Herodotus was curious about the causes of the war between the Greeks and the Persians, and this is the central subject of his Histories. The conflict between Greece and Persia, which culminated in the great expedition of Xerxes to Greece in 480 BC, is the story of how an army of allegedly 750.000 men and a navy of 1200 ships were defeated by the fragmented forces of the Greeks, who barely counted with 40.000 men and 378 ships. The numbers might not be exact, but the truth is that the Greeks were heavily outnumbered in each and every battle.

Herodotus admired Athens but he was not an Athenian. He lived in Halicarnassus, an Ionian town on the southwest coast of Asia Minor. He traveled extensively throughout the ancient world because he believed in the importance of seeing things for oneself. When he could not see for himself he questioned the best sources available and reported conflicting information and his own doubts. He lived at a time when facts were enmeshed with myth and many critics since antiquity ridiculed him and described him as a reteller of tales and the "father of lies". Herodotus came from an oral tradition and he claims to practice oral history, now seen as one of the most modern historical disciplines.

His writing is exhaustive and digressive, sometimes confusing, sometimes too chatty and long winded, but always delightful and amusing. So many absurdities have been included in his Histories because he considers that anything could be possible. And yet, this is the first continuous prose narrative extant in Western literature, a source of instruction and delight, just what the ancients thought great literary works should be.

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

This is the first non-fiction book ever written.

This is an amazing translation as the words appear as fresh as when they were written 2,500 years ago. The book is a mixture of history and legend, an enthralling read even when the author is describing the tribes of Libya and their characteristics. The events included are all the major battles between Persia and Greece...Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea.

I'm still in shock I read this book so quickly, testament to the author's engaging style.

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.

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."

Hérodote, ça a été pour moi la porte d'entrée dans le monde de l'antiquité...
L'enquête, Livres I à IV
L'Enquête. Livres V à IX

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.

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 feel kind of wrong reviewing this book as it was written hundreds of years ago, but I’ll give it a whirl

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.

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.

4,5* (Translated by Robin Waterfield)