/lit/ - Literature

>>22776314
Reading Herodotus now but this is next on my list. How does it compare? I enjoy Herodotus so far.

>>22776314
Im gonna let you in on a little secret, everything in there is a fictional story exaggerated probably a thousand times over.

>>22776497
And Pericles said hello

Thousands of years later anon will claim this was exaggerated

>>22776440
Obviously, reading Herodotus feels similar to reading Thucydides, so it’s still enjoyable. In my opinion, though, Thucydides’ writing is more interesting and is performed slightly better. Perhaps it is because he picked a very concrete theme: the war, and doesn’t much venture outside of it, whereas Herodotus is a bit more willing to refer to various and rambling anecdotes. Still, they’re both good. Very comfy reads.

>Pericles
For me, it’s Brasidas.

>>22776314
For me, it's Alcibiades

>>22776314
>Pericles
cowardly virgin who hid behind the athenian walls and lost the war, can't compete with the chad Cleon who won Sphacteria even though everyone said it was a bad idea

>>22776314
He was definitely a very capable politician in times of peace, but he miscalculated badly when it came to war. I admire Alcibiades more, such an exceptional personality. Athens would have gone far if they knew how to make use of him. Make sure to also read Xenophon and Plutarch to get a complete understanding of the war and those characters.

>>22776556
I really love you guys.

>>22776440
Herodotus is a lot better and unlike Thucy is an actual historian. Only herodotus is source critical. Thucy is just straight up: trust me bro. People have this misconception that Herodotus is a fabulist and Thucy is a journalist. It’s just wrong. Read them and see. They’re both worth reading anyway, but it’s fascinating to compare them

>>22776556
>Cleon
oh hell naw... you did NOT just say that shit. take it back RIGHT now anon or else i'm gonna put you in my next comedy, i'll have a donkey sodomizing you at the pnyx while your recite laments from Euripides' latest flop

>>22776595
>I admire Alcibiades more
you admire the flamboyant retard over actual statesmen

>>22776314
After Thucydides, read Xenophon's history.

>>22776440
Herodotus I felt sucked compared. Thucydides stays on his topics which makes him not a headache to read.

>>22776314
I'm of two minds when it comes to Thucydides' account of Pericles. On one hand he seems to greatly admire him as a prescient leader of Athens, who was 'a far-sighted judge of the city’s strengths' and that 'under him it [athens] reached the height of its greatness', on the other hand Pericles appears to be a deeply ironic character in the greater story of Athens in the war. Much of what Thucydides seems to praise in Pericles precipitates the downfall of Athens first in the demagoguery of Cleon and later Alcibiades, and much of what Pericles praises in the Athenians is precisely what leads them into their worst expeditions.
We should remember that at the time, Pericles (along with Ephialtes) were democratic radicals who tore down the more aristocratic Cimon and ushered in the vision of a popular athens that we think of today. Thucydides would have been acutely aware of this, and his primary praise of Pericles comes from his understanding of the Athenian character (as outlined in the Funeral Oration and the Corinthians' account to the Spartans) in his ability to mobalise this character as a 'whirlwind of both thought and action', but steer it away from disaster. So Pericles is the individual who both unleashed the democratic character of Athens and best harnessed it for the public good.
And yet, when we look at the greatest errors of Athens throughout the war, they stem almost entirely from ironic corruptions of Pericles' statements, or their ironic fulfillment. To make a list of what Pericles praises of Athens:
>The Delian league is centralised under the tyranny of Athens' rather than the more democratic Peloponnesian League
>Athens' ability to make quick action in response to emergencies
>They consider the interests of the many not the few, are equal under the law but public appointment is by merit
>Athenians have a spirit of freedom and tolerance in private matters, but severity and law abiding in public matters
>They combine an interest in public and private matters, and are steadfast in the face of death
>They are all personally involved either in actual political decisions or in deliberation about them, in the belief that it is not words which thwart effective action but rather the failure to inform action with discussion in advance
>They possess a 'political eros' which stokes their love for the fame and grandness of Athens

>>22778138
Every single one of these leads to a critical disaster in the war:
>The Delian league breaks apart due to the Athenian tyranny, especially in the cruelty at Melos
>The impulsiveness of Athens almost leads to a disastrous emergency response to the Mytilenean revolt, saved only by Thucydides' apocryphal figure 'Diodotus'.
>Alcibiades, the architect of the Sicilian expedition, is explicitly aristocratic and rallies Athens by appealing also to their self interest AGAINST the public good.
>The Athenians become extremely prejudicial and intolerant in both public and private matters, exiling key generals (including Alcibiades, and Thucydides himself) in demagogic witch-hunts
>Athens breaks down the second there is a fear of death (as seen in both the plague of Athens and the end of the Sicilian expedition), where people ignore the public good to secure private gain
>The personal involvement of every Athenian leads to the rise of demagogues like Cleon, who explicitly advocate for Athenians not to deliberate but to act on raw emotion
>The very political Eros that Pericles appeals to is the same force that inspires Athens to take on the Sicilian expedition
In light of that, what are we to make of Pericles' 'far-sighted judgment of the cities strengths'? Because every strength that Pericles outlined became a weakness after he died. I had previously always read Thucydides as not a critique of the democratic character of Athens, but at it's post-Periclean leadership. After all, he explicitly praises Pericles (who, again, was a radical democrat). But in a way, Pericles himself contributed to that decline by creating the precedent of Athenian democracy as 'the government of the foremost citizen'. It is difficult to simultaneously praise Pericles for his ability to lead the Athenians through a dictatorship of the first-citizen, but then portray figures like Cleon and Alcibiades in a negative light because they subvert Athenian democracy in their demagogic style. Because it is clear that the reason they are able to do this is precisely because Pericles destroyed the vestiges of stable Aristocracy in Athens, and then battered down any deliberative character that democratic Athens may have had through his rule as primus inter pares (as a leader 'supremely capable in both speaking and in action', essentially a democratic leader who shone too bright). So you might ask: did Athens fall because of a failure of leadership, or a failure to do without leadership? Both undoubtedly, but that's kind of the point. Pericles was a great man, but he doesn't seem to have been great for Athens. And every criticism of Athens that Thucydides levels seems to have Pericles at its root.

>>22776440
I like Thucydides more. He's better at avoiding unnecessary tangents (which is refreshing in an ancient text) and instead incorporating them more naturally into the story. I would note that he writes with the intent to encapsulate a particular narrative which he felt best represents the overall circumstances and events of the war, as opposed to Herodotus who focuses more on relaying information and providing an accurate narrative.

Approaching it as a strictly historical text perhaps isn't the best outlook; it's still the best history of the Peloponnesian War, but it's also infused with his personal views about politics and international relations. Of course that's a massive point in favor of the book as a whole; his analyses of those topics are excellent and have stood the test of time—no small feat since he was one of the first writers to seriously broach the subject of international relations beyond "me good, you bad."

>>22778138
>>22778145
good posts

>>22776878
Aristophanes was too based for this earth.

>>22778545
>Philosophers
BTFO
>Women
BTFO
>Spendthrifts
BTFO
>The elderly
BTFO
>Generals
BTFO
>The ecclesia
BTFO
>The poor
BTFO
>Sycophants
BTFO
>Demagogues
BTFO
>Soothsayers
BTFO
>Ambassadors
BTFO
>Socrates
BTFO
>Euripides
BTFO
>Cleon
BTFO
>Agathon
BTFO
>Cratinus
BTFO
>Cleisthenes
BTFO
>Cleonymus
BTFO
>Lamachus
BTFO
>Hyperbolus
BTFO
>Megarians
BTFO
>Boeotians
BTFO
>Lacedaemonians
BTFO
>Scythians
BTFO
>Phalluses
Giant & erect

Need I go on?

>>22778875
You fogrgot some things
>Men
BTFO
>Frogs
BTFO
>Birds
BTFO
>Clouds
BTFO
>Peace
BTFO
>Knights
BTFO
>Wealth
BTFO
>Wasps
BTFO

>>22778883
>>Frogs
>BTFO

>>22778875
>Need I go on?
no need, i'm already kneeling

>>22777376
Alcibiades nearly won the war twice lol. Pericles exhausted the treasury and stuck everyone inside the walls to die of plague.

>>22776314
felt it started to drag in the middle when it was just sparta attacks this and athens sailed there and so on. but yeah pericles was pretty based

>>22778883
>cosmologists
BTFO (by farts)

>>22776314
For, me it's Brasidas. That man walked straight out of an Homeric Poem

>>22776524
yes, how would an ancient greek know the word "hello"?

>>22776595
>how to make use of him.
there's only one way alcibiades was ever useful to anybody and it ain't something we should discuss at the dinner table.

>>22776524
My favorite part is when he recounts a speech he “heard” years earlier word-for-word and everyone pretends like it actually totally happened

>>22779592
Go read his biography by Plutarch.

>>22779593
Doesn't he talk about that at the start of the book? That he writes what they're meant to say not exactly what they did say

>>22780572
Ye he does, but doesn’t that make it all seem like flowery BS, meant to get himself back into the good graces of the country that exiled him?

Especially considering, as >>22778145 pointed out, Pericles was a massive failure during the war.

>>22779592

>>22778145
Shit talk all you want but if pericles didn't die athens would win. The strategy he outlined was right athens just ignored it

>>22776314
By flattering the Athenian ego.

>>22776440
herodotus if you have soul, thucydides if you’re on the spectrum desu

>>22778193
Thucydides has been abused by modern international relations thinker

>>22776440
Herodotus is like your father tucking you in and telling you a bed time story
Thucydides is like your uncle talking about taxes at thanksgiving

>https://youtube.com/watch?v=PNzHOqjMHwY
>The strong do what they may, the weak suffer what they must
Kino

>>22776440
Enjoy the completely fantastical stories in Herodotus. Thucydides is dry as fuck. Xenophon is a happy medium and his style was favoured by later (Roman authors).

As a general aside - If Herodotus was the father of history (fun, loosely exploring his main argument). Thucydides was surely the father of academic history (exacting, source driven, sceptical analysis). That's how I generally understood them.

>>22782475
>Thucydides is dry as fuck
Wrong

>>22778138
>>22778145
Interesting post. Would you say that Thucydides is anti democracy then?

>>22776314
if you're reading Thucydides you need the best start. also all you really need is the Melian dialogue if you just want the gist

>>22782494
he even says so himself

>>22782839
He isn't dry at all. Unless you just don't like reading it, then of course it will be.

>>22782855
i guess even thuccy doesn’t like reading thuccy, then

>>22782475
Didn't his gold digging ants story end up being true? Just as rodents not ants

>>22783162
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/world/himalayas-offer-clue-to-legend-of-gold-digging-ants.html

>>22776543
>>22776314
Herodotus of Thucydides first?

>>22783214
herodotus first of course what kind of question is this

>>22778138
Satsuki anon? Is it really you?

>>22778145
>So you might ask: did Athens fall because of a failure of leadership, or a failure to do without leadership?
I think that Thucydides believed that Athens' failure was a moral one, and that slid towards disaster and defeat because the moderate leadership of Pericles was replaced by an increasingly capricious, greedy and over-confident mob. Thucydides never really seems to blame systems at all, for him history is driven by great men and failure comes from their personal flaws, like Demosthenes' resignation during the Sicilian campaign, Cleon's cruel streak and Alcibiades' self-interest.
Pericles undermined the balances of the Athenian democracy and handed power over to the mob because that empowered him, but to Thucydides he was a good steward of the people without the flaws of his successors. Whether he was aware of the contradictions you've raised or blinded by hero worship is never really addressed in his book. The way we think about historical figures' achievements in the present is very different to how the Greeks conceived of greatness. To them achievement was in doing great things, they didn't have the modern obsession with the big picture and repercussions. Today people are quick to tell you that Alexander wasn't actually that great because his empire collapsed soon after his death or that the Spartans weren't actually the military powerhouse the (You) think they were because after trouncing the Persians, spending hundreds of years as the premier power of the Peloponnese and overcoming the Athenian Empire they were defeated by Thebes.
Pericles mastered the mob and made Athens rich and powerful. He achieved personal greatness, and even if his reforms laid the foundation for mob rule, it seems to me that Thucydides never attributed to the failures of everyone who came after him to the system that Pericles created, even if it did give free reign the worst of the Athenian character. That was their personal failing.

>>22783163
Based
He just keeps winning

>>22783521
You're dreaming, wake up.
>>22774438

>>22784497
And what a beautiful dream it is...

>>22783545
I do think Thucydides attributes the war and its outcomes somewhat systematically, foremost in his account of the prophasis (truest cause) of the war being power disparities (even though i think this is butchered in the neo-realist so-called 'thucydides trap'), and the emphasis on tukhe (luck) in the success or failure of each belligerent. Though i also agree that he places great emphasis on the role of 'heroic' individuals as well, i just don't think it is entirely accurate to stuff him into the procrustean bed of a 'great man theory of history' anymore than that he is undertaking a 'systematic analysis' of the war. That is one of the things that makes him exemplary, is his nuance. Thucydides wasn't a writer of the heroic period (the period we draw this idea of Homeric ethics and heroics from), he was a contemporary of figures like Aristophanes, Sophocles, Socrates, and a near contemporary of a mature Plato and Aristotle. There was already an emergence of complex and universal moral systems and complicated conceptions of personal greatness in Athens at the time of his was writing, so i'm hesitant to fully accept that he was writing in that vein of 'greek heroics' that we see in Achilles and Heracles. But i haven't read anything on greek ethics recently enough to confidently adjudicate on that.
While i agree that he wouldn't have been influenced by a systematic analysis, i do think he would have been influenced by the dramatic tradition of Athens, which is why i used the term 'ironic' very deliberately. I just think that the composition of the history at times is too evocative not to be deliberate. The two best examples are the juxtaposition of the funerary oration with the plague of Athens, and the Melian dialogue and the Sicilean expedition. That fact that we see direct inversions of proclaimed values of Athens and their contrary actions in reality back-to-back makes me interpret it as Thucydides making a deliberate point (he does it with the Spartans at Pylos too). For example, every 'folly' that Athens accuses the Melians of:
>refusing to surrender to a superior power to the peril of their own lives
>putting faith in 'hope' of some reversal in the face of defeat
>turning to superstitious beliefs to guide them
they repeat themselves in the Sicilian expedition
>the death march the Athenians go on through Sicily rather than surrender
>holding out unnecessary hope in the face of utter defeat at the siege of Syracuse
>resorting to superstition over reason with Nicias' full moon debacle
That's textbook dramatic reversal. The Melians even explicitly allude to the impending Athenian downfall: 'in the event of your downfall your retribution will be proportionately severe just because of the example you have set others'. Dramatic Irony. If we recognise that influence, i don't think i's absurd to suggest that Thucydides was trying to invoke some overarching point with the stated words of Pericles and the proceeding Athenian Hamartia.

>>22776314
just read alcibiades' wikipedia page
he seems to fall in the hedonistic fuckboy stereotype, kind of a failed alexander
on the other hand the athenians seem like a bunch of faggots, who are both suspicious and gullible
you kind of start seeing the failures of democracy early on

>>22778145
Wish I could make posts this good. I'm not sure what I can say that's more in-depth than this, it's certainly an effective speech, I was looking for things wrong with it to make a funny post but it's actually just great.

Bump

>>22776314
Why doesn't Nicias get any love?

YES VELCOME NUMBER ONE CARIBBEAN SEXY MUSIC SHOW
TODAY VE ARE TALKING ANCIENT GLOWIES ESPIONAGE NETVORK PELOPONNISIAN VAR EHEM!
EXCUSE ME YOU SEE HOW THEY ATTACK MY THROAT

>>22783214
Herodotus