One of the surprising things about this book is that, despite its antiquity, the author’s personality comes through. Of course I’m hearing his voice through translation, but I couldn’t help but imagine that I was on the listening end of an extended conversation with the book’s narrator who had traveled widely, met many people, and read much. The book’s narrative sounds almost conversational with numerous digressions and detours that indicate extensive knowledge of the background of the characters and incidents being described. I almost feel like I’ve met the author who lived nearly 2.5 thousand years ago.

This book is generally recognized as the founding work of history in Wester literature. Published around 425 BC, the year the author died, it recounts the traditions, politics, geography, and wars of that era. The actual writing of the work had probably stretched over a number of prior years. The work is divided into nine books beginning with founding myths and Trojan War and proceeding through Greek history until the second Persian invasion.

It’s interesting to note that the second Persian invasion occurred approximately fifty-five years prior to the publishing of this account. Those intervening years were the zenith of the golden years of Ancient Greece during which Athens dominated over the other Greek city states. However, the beginning rebellions of what later became known as the Peloponnesian War (431 BC – 404 BC) were underway.

n  LINKn to my review of History of the Peloponnesian War, by Thucydides.

n  LINKn to my review of Herodotus: The Father of History, by Elizabeth Vandiver (24 lectures)

Postscript added Sept 24, 2019:
One story told by Herodotus I found of particular interest—he reported being told of a Phoenician ship that circumnavigated around Africa (a.k.a. Libya in Herodotus’ era). This would have occurred about 2,000 years prior to Vasco da Gama. I was amazed to learn this, but Herodotus referenced the incident only as a reason for concluding that Africa was a smaller continent than Europe. Herodotus said the Phoenicians reported that the sun passed to the north of the ship while they were in the southern part of Africa—Herodotus believed this to be impossible. Ironically, Herodotus referenced the report of a northern sun as a reason for doubting to whole story, whereas today we recognize it as a reason to conclude that the reported circumnavigation to be credible.

“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!

Herodotus's histories contains some of my favourite writings in all of ancient Greek literature.
Book 2 about Egypt especially, is utterly fascinating.
Books 7, 8 and 9, which mainly cover the events of Xerxes's invasion of Greece, is engaging throughout.
The middle part of the book however did not manage to interest me as much as the beginning and end though.
It contained little ethnography, and focused more on local histories, lineages and events surrounding king Darius.
One can understand why Herodotus engages in lineage listing, he wants great men's names to be remembered, but it makes for dull reading. Homer's Iliad suffers from the same malady.
Overall though this is a great work of storytelling, Herodotus truly manages to draw you in, it is a great pleasure to imagine oneself in the world of Herodotus.
In terms of entertainment value it puts into stark contrast that other great work of Greek history, Thucydides's history of the Peloponnesian war, despite the fact that Herodotus's tales undeniably stray further from historical fact.

“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!

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.

Ah, the sublime egoism of the internets, where a mere mortal like me writes a review of Herodotus.
Obviously, as he is the first historian, you should read him. Even if he were boring and inaccurate, you should read him. But Herodotus is certainly not boring, and he's not as inaccurate as a lot of famous quotes from him would make you believe. It's sad, but Herodotus' reputation for inaccuracy, which he had even in the ancient world, comes largely from people stupidly misreading his greatest strength: whereas Thucydides and most later ancient historians would only give you the narrative they thought most plausible, Herodotus routinely gives several different versions of events as he heard them from different sources, and tells tales he heard but which he expressly doesn't personally believe. This is awesome because it allows us to double-check his work. For example, in 4.42 Herodotus describes the circumnavigation of Africa by the Egyptians ca. 600; and the detail he finds most unbelievable in the story--that the sailors had the sun to the northward of them as they sailed around the southern tip of Africa--is accurate and is now considered the best evidence that such a journey actually happened. Awesome book great job, H!

The Landmark Herodotus: blue/black/white maps every few pages; set out for readability; marginal content notes to skim through or locate events; opens to lie flat; short appendices A-U and an exhaustive index; the only fault in its well-thought-out usability may be its weight on your lap. Inexpensive for the quality.

Probably the most readable ancient text I've come across. Written between 400-500 B.C, it is a history (maybe the world's first history) of the Greek/Persian war. Herodotus also gave tons of background information on cultures, legends, traditions, gossip, etc of his age from Europe to Africa and the Persian Gulf to Asia. Sometimes he sounds modern in his insight and at other times he's just so gullible. For example, he believes stories of a woman giving birth to a lion and of men with no heads with one eyeball in the middle of their chests. Something else that amused me was how squeamish he was about the Bacchanal/Eleusian mysteries and rites. He had no qualms about describing brutal war and murder and rape or other things that (unlike war) make modern Americans uncomfortable like transvestites, and women leading armies. But, when it came to the mysteries, which were basically ancient people getting drunk and high and losing their inhibitions and dancing and sexing it up while worshipping gods like Dionysius, he felt too sacrilegiously offended to give details. But the climax was of course the wars. We've all seen the movie about the 300 Spartans fighting the massive Persian army, but this book has the source material. Compelling stuff that begins with a war caused by someone abducting a woman and ends with a king killing his brother because he wants his wife.

The point of ploughing through this 1858 translation of Herodotus' 'world classic' is precisely to read the text that Victorian imperialists would have read. Go to a later translation with annotations if you want to hear the fully authentic voice of the Greek but this one will do.

The book meets two needs. It is a geography (of the centres of power and civilisation in the fifth century BC) and a history, not only of those specific centres but of the massive clash between the hegemonic Persian Empire and the last nearby 'free' zone, that of the Greeks.

Herodotus is, of course, writing as a Greek but a cosmopolitan one who has travelled to many of the places he describes. His achievement is remarkable. The slanderous 'father of lies' claim is grossly unfair ... he may take an absurd story at face value but he will also frequently question claims.

The further away from Ionia he is, the more dodgy the data and the nearer, the more reliable, but, given the technology of travel and information transmission and preservation of the day, sneering strikes me as wholly inappropriate. It is not a religious text. We are all free to critique his claims.

Truth to tell, the geography is much duller than the history. The micro-histories of provinces and the founding of empires is very much less interesting than the second half of the text (made up of nine books) which centres on the Persian Wars.

If you can get through the first half, you will find (considering we are dealing with a text nearly 2,500 years old) some serious excitement as Darius and Xerxes build their forces, transport them around the Aegean and face off the mostly united Greek armies and navies.

The battle of Marathon in the first invasion (490-492BC) and those of Salamis and Plataea during the second invasion (480-479BC) are events placed in their context, filled with detail (sometimes more than one account of a particular event) and written to thrill.

If there is one section to read, it is the Spartan defence of the pass at Thermopylae which has become a by-word in Western culture for communitarian military sacrifice in defence of the homeland (Book VII) and has even inspired a contemporary comic book and film.

There are gaps, of course, that we must regret. He rarely goes far West so, although we know something of the tyrants of Greek Italy and Sicily, he tells us nothing about Etruria, little about Carthage and virtually nothing useful about the Western Mediterranean or Central Europe.

Nubia and Ethiopia are only palely reflected in relation to the Persian occupation of Egypt, Arabia, India and Central Asia are places of myth and legend and the South Russian steppes only interesting because of the peoples who harried civilisation.

Later commentators often position the books as a morality tale about civilisation and oriental barbarism but this is self-serving by those wanting to be inheritors of Hellenic culture. It has created a myth about difference that has been exaggerated,

It is a set of books about hegemony and the right of resistance. The Persians are representatives of imperial realpolitik rather than exporters of values. The Greeks have provoked them and the Persians find an irritating gap in control over the known world of consequence to them.

The Greeks themselves are not a polity but a distinctive culture. It becomes clear that (just as many Britons would prefer to serve a hegemonic European Union than be free) many Greeks will submit to Persian lordship from vulnerability or for profit.

The massive Persian forces also include many unstable Greek elements whose homelands are not being threatened with sack and massacre but who have thrown themselves in with the Persians either because they have little choice or, frankly, prefer mercantile stability to rebellion.

Herodotus is not a theoretician, ideologue or social scientist. He just tells it like it is but the clues are there to mercantile interests who quite like access to the 'single market' built by the Persians but who are ready to switch sides at the drop of a hat if necessary.

The Greeks who are defending their territory are an anarchic lot but they are able to sink their differences (Herodotus is good on the summits and councils where different interests are played out) to preserve their homelands.

What is remarkable is the relative discipline, not based entirely on fear and shame but on consultation and interest. This is explained by factors alien to us today but they include a culture of shame and honour and a fatalistic but interpretative approach to oracles and the will of the gods.

We are looking at a world both familiar to ourselves (in terms of interests, double-dealing, cynicism and political machination) and apparently unfamiliar (in terms of self-sacrifice, contempt for the cowardly, cultural coherence and shared religion).

I say unfamiliar but this would not be quite so unfamiliar to our grandparents and to all the generations before them. World War I was fought in part on the basis of Hellenic virtue which brings us full circle to the 1858 edition and its role in creating an imperial honour culture.

Herodotus can be read at many levels - as a source of data that would otherwise be lost, as a rattling narrative that reads as true history for the most part, as an incomplete picture of an Eastern Mediterranean civilisational zone and as exemplar.

One gets the impression that Herodotus was keen to tell the story of the Persian Wars as a culturally patriotic tale but he is never dismissive of the enemy. Persians are always treated with respect as worthy opponents who are different from Greeks but not radically so.

They come across 'just like us' as human beings (a theme to be brought out in Euripides 'The Persians') which is not incompatible with being triumphalist about victory. This is all about men against men with 'great men' (and the odd woman like Artemesia) on both sides.

The victory is all the sweeter because the gods are fickle and because Greek heroism matched Persian organisational might. Indeed, in battle sections, it is clear that the Persians themselves are fine fighters and that both sides had wobbly and inexperienced allies.

Similarly, the organisational structures of the two sides are central to the story. Both are capable organisers. Imperial might could bring vast numbers of men and material long distances. Hellenic fear could bring squabbling locals into one battle front that could hold a line.

Men were defending their homelands (and would go back to warring with each other as soon as the danger was over) against 'imperialism' while quite happy to build empires if they could (as Athens and Macedon were to do).

These wars are thus just one incident in the constant ebb and flow of raw power, organisation and morale where the ideology is merely culture - being a 'people' distinct from other people without necessarily wanting to exterminate them or not to trade or mate with them.

Indeed, civilisation might be defined as conquest and expansion that utilises what it controls instead of destroying it.

What is also heartening about Herodotus' world is that persuasion is just a tool for struggle and power - as in the references to the persuasive and cunning Athenian C-in-C Themistocles. There are no theorising philosophers trying to justify slaughter or getting in the way.

The books are riddled with pagan virtue, less ritualised than in Homer and without the magical thinking of Plato. This was a culture of power defending itself against another culture of power that had miscalculated the organisational and cultural cohesion of its opponent on its home territory.

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 can see why this book is held in such esteem; for the first time the acts of men are looked at through the optics of investigative inquiry - "Circumstances rule men; men do not rule circumstances" is still the lesson we seem to learn and forget every decade - "Circumstance is the hub of the wheel; men are the spokes that provide traction through connection to the felloes of history" is what this book has taught me.

قبل 2500 سنة وفي وقت مفصلي مهم
كتب هيرودوت تاريخ اليونان والمنطقة

حيث كان الفرس الاخمينيين في اوج توسعهم حتى احتلوا اجزاء من بلاد الاغريق .. وفي معركة سلاميس المفصلية الذي انتصر بها اليونان وحققوا بها استقلالهم من الفرس .. جاء هيرودوت ليؤرخ تلك الاحداث في منهجية علمية متميزة عن المؤرخين السابقين عليه
طبعا يبقى الكثير مما كتبه هيرودوت يقترب للميثولوجيا والاساطير .. وربما كان هذا ميزة في الكتاب حيث يؤرخ لنا اعتقادات المجتمع والقصص الغريبة التي يتبادلونها

يؤرخ هيرودوت للاغريق والفرس ومصر والاثيوبيين وغيرهم عبر قصص ملفتة .. لكن يبقى من الصعب ان نقول بأن نظرة هيرودوت او من نقل عنهم كانت محايدة وموضوعية ..

كتاب تراثي قيم ..لكن يبقى صعبا ومملا احيانا ..لكنه مدخل مهم للثقافة والتفكير الاغريقي القديم