>doesn't mention his sources like Herodotus
>large part of his history is completely made up or at the very least heavily embellished speeches
>somehow has the reputation of being more objective, scientific and rigorous than Herodotus
Explain.
>>375933
I don't get it either.
Herodotus understood the cause of hair loss and it's been validated by recent studies.
Because Herodotus
A) has kind of a grandfatherly feel to his writing, as if you were sitting with him by the fire while he told you all this, where as Thucydides has the strict and straightforward prose of what he is, i. e. a general.
B) wrote down literally everything he heard, so people read the thing about the giant ants and go 'what the hell', even though the H-man himself repeatedly says that all this beyond what he's personally checked out himself is just what he heard from a Persian in a bar or whatever so don't go taking it as gospel. Thucydides just dealt with a local war he was intimately familiar with; he never had to handle the sheer wealth of exotic information Herodotus did. How can he realistically say he would have handled the subject better?
>>376087
> the guy who clearly shows his biases is more bias than the guy who writes like he knows everything
Helen was in Egypt, not Troy!
Part of is the literary language.
As someone who knows Ancient Greek fluently, and has read both of them, it seems to me that part of the reason why Thucydides seems more objective is because of the prosaic quality. He writes like an academic historian would.
But the problem from my point of view is that now we know that Herodotus embellished his writing a lot. Especially when talking about how many who died in battles.
>>376124
Is there a writer in antiquity who doesn't blow his army numbers out of proportion?
>>376145
Doubtful. Maybe Tacitus, but I haven't read him, so I couldn't comment.
>>375933
Made up speeches were a part of historical writing back in the day. They didn't have recordings or transcripts just lying around. They just know the general idea of what the speech was about and the character of the person.
Tacitus is actually shown to have almost perfectly quoted a decree by Claudius because we actually have an inscription of that decree. He does alter the grammar though.
>>375933
Because men-with-dog-heads-man tells random-ass stories about random-ass shit, meanwhile Thoukydidès speaks of a war he's actually witnessed and taken part in, while offering a style and a thought that sum up what the Greeks were like, something you can't understand with Plato, since it will only teach you how Egyptians would think.
>>376199
At the risk of sounding like an idiot: Plato was Egyptian?
>>376211
His ideas were. He brought them back from a trip to Egypt. It all reeks of Isis-tier esoterism. One man pointed out he probably met Jews in Egypt, and got his monotheistic and esoteric ideas from them too, perhaps.
>>376219
t. baseless speculator.
don't talk about theories as though they are fact, tripfag. you are actively damaging peoples' education that way.
>>376228
>he thinks anything contained in the Meno is somewhat even remotely Greek in origin
ayy just fucking end it all already family
>>376235
>theories have ethnic attachments!
stop meming, tripfag. i suppose hegel 'took' his theories from secret indians, because there was nothing 'german' in them.
as i said, you are harming peoples' education, and encouraging them to look at history in a puerile way. stop tripfagging, nobody needs to know who you are.
>>375966
>Herodotus understood the cause of hair loss and it's been validated by recent studies.
That you should shave your head bald to prevent yourself from going bald?
>>376374
Sort of.
Mostly just vitamin D's role in regulating hair growth and creating strong bones.
>>376219
>One man pointed out he probably met Jews in Egypt, and got his monotheistic and esoteric ideas from them too
You're clueless.
As an aside, are Plato and Socrates and such worth reading if you have no interest in philosophy?
>>376597
Socrates didn't write things. If you want to read Plato but not go in deep, read: Euthyphro, Apology, Symposium, Republic.
It may be because Thucy speaks with more authority than Hero "It coulda happened this way but idk nigga lel" dotus
>>375933
>doesn't mention his sources like Herodotus
Oh, you mean the same sourced that told him about the giant ants?
>ant gold
>>378212
>>378236
He doesn't offer it as fact. Like with other stuff that sounds ridiculous. He offers differing viewpoints and perspectives and let's the reader decide for himself rather than forcing his perspective.
Better than 'this speech didn't even happen but here is what i think the guy should have said, here is me pushing my views down your throat and offering it as objective history, look i said objective so my history must be objective!'
>>375933
Thucydides was actually a war reporter or whatever it's called in english.
>>376145
Not a lot but Herodotus is the only one considered to be Father of History. One should keep this in mind when he sees people attacking Herodotus for faults that are common in ancient writers.
I haven't read Herodotus. But I've read he's shit-tier. For one he just makes shit up all the time, for two he makes up sources, for three his History is fucking shit and is nothing like modern history. In other words don't waster your time with him he's shit.
