Categories
Book Reviews

Herodotus' Histories

Histories of the war between Greece and Persia is regarded as the first work of narrative history ever produced. It is pioneering in its attempt to provide a broader analysis of the factors behind the conflict, as well as providing one of the few insights available on the host of cultures that had been absorbed into the Persian Empire. Exact details of Herodotus’ life are unknown, but it is clear from the scope and nature of the Histories that he travelled extensively. It is believed that he was born between 500 and 470 BCE, and died sometime after 430 BCE based on the fact that the last event recorded in his Histories took place in that year. It appears that he was born in Halicarnassus, a Greek city in Asia Minor that at the time was under Persian rule. He lived in Athens for a significant part of his life, and some historians have suggested that he was killed in the plague that decimated the city’s population between 429 and 413 BCE. The Greco-Persian Wars were a series of wars fought between the Greek City States and the Persian Empire over a period of more than forty years. A consequence of the continuing expansion of the Persian Empire, the war reached its peak with two Persian attempted invasions of the Greek mainland between 490 and 479 BCE. The wars, and their aftermath, proved crucial in Ancient Greek history. The Greeks defied the odds and successfully repelled the military might of the Persian Empire at the peak of its powers. The victory proved crucial in allowing Greek culture and civilisation to flourish over the next few hundred years, as well as allowing Athens to become more powerful and challenge the previously dominant Spartans. Herodotus’ Histories can be divided into two sections, one of which deals with the origins of the Persian Empire, while the other is a more straightforward narrative of events in the wars themselves. It seems that Herodotus was not content to simply provide a description of the conflict, and felt a need to explain just how the Persian Empire came to be so powerful. As a result, his work illuminates the contrast between the polyglot Persian forces, made up of soldiers from a host of of different regions but united under a strong, forceful leadership, and Greece, a civilisation which shared a language and culture, but was divided by the politics of the City States. In the first four books of the Histories, Herodotus provided a detailed account of the various parts of the Persian Empire, and how they came to be conquered. Influenced by his extensive travels throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, the Histories combine detailed accounts of political maneuverings and military invasions with diversions into the stories and histories of the cultures and people from Africa to Asia who made up Persia at its peak. In Herodotus’ Histories we get detailed accounts of some of the most monumental moments in the history of the Ancient World, such as The Ionian Revolt and the Battle of Marathon. It also depicts some of the period’s most colouful figures, such as the Persian Kings Xerxes and Darius. Herodotus’ storyteller style means the Histories can simultaneously come across as a fantastical tale, and a detailed socio-political examination of two different cultures and the epic battle they fought. What is perhaps most remarkable however, is the balanced approach the author takes, depicting acts of great heroism and great evil on both sides. It is this neutrality which makes Herodotus so pivotal in the development of modern approaches to history. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons user: Konstantinos Stampoulis

Related Books


The History of Herodotus book

The History of Herodotus
Translated from the Greek by Herodotus

[gap height=”20″]]]>

Categories
Breaking News

New Perspectives on The War on Poverty

www.juh.sagepub.com Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons user: Magnolia677]]>

Categories
Breaking News

Mummy “Graveyard” Sheds Light on Peruvian Death Rituals

Categories
News

The Titanic Sets Off

Titanic embarked on its fateful maiden voyage. Departing from Southampton, England, with over 2,200 passengers and crew, the ship was meant to arrive in New York on the 17th April. The product of intense rivalry between ship manufacturers, and in particular that of White Star Line and Cunard, the Titanic was the largest steam ship ever built. Cunnard had launched the Mauritania and Lusitania in 1907, two ships lauded for spectacular exteriors and beautiful interiors. The Titanic was built in response to these two ships, with construction beginning in 1909. Its hull was completed in May 1911, and at the time held the accolade of being the largest movable man made object in the world. As has been well documented in books, television programmes and movies, the Titanic never completed its journey. On the 14th April, at about 11:30pm, the ship struck an iceberg somewhere in the Atlantic. The Titanic‘s look outs had spotted the ice berg just before the impact, and attempts at evasive action had avoided a direct hit. Nevertheless, ice under the surface of the water had created a 300 ft cut into the ship’s hull below the water line. After investigating the harm done to the ship,the Titanic‘s captain realised the damage was too extensive, and the ship would sink. Calls for help were made to surrounding vessels and the order to abandon ship was given. Following a chaotic and ineffective evacuation procedure, the ship sunk three hours after the initial impact with the iceberg. Only 700 people escaped the disaster. Several factors contributed to the horrendous death toll, and various theories have been put forward since as to exactly what went wrong on the Titanic‘s first and only voyage. Many experts focus on design flaws in the ship itself, and the inadequate safety regulations of the period. The Titanic was deemed ‘unsinkable’ as a result of its system of watertight bulkhead doors. These doors could be operated individually or in unison from the ship’s bridge, and were intended to seal off sections of the ship’s hull in the event that it was breached. However, these doors could not prevent water spilling in from other compartments, a feature present in the two liners produced by Cunard. Experts have since hypothesised that if the Titanic had had the same system as the Lusitania and Mauritania, it would not have been sunk by the iceberg. By modern standards, the most shocking failure was the lack of emergency provisions on the ship. The Titanic held sixteen life boats and four Englehardt ‘collapsible’s’ which could only hold 1,178 people between them. As mentioned above, the debut voyage of the Titanic saw the ship carry over 2,200 passengers, and this was not even the ship’s full capacity. Nevertheless, the ship had passed the recommended safety standards of the British Board of Trade Regulations, giving a startling insight into health and safety considerations of the period. Of course, the disorderly evacuation of the Titanic meant that the life boats were not full when they left the ship anyway. An evacuation drill had actually been scheduled for the morning of the 14th April, but was cancelled for reasons which have never been determined. Again, many experts have speculated that completing the drill could have made a significant difference to the effectiveness of the evacuation. Many modern analyses of the Titanic tragedy are perhaps mislead by the benefits of more than a century of hindsight. The tragedy may have been avoidable, it is impossible to say, but the details of the sinking reveal the dramatic changes that have occured in standards of health and safety in the years since.]]>

Categories
Breaking News

New Perspectives on Hurricane Katrina

www.juh.sagepub.com Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons user: Spellcast]]>

Categories
Breaking News

Neolithic “Spooning” Couple Baffles Scientists

Categories
News

The War of Jenkins' Ear

Rebecca was apparently stopped and boarded by a crew of Spanish coast guards led by Captain Juan de Leon Fandino. The coast guards pillaged the ship, attacked the crew, and ultimately set it adrift. Most shockingly, Jenkins claimed that the Spanish crew had tied him up and cut off his ear. At the time tensions were high between Britain and Spain as they competed for influence and control over the New World. Britain sought to expand its trade in the Americas, and its sailors carried out illicit trade in Spanish territories. Both Spanish and British crews frequently launched raids on the other’s ships, making trade in the Caribbean increasingly expensive and risky. As well as competing over the high seas however, Britain and Spain also found themselves in dispute over claims to land on the North American continent. In the preceding century the two countries had found themselves at war with each other on a number of occasions, as they competed to assert their imperial dominance. Jenkins survived the ordeal and set sail for England with the severed, pickled ear. News of the attack enraged the British public, and Jenkins was supposedly called before the House of Commons (with the severed ear) in 1738, to testify about his ordeal. When asked how he had responded to the assault, Jenkins famously claimed “I commended my soul to God and my cause to my country.” Jenkins’ ear became a symbol for the outrage the British public increasingly felt towards what it perceived as Spanish belligerence on the high seas. Holding Spain accountable became a matter of national pride, and the demand for war grew. Just as significantly, British Prime Minister Sir. Robert Walpole found himself increasingly under pressure from his opposition in Parliament, who used the actions of Spanish ships to paint a picture of a weak, powerless British government. In October 1739, the war started with a series of skirmishes between British and Spanish forces in the Caribbean. Ultimately, it was something of a stalemate, with neither side making significant gains. The real importance of the War of Jenkins’ Ear can be seen with hindsight, for the events it came to foreshadow. French support of Spain ultimately saw the conflict merge into the War of Austrian Succession, the eight year fight over the fate of the Hapsburg Empire following the death of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles VI. France sought to cripple Austria, as a means to secure its position as the dominant power in mainland Europe. Britain wanted to prevent France becoming too powerful, as a means to secure its own economic well being, and thus came to the aid of Austria. Spain’s alliance with France means that the War of Jenkins’ Ear can be seen as part of a brewing conflict between groups of European powers over influence in both the Old World and the New. The war also symbolised a drastic change in the causes of conflict, at least for Britain. In 1909, Harold W. V. Temperley, a British historian, argued that the War of Jenkins’ Ear had been the first war Britain had fought in “which the trade interest absolutely predominated, in which the war was waged solely for balance of trade rather than for balance of power”. Starting a war over one man’s severed ear might seem feudalistic, if not fantastical, but in reality it symbolised the very modern concerns of securing access to trade and resources. Hysteria surrounding Jenkins’ Ear gave the war its name, but in reality the conflict was a manifestation of a series of defining themes from this period of history. ]]>

Categories
Breaking News

History of NYPD Police Misconduct Traced

www.juh.sagepub.com Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons user: Slowking4]]>

Categories
Breaking News

Modern Humans Brought Fatal Disease to Neanderthals

Homo sapiens and environmental changes, but a new study has suggested a new direction for research: disease spread. According to scientists from Cambridge and Oxford Brookes Universities, modern humans, when they left Africa and entered Europe, brought with them diseases that the Neanderthals had never encountered before and could not fight as effectively as the newcomers. In addition, because of interbreeding, modern humans became armed with immunity from some diseases that were new for them. Simon Underdown, Anthropology Lecturer at Oxford Brookes, and Charlotte Houldcroft, Infectious Diseases Researcher at Cambridge, the co-authors of the study, explain that the new diseases which modern humans brought with them could have played the lead role in the decline of the Neanderthals. Dr. Underdown states that Neanderthal populations were becoming increasingly isolated by the time modern people arrived on the European continent, gradually impoverishing their gene pools and consequently limiting their capacity to develop immunity to new diseases and even cope with already familiar ones. The research consisted of analysing a number of recent studies on the genetics of Neanderthals and early modern humans, as well as an examination of genetic research dating the origins of common pathogens. A surprising suggestion the two authors came up with based on their study is that many of the illnesses we associate with modern humans seem to have been prevalent among Neanderthals as well, including diseases such as tuberculosis and typhoid fever. Previously, these and other pathogen-caused diseases were thought to have come into being relatively recently, around 11,000 years ago, when humankind started settling down in communities and farming animals. The theory was that they had started off as ‘zoonoses’ – diseases that pass from animals to humans. Underdown and Houldcroft’s research, however, suggests that it may have been the other way round, with the diseases originating as far back as 250,000 to 40,000 years ago – the period when the Neanderthals were the dominant primate species in Europe and Asia. After modern humans had gained the upper hand and started settling in densely populated communities, they passed the diseases on to their farm animals. Another aspect in which this latest study is important is that it adds to a growing body of evidence that Neanderthals were not the backward, more-animal-than-human creatures we traditionally think they were. Instead, recent archaeological studies have revealed that Neanderthals were most likely skilled craftsmen with a pronounced aesthetic sense, even making and wearing jewellery. A supporting fact for hypotheses claiming modern humans and Neanderthals did not differ so much is interbreeding, as proven by DNA analyses of early modern humans. These analyses have revealed that early modern humans shared a lot of genes with Neanderthals, a clear indication of interbreeding that seems to have been beneficial for one of the parties, and fatal for the other. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons user: Imageengineer]]>

Categories
News

Poindexter Found Guilty in Iran-Contra Trial