/lit/ - Literature

Yeah he's dry. As for herodotus, he's kind of an outlier in this regard in all honesty

>>17899860
I urge you to reread his chapter on the plague

>>17899938
Not op. I remember being surprised at how good it was.

>>17899938
Yes, that was incredible.

>>17899860
filtered

>>17899938
Yeah you're right some parts are great but he goes on all these tangents to the point I have no clue on the actual timeline of events.

I can't believe Herodotus was actually kind of right about giant ants

>>17899965
That's because you don't know the events, you're relying on the primary source to be your introduction and guide.

You might not appreciate this, but these Histories were written for the men who experienced these events or followed along with the news at the time, and for the sons and grandsons of these men who would have their family's stories as a backdrop and already be VERY familiar with the events before they might try reading Thucydides' tales of it.

You need to go into it already knowing the basic overview of the events described, it's a case where you should read the crib notes first. Always try to do that.

>>17899860
>after I read The Peloponnesian War

It was their WW1. Debate me.

>>17900097
Yeah, but in reality you only need a map and a chronology of events to understand 95% of the references

It's not as good as Herodotus but it was a great read for me nonetheless. I've said it before but the Sicilian Expedition and the events preceding and leading after it were kino.

>>17900093
IT WAS A MISTRANSLATION AHHHHHHHH

>>17899860
You have to read it like a tragedy. The message is in-between.

>>17899860
>Perhaps the absence of the element of fable in my work will make it seem less easy on the ear; but it will have served its purpose well enough if it is judged useful by those who want to have a clear view of what happened in the past an what -- the human condition being what it is -- can be expected to happen again some time in the future in similar of much the same ways. It is composed to be a possession for all time and not just a performance piece for the moment.

The enjoyment of the book comes more from interpretation than from the direct narrative. Thucydides may limit his own authorial commentary, but he was by no means an impartial bystander. He isn't writing a 'history' but is 'writing the war', an interpretation beyond simply the facts of the matter. And he isn't just writing about 'the' war, but war in general, about the relation between power and justice, autonomy and necessity, self and collective interest, nature and convention, oligarchy and democracy, all within the narrative of the Peloponnesian war. He may not have been able to choose the outcome or events of the war, but he does make choices of context and placement. The juxtaposition of the funeral oration with the plague of Athens, the linking of the outcome of Melos with the Sicilian expedition, these were all conscious choices on the part of Thucydides. So i think you should be thinking more about what Thucydides wants to say than just the events he is recounting.
Many of the speeches we can only assume are inventions by Thucydides, even beyond his initial comments of 'writing what i thought appropriate for the circumstances'. The consistency of themes across speeches and the outright narrative foreshadowing in many of them is too coincidental in my mind to be historical fact. So we should be thinking about what purpose they serve. And it is these landmark speeches like the debate at Sparta, Pericles' funeral oration, the Mytilenian debate, the trial of the Plataeans, the Melian dialogue, the Sicilian debate, that Thucydides is at at his best. The joy is in interpretation of the themes and arguments presented in these speeches, in the context in which they are spoken, the inversions that occur throughout the text, rather than the immediate blow-by-blow of the war. But even then, there are great narrative pieces like the plague of Athens, the civil strife of Corcyra, the invasion of Pylos, and especially the Sicilian expedition.
If you're just reading it just for the history then i guess i can see why you would find it dry. But, to read it as simply that I think is to do a disservice to the text. Thucydides is one of those authors you can think and debate about endlessly, and it's there that i think you'll find the most to enjoy.
The book is a masterpiece and i wish the board talked about it more.

*ahem*
FUCK CORINTHIANS
FUCK THRACIANS
AND FUCK BARBARIANS
that will be all.

>>17899965
He writes chronologically in winters and summers for each year.

>>17901522
Another great write up by the based Kill la Kill poster

>>17899860
livy bestu girl

>>17899860
the original Greek is apparently very complex and advanced

I read excerpts of the book for class. I thought the funeral oration, Melian dialogue, and Sicilian expedition were more interesting than the excerpts I read of Herodotus. Herodotus talks about some wacky things like gods interfering in politics but Thucydides is more perceptive about human nature.

bump

>>17900158
Who is the subject of the tragedy?

>>17900105
what was their WW2?

Testing

>>17899938
it wasn't that good.

>>17899860
Thucydides is trash, but you have to read him so that you can read the real writer, Xenophon
>tfw youth of Greece coulda been saved from hippies if they would have gone dog hunting

>>17900440
Name a time Herodotus failed to live up to this statement minus the boring part