the whole Hellespont covered with the vessels of his fleet, and all the shore and every plain about Abydos as full as possible of men, Xerxes congratulated himself on his good fortune; but after a little while he wept. 

Then Artabanus, the king’s uncle (the same who at the first spake so freely against the king, and advised him not to lead his army against Greece) when he heard that Xerxes was in tears, went to him, and said: ‘How different, sire, is what thou art now doing, from what thou didst a little while ago! Then thou didst congratulate thyself; and now, behold! thou weepest.’

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

‘And yet there are sadder things in life than that,’ returned the other. ‘Short as our time is, there is no man, whether it be here among this multitude or elsewhere, who is so happy, as not to have felt the wish — I will not say once, but full many a time — that he were dead rather than alive. Calamities fall upon us; sicknesses vex and harass us, and make life, short though it be, to appear long. So death, through the wretchedness of our life, is a most sweet refuge to our race; and God, who gives the tastes that we enjoy of pleasant times, is seen, in his very gift, to be envious.’”