[Doomhammer]

I'll soon be finished but I fear that it is transforming into a revisionist account of Sparta that places most of the blame on Corinth and Athens.

There are still some problems with regards to the categorization of some causes but I'll probably be finished by Tuesday and even talk to the instructor about it before the deadline on the 28th.


I am still unsure about what to say for the "prevention" part. The course is about the prevention of war so I am expected to write something on how it could have been prevented. I considered the "feeling of inevitability" (which seems to be discredited by most modern authors) and "the cult of the offensive" and how these should been ignored. Perhaps I should talk about misinformation and perception leading to leaders taking bad decisions in times of crisis. Someone suggested that I could talk about a cliché "they were prone to war... did not know better... did not seek arbitration... etc" but that is simply not true.

[Ombrageux]

Make sure your thesis looks something like this:

blah blah balance of power blah realism blah blah anarchy blah Morgenthau blah bipolar blah blah

[Doomhammer]

blah blah balance of power blah realism blah blah anarchy blah Morgenthau blah bipolar blah blah

Oh no! I didn't say anything about Morgenthau or anarchy!

[Ombrageux]

Well, what I stated is just what a lot of (US) IR scholars seem to love. I would only ever include them if it were to demolish their arguments.

[Doomhammer]

You know, I personally am really sick of all these theories. Some are genuinely good and theories are helpful in simplifying some phenomena. But many of these theories exist because preeminent IR scholars want to satiate their egos. They come up with a good, plausible idea. Suddenly they become frequently cited and very popular. They become mighty big shots. The lesser scholars want to suck up to these big shots and they gather around them. They are consequently elated by the feeling of belonging to a group and, under the aegis of the big shot with the respectable theory, they produce their own, generally, nonsense variants of the theory and defend it to the death. Lesser scholars and regular instructors try to expose students to every nonsense theory there is because it is fashionable to know about every strand of Neo-Marxist theories or some useless post-positivist theory. Consequently, most instructors give off to the students the impression that they are objective because they present so many perspectives. In reality, they always imply that either Realism or Liberalism is the way to go (depending on their affiliation).

And who lose out on all this? IR students. They end up parroting the same arguments over and over again with the same boring jargon and with reference to the same people. And so, we are back to the beginning.


Sometimes, IR really sucks.

[galactus]

Diving into Kagan's book is probably the way to go. When it comes to polarities, and how to describe the situation, include Persia and copy some of Kagans arguments to support that the picture isn't really that simple. Use this to support the view that it was a multi-polar affair, but keep some caveats. Add some talk about historical methodology and how these tales turn out differently depending on what factors one pays attention to.

Heh. You know, the Peloponnesian War is something that IR students everywhere have to study at the basic level. It is odd how little distance IR in general has to this war. One has to keep in mind that these sort of historical wars are as much fiction as Tolkien as far as anybody except archeologists are concerned. You are being trained to apply IR theories to explain behavior, but most importantly, to say something interesting that is relevant today. There is no fact of the matter about what caused the Peloponnesian War, so don't get hooked up on that or if the situation before the war was bi-polar or multi-polar. Just try to show that you master the theories.

[Doomhammer]

I finished it yesterday. I will submit it on Monday but I've asked the professor about it.

Dunno.

Just try to show that you master the theories.

The course is about the prevention of war so I haven't really looked at many theories. I've included some theories regarding perception, and briefly, hegemonic war theory but the essay mostly identifies factors and how these factors might be responsible. I really don't know how theoretical it should be.

One has to keep in mind that these sort of historical wars are as much fiction as Tolkien as far as anybody except archeologists are concerned.

Yeah. There are no proper sources either (well, aside from the obvious). Ultimately, we invent history.

[millie_(A)TCK]

how about I just give you my paper on it that I did last year?

[Doomhammer]

I'd certainly like to read it, actually.

[noemon]

As far as archaeologists are concerned The Peloponnesian War is pretty much factual.

The sources regarding the Peloponnesian War are numerous.

Xenophon, Diodorus, Plato, Isocrates, Thucidides, Plutarch, Aristophanes...references to it, probably amount up to hundrends. Even though it can be argued that Thucidides added fictional elements in his story, due to the fact that he could not have been present in battle and negotiations, his story was reviewed by Greeks(soldiers commanders, rulers who participated in the War and were still alive afterwards) at the time of all colours and cities and was hailed as a magnificent accomplishment of objective literary history-telling.

[galactus]

As far as archaeologists are concerned The Peloponnesian War is pretty much factual.

They have found the Peloponnesian War in their excavations?

objective literary history-telling

An anacronism. Historical texts were rarely ment to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, but were often stories written to convey a moral(which is obvious in Thucidides) and most other greek chronologist. The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later. But this is just one of the many things that make it problematic to talk about historical facts when you go this far back.

[noemon]

They have found burial grounds, trophies, and such, run a Google search, and you 'll se what they 've found.

An anacronism. Historical texts were rarely ment to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, but were often stories written to convey a moral(which is obvious in Thucidides) and most other greek chronologist. The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later. But this is just one of the many things that make it problematic to talk about historical facts when you go this far back.

The idea to write it exactly as it is, is spelled out by Thucidides himself in his Preface, and praised for exactly that by later Greek authors, as well. To convey morals for the Greek was to be through myth, and history as well, only and if applicable, but primarily myth. "History" on the other hand for the Greeks is exactly that narration of what is, seems to be or appears to be FACT, and hence its name as well. History is the equivalent of journalism in Ancient Greek society. This is the Ancient Greek difference between myth and history; myth, drama, comedy and song are allowed to succumb to the moral on the expense of fact, while history is not allowed to.

[galactus]

The idea to write it exactly as it is, is spelled out by Thucidides himself in his Preface, and praised for exactly that by later Greek authors, as well. To convey morals for the Greek was to be through myth, and history as well, only and if applicable, but primarily myth.

How odd then that the speeches given by several different people in his books support clearly his view on the causes of the war.

The general point is that the history is written to convey something, either something moral or something which is of prime relevance(for example how to avoid war). A historian chooses his subject, and Thucidides chooses the Peloponessian wars because he wants to say something about war and politics. Because of this his historical writings is not motivated by a desire to depict what happened, but to depict something which is interesting given what he wants the reader to understand. This also means he leaves stuff out that doesn't fit into what he wants to convey, and adds stuff that supports his point of view.

This is the Ancient Greek difference between myth and history; myth, drama, comedy and song are allowed to succumb to the moral on the expense of fact, while history is not allowed to.

This is not entierly true. Many greek historians invent speeches and choose their subjects so that a certain moral is conveyed. They are never interested in just writting down stuff for the sake of writting it down, but what they write is supposed to show something, something about the human condition, something about how politics work, etc. This is probably also what makes it interesting history, but it is problematic to talk about it as factual. It is problematic to talk about factual history at all.

[noemon]

How odd then that the speeches given by several different people in his books support clearly his view on the causes of the war.

The general point is that the history is written to convey something, either something moral or something which is of prime relevance(for example how to avoid war). A historian chooses his subject, and Thucidides chooses the Peloponessian wars because he wants to say something about war and politics. Because of this his historical writings is not motivated by a desire to depict what happened, but to depict something which is interesting given what he wants the reader to understand. This also means he leaves stuff out that doesn't fit into what he wants to convey, and adds stuff that supports his point of view.

What you describe is an observance of general Greek literature, not particular in History. History in particular is frowned upon by Aristotel as against to poetry and myth for exactly that reason..."It lacks philosophy". This is an important point when trying to make an argument that Greek history clings to philosophical values as opposed to reporting facts. That is not to say that myth/poetry is not reporting facts if applicable or that history is not clinging to a philosophic side, ofc such matters become intertwined in literature, but what we are discussing is the primary motives of each concept. And it is clear that Historical narration as opposed to poetry(which is as well historical narration in another form .ie in the form of rhapsodies) is motivated by the drive to report, not to philosophize. In addition, his views on the War are also described and he is quite frank with the correlation, that is also an important point; is the factuality of events forming his views or the other way around...?

He is a Master and he does not want people to accuse him of lying or succumbing to the moral at the expense of fact at any time. His motive and this is what matters most, is to report, not to defend his personal views, which have been shaped by the chronicle of the war and are as much factual as the chronicle itself. The observance on the developemt of his literature points to that direction. The direction that after he narrated actual events, he sat down and refined the whole philosophy of his work, in order to gain a place among the Pantheon of moral conveyors as well, for that was a higher prize in Greek society. The point to be assessed here is that, the narration came first in his work and the philosophic refinement, later; as a product of the historical assessment and not the other way around.

He never reached the end. It is characteristic both of the man and of a certain side of Athenian culture, that he turned away from his main task of narrative to develop the style of his work as pure literature. Instead of finishing the chronicle of the war, he worked over his reports of the arguments people had used, or the policies various parties had followed, into elaborate and direct speeches. Prose style at the time had its highest development in the form of rhetoric; and that turn of mind, always characteristic of Greece, which delighted in understanding both sides of a question, and would not rest till it knew every seeming wrongdoer's apology, was especially strong. The speeches are Thucydides's highest literary efforts. In some cases they seem to be historical in substance, and even to a certain extent in phrasing; the letter of Nikias has the look of reality (vii. 11 ff.), and perhaps also the speech of Diodotus (iii. 42). Sometimes the speech is historical, but the occasion is changed. The great Funeral Oration of Pericles was made after his campaign at Samos;6 he may have made one also in the first year of the war, when there were perhaps hardly fifty Athenians to bury. More probably Thucydides has transferred the great speech to a time when he could use it in his history.7 Sometimes the speakers are vaguely given in the plural-'the Corinthians said'--that is, the political situation is put in the form of a speech or speeches showing vividly the way in which different parties conceived it. A notable instance is the imaginary dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, showing dramatically and with a deep, though perhaps over-coloured, characterisation the attitude of mind in which the war-party at Athens then faced their problems.

This is at first sight an odd innovation to be introduced by the great realist in history. He warns us frankly, however. It was hard for him or his informants to remember exactly what the various speakers had said. He has therefore given the speeches which he thought the situation demanded, keeping as close as might be to the actual words used (1.22). It is a hazy description. He himself would not have liked it in Herodotus; and the practice was a fatal legacy to two thousand years of history-writing after him. But in his own case we have seen why he did it, and there is little doubt that he has done it with extraordinary effect. There is perhaps nothing in literature like his power of half personifying a nation and lighting up the big lines of its character. The most obvious cases are actual descriptions, such as the contrast between Athens and Sparta drawn by the Corinthians in I., or the picture of Athens by Pericles in II.; but there is dramatic personation as well, and one feels the nationality of various anonymous speakers as one feels the personal character of Nikias or Sthenelaïdas or Alcibiades. It would be hard to find a clearer or more convincing account of conflicting policies than that given in the speeches at the beginning of the war.

The added elements are illuminating to the factual narrative for a reader, and aid the comprehension of dry facts. It is not on the expense of facts that this is done, but it is motivated by the drive to illuminate the obvious fact, that is already there.

[galactus]

What you describe is an observance of general Greek literature, not particular in History. History in particular is frowned upon by Aristotel as against to poetry and myth for exactly that reason..."It lacks philosophy". This is an important point when trying to make an argument that Greek history clings to philosophical values as opposed to reporting facts. That is not to say that myth/poetry is not reporting facts if applicable or that history is not clinging to a philosophic side, ofc such matters become intertwined in literature, but what we are discussing is the primary motives of each concept.

I am not making the argument that Greek history clings to philosophical values as opposed to reporting facts, the two are not opposite. Thucidides obviously does want to convey certain theories, and he does this by reporting certain things(by using certain sources). He is not merely writing down thing as they happened because there is no way of doing that. As a historian you have to choose which parts to report, which parts are relevant. This makes 'factual reports' problematic since any account of an event is only 'factual' if it takes into account all the relevant details, but when it comes to history, what is a relevant detail or not is determined by what you are aiming to convey, your thesis, etc.

If Thucidides had been a Persian, we would have had a different view on Peloponessian Wars.

And it is clear that Historical narration as opposed to poetry(which is as well historical narration in another form .ie in the form of rhapsodies) is motivated by the drive to report, not to philosophize. In addition, his views on the War are also described and he is quite frank with the correlation, that is also an important point; is the factuality of events forming his views or the other way around...?

Thucidides is not motivated soley by some drive to report(in that case, why aren't there books by Thucidides on what he did from day to day?). He wants to show us something about the nature of politics, and he wishes to do this by reporting on the Peloponessian Wars.

As to your question, it isn't either or: one has views that form the factuality of the events and the factuality of the events form ones views.

His motive and this is what matters most, is to report, not to defend his personal views, which have been shaped by the chronicle of the war and are as much factual as the chronicle itself.

You can't seriously claim that Thucidides views on war are 'factual'?

The point to be assessed here is that, the narration came first in his work and the philosophic refinement, later; as a product of the historical assessment and not the other way around.

Thucidides is not a tabula rasa. There is no just looking at the facts and making up ones mind, most of all not in history.

[noemon]

Here we are clinging onto a narrow line and streching it from one side to the other which will eventually only result to empty discussion.

I am not making the argument that Greek history clings to philosophical values as opposed to reporting facts, the two are not opposite.

Ofc they are not opposite, as i stated as well. The point is that the case of Thucidides and the Greek concept of History in general is the motive to report rather than to convey a particular message. There is a clear line between Ancient Greek history and Ancient Greek poetry, both premises narrate events, poetry is flexible on the factuality of events in order to underline a moral message, while history is flexible on the morality of the author(his political inclinations and opinions) in order to underline a factual event. This is a line that you disputed, by claiming that the motive of Greek history and Thucidides in particular was to convey more a moral message rather than to report actual events.

This makes 'factual reports' problematic since any account of an event is only 'factual' if it takes into account all the relevant details, but when it comes to history, what is a relevant detail or not is determined by what you are aiming to convey, your thesis, etc.

Have you read Thucidides' History? You will be amazed, on what kind of painful events(from his perspective) and thesis's he is reporting, and how many factors he takes into account. As stated above and illustrated by the literary criticism of Murray, his "thesis"..his "moral message", his own personal contribution to the story came after the narrative reports, not the other way around. This is an important point in our discussion, which Murray makes explicitly clear.

Thucidides is not motivated soley by some drive to report(in that case, why aren't there books by Thucidides on what he did from day to day?).

He explains in his Preface that the reason he wrote about this War is because of its magnitude in the Greek world. His day to day activities are of no value to future readers in his mind, and especially to chauvinist Greeks. Grandeur events are of value of historical records.

As to your question, it isn't either or: one has views that form the factuality of the events and the factuality of the events form ones views.

Correct, it is both, but there is always a predominance of one or the other, and this is where we draw the line.

You can't seriously claim that Thucidides views on war are 'factual'?

His views are formed by factual events, i mean. Not some kind of metaphysical factuality of opinion.

There is no just looking at the facts and making up ones mind, most of all not in history.

Why not? Today we look at the policy of American imperialism, not as given to the media by strategists and PR lobbies, but as illustrated by the movement of its military, and we form an opinion that is based on fact. The mobilization of troops in Afghanistan is a fact. Similarly, Thucidides does not miss to report these facts with sober accuracy and cross referencing, which were easy to record, because especially in those days after each battle a trophy was raised on site, and in most cases by both armies, if both had agreed on retreat and there was no clear winner. These are all facts inside his History, that are very factual indeed, dates, participants, reasons for the choice of the battle site and etcetera. These sober accounts is the magic brought to us by Greek history and Thucicides in particular. There is not a grain of sand he missed to report, and ofc he did his best to illuminate the characters of the play by adding speeches, adjectives and by giving life to the whole story, but that certainly does not undermine the Historical accuracy of his records, the factuality of the events, their order and the participants.

[galactus]

Ofc they are not opposite, as is stated as well. The point is that the case of Thucidides and the Greek concept of History in general is the motive to report rather than to convey a particular message. There is a clear line between Ancient Greek history and Ancient Greek poetry, both premises narrate events, poetry is flexible on the factuality of events in order to underline a moral message, while history is flexible on the morality of the author(his political inclinations and opinions) in order to underline a factual event. This is a line that you disputed, by claiming that the motive of Greek history and Thucidides in particular was to convey more a moral message rather than report an actual event.

I regret that I choose to say a 'moral' only, I didn't mean it any sort of narrow way. But greek historym, and Thucidides, is written to show something about the nature of war, or the nature of man, i.e. a moral. Otherwise it wouldn't be interesting history.

Have you read Thucidides' History? You will be amazed, on what kind of painful events(from his persepctive) and thesis's he is reporting, and how many factors he takes into account. As stated, above and illustrated by the literary criticism of Murray, his thesis, his moral message came after the narrative reports, not the other way around. This is an important point in our discussion, which Murray makes explicitly clear.

I don't care if he takes a million factors into account, the relevant factors are what is at stake here.

I do not see Murray supporting your view that his thesis came after he got a hold of the reports. It is also doubtful whether Thucidides himself would have known that. One always have preconceptions about the things that one studies, and one cannot begin to look at any part of history without an agenda, since there is just too much to look at.

He explains in his Preface that the reason he wrote about this War is because of its magnitude in the Greek world. His day to day activities are of no value to future readers in his mind, and especially to chauvinist Greeks. Grandeur events are of value of records.

If he explains in the Preface that the reasons he wrote about this war was because it was of particular value then it neatly demonstrates my point about his motivation.

Correct, it is both, but there is always a predominance of one or the other, and this is where we draw the line.

They are not in opposition, so there cannot be any predominance.

His views are formed by factual events, i mean. Not some kind of metaphysical factuality of opinion.

My views that cheese tastes yucky is formed by factual events(me eating cheese) but that does not make the statement "cheese tastes yucky" factual, nor my opinion.

Why not?

Because observation is theory dependand, and history is choice dependant. One chooses what one wants to report, what is relevant. Even scientific observations done in a laboratory are very selective, historical observations are even more selective and almost always dependant on what thesis a person wants to support. There are just too many facts out there, and unless you look at the world through a theory, they are all equally important.

[noemon]

But greek historym, and Thucidides, is written to show something about the nature of war, or the nature of man, i.e. a moral. Otherwise it wouldn't be interesting history.

You are mistaken, the motive of Greek history is to narrate events, their order, and the actors. It is the task of philosophy and poetry to do what you describe. Ofc historians in order to spice things up and make it interesting do add philosophic elements, but that does not undermine the accuracy of the records.

I don't care if he takes a million factors into account, the relevant factors are what is at stake here.

I take your silence as a reply, on my question, Have you read Thucidides? Obviously you have not, and obviously you are making it up on the way there.

I do not see Murray supporting your view that his thesis came after he got a hold of the reports. It is also doubtful whether Thucidides himself would have known that. One always have preconceptions about the things that one studies, and one cannot begin to look at any part of history without an agenda, since there is just too much to look at.

If you read Thucidides, you will come to this conclusion yourself. And i would advise you to re-read Murray's criticism, it is perfectly obvious:

He never reached the end. It is characteristic both of the man and of a certain side of Athenian culture, that he turned away from his main task of narrative to develop the style of his work as pure literature. Instead of finishing the chronicle of the war, he worked over his reports of the arguments people had used, or the policies various parties had followed, into elaborate and direct speeches. Prose style at the time had its highest development in the form of rhetoric; and that turn of mind, always characteristic of Greece, which delighted in understanding both sides of a question, and would not rest till it knew every seeming wrongdoer's apology, was especially strong. The speeches are Thucydides's highest literary efforts. In some cases they seem to be historical in substance, and even to a certain extent in phrasing; the letter of Nikias has the look of reality (vii. 11 ff.), and perhaps also the speech of Diodotus (iii. 42). Sometimes the speech is historical, but the occasion is changed. The great Funeral Oration of Pericles was made after his campaign at Samos;6 he may have made one also in the first year of the war, when there were perhaps hardly fifty Athenians to bury. More probably Thucydides has transferred the great speech to a time when he could use it in his history.7 Sometimes the speakers are vaguely given in the plural-'the Corinthians said'--that is, the political situation is put in the form of a speech or speeches showing vividly the way in which different parties conceived it. A notable instance is the imaginary dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, showing dramatically and with a deep, though perhaps over-coloured, characterisation the attitude of mind in which the war-party at Athens then faced their problems.

This is at first sight an odd innovation to be introduced by the great realist in history. He warns us frankly, however. It was hard for him or his informants to remember exactly what the various speakers had said. He has therefore given the speeches which he thought the situation demanded, keeping as close as might be to the actual words used (1.22). It is a hazy description. He himself would not have liked it in Herodotus; and the practice was a fatal legacy to two thousand years of history-writing after him. But in his own case we have seen why he did it, and there is little doubt that he has done it with extraordinary effect. There is perhaps nothing in literature like his power of half personifying a nation and lighting up the big lines of its character. The most obvious cases are actual descriptions, such as the contrast between Athens and Sparta drawn by the Corinthians in I., or the picture of Athens by Pericles in II.; but there is dramatic personation as well, and one feels the nationality of various anonymous speakers as one feels the personal character of Nikias or Sthenelaïdas or Alcibiades. It would be hard to find a clearer or more convincing account of conflicting policies than that given in the speeches at the beginning of the war.

If he explains in the Preface that the reasons he wrote about this war was because it was of particular value then it neatly demonstrates my point about his motivation.

...

They are not in opposition, so there cannot be any predominance

No it does not, philosophers like yourself hanging from a thread of needle like this one is not particularly encouraging for conversation.

First, it is not of opposition in reality, yet in your view of Thucidides and Greek history it is of opposition in regards to our discussion. To come into a conclusion in this discussion we have to juxtapose the 2 elements, and identify the predominant one. Something that has been done by a variety of scholars already, and the Historical accuracy of his records(not of his views, please do not make this ridiculous argument again, we are both way past that stage) is a fact. Your attempt to revise it is ill-informed. The relevant quote demonstrates his motivation to record a Grandeur event, not to manipulate it for his own ends(ie to promote his ideas regarding the War or the ills of the Athenian democracy), which is what you argue. He started narrating an event and in the process he identified certain developments, the views expressed in these political developments in regards to the concept of War or democracy is Thucidides' own contribution, and its "factuality"(there is no such thing with views, "truthfullness" perhaps) can be disputed and argued as with very other opinion, but the factuality of the recording of events, cannot be disputed based on this, and especially not in this general manner that your argument lies.

Because observation is theory dependand, and history is choice dependant. One chooses what one wants to report, what is relevant. Even scientific observations done in a laboratory are very selective, historical observations are even more selective and almost always dependant on what thesis a person wants to support. There are just too many facts out there, and unless you look at the world through a theory, they are all equally important

My views that cheese tastes yucky is formed by factual events(me eating cheese) but that does not make the statement "cheese tastes yucky" factual, nor my opinion.

The fact that you ate cheese, is not theory dependant. It is a fact. Facts reported by Thucidides, like where the Athenian hoplite division met the Spartan hoplite division, is not choice dependant but merely recording facts, like me taking a shit at 2.00 am and then reporting it on my diary.

[galactus]

You are mistaken, the motive of Greek history is to narrate events, their order, and the actors. It is the task of philosophy and poetry to do what you describe. Ofc historians in order to spice things up and make it interesting do add philosophic elements, but that does not undermine the accuracy of the records.

Yes, the motive is to narrate specific events, events that are thought of as important because of what they show. There are no greek narratives of the change in distribution in the maens of production because that was not something they had thought about, there were not any greek narratives about ordinary events, or history focused on females, because that was not viewed as imortant, etc.

I have never said that it undermines the accuracy of the records. This is a different point entierly.

I take your silence as a reply, on my question, Have you read Thucidides? Obviously you have not, and obviously you are making it up on the way there.

I have read parts of his work, and summaries of it. It is not very important to the point I am making since my point is about the philosophy of history.

If you read Thucidides, you will come to this conclusion yourself. And i would advise you to re-read Murray's criticism, it is perfectly obvious

I do not see it as obvious, please point it out to me.

First, it is not of opposition in reality, yet in your view of Thucidides and Greek history it is of opposition in regards to our discussion.

No, I have not said anything like this. History is not in opposition to reality, it is just not very interesting to ask the question "is this a fact?" about certain historical theories. In the same way, the actual facts of the Peloponessian war is more or less irrelevant, and indeterminable to a large extent. What is interesting is the theories to explain the Peloponessian war, and these theories aren't factual in any meaningful sense. They might be based on certain sources that report things like "facts", but since the factuality of the events do not lend any much factuality to the theories(since historical events are almost always overdetermined) it is historically uninteresting to speak of facts here.

and the Historical accuracy of his records(not of his views, please do not make this ridiculous argument again, we are both way past that stage) is a fact.

And it means nothing. It is a fact that we have found pottery in Egypt. Is this an interesting historical find? Is the fact that Athens was defeated an interesting historical fact? No, it is stunningly dull. What is interesting is how we explain the outcome, or how we explain that the war started in the first place, or what these theories about the war tell us about ourselves, and when we do that we leave the uninteresting realms of recording facts and enter into the interesting realm of history. Thucidides does this, he is not simply interested in recording facts, he chooses a certain thing he wants to record, something he thinks is important, a war. In this war he picks out certain things that are important, and writes about them. He does not give a complete record of the war, and he hints at why certain actors did what they did, or why certain things happened. If he was a mere recorder of facts people would not have remembered him.

but the factuality of the recording of events, cannot be disputed based on this, and especially not in this general manner that your argument lies.

The mere recording of facts is historically uninteresting in itself. It is not history. It is when you begin to tell a story that things get interesting.

The fact that you ate cheese, is not theory dependant.

If a marsian observed me, would he conclude that I ate cheese?

Facts reported by Thucidides, like where the Athenian hoplite division met the Spartan hoplite division, is not choice dependant but merely recording facts

It is choice dependant in the way that he choose to report that instead of what shoes they were wearing, who the hottest soldier was, etc. What the effect on the population was when the troops were marching, what a hoplite was. There are at least a million other things he might have recorded, but he recorded this one because he thought it is very interesting to explain other events which he was interested in.

[noemon]

Bourou bourou and blah blah, evasive rhetoric parroting the difference between fact and opinion, a rhetorical vacuum, empty words to alienate the discussion:

Galactus wrote:

Historical texts were rarely ment to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist, but were often stories written to convey a moral(which is obvious in Thucidides) and most other greek chronologist. The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later.

And wrote:

have never said that it undermines the accuracy of the records. This is a different point entierly.

And wrote:

It is not very important to the point I am making since my point is about the philosophy of history.

Here:

He never reached the end. It is characteristic both of the man and of a certain side of Athenian culture, that he turned away from his main task of narrative to develop the style of his work as pure literature. Instead of finishing the chronicle of the war, he worked over his reports of the arguments people had used, or the policies various parties had followed, into elaborate and direct speeches. Prose style at the time had its highest development in the form of rhetoric; and that turn of mind, always characteristic of Greece, which delighted in understanding both sides of a question, and would not rest till it knew every seeming wrongdoer's apology, was especially strong. The speeches are Thucydides's highest literary efforts. In some cases they seem to be historical in substance, and even to a certain extent in phrasing; the letter of Nikias has the look of reality (vii. 11 ff.), and perhaps also the speech of Diodotus (iii. 42). Sometimes the speech is historical, but the occasion is changed. The great Funeral Oration of Pericles was made after his campaign at Samos;6 he may have made one also in the first year of the war, when there were perhaps hardly fifty Athenians to bury. More probably Thucydides has transferred the great speech to a time when he could use it in his history.7 Sometimes the speakers are vaguely given in the plural-'the Corinthians said'--that is, the political situation is put in the form of a speech or speeches showing vividly the way in which different parties conceived it. A notable instance is the imaginary dialogue between the Athenians and the Melians, showing dramatically and with a deep, though perhaps over-coloured, characterisation the attitude of mind in which the war-party at Athens then faced their problems.

This is at first sight an odd innovation to be introduced by the great realist in history. He warns us frankly, however. It was hard for him or his informants to remember exactly what the various speakers had said. He has therefore given the speeches which he thought the situation demanded, keeping as close as might be to the actual words used (1.22). It is a hazy description. He himself would not have liked it in Herodotus; and the practice was a fatal legacy to two thousand years of history-writing after him. But in his own case we have seen why he did it, and there is little doubt that he has done it with extraordinary effect. There is perhaps nothing in literature like his power of half personifying a nation and lighting up the big lines of its character. The most obvious cases are actual descriptions, such as the contrast between Athens and Sparta drawn by the Corinthians in I., or the picture of Athens by Pericles in II.; but there is dramatic personation as well, and one feels the nationality of various anonymous speakers as one feels the personal character of Nikias or Sthenelaïdas or Alcibiades. It would be hard to find a clearer or more convincing account of conflicting policies than that given in the speeches at the beginning of the war

Now lets us come to your initial comment that brought this discussion:

The idea that one should search sources and write down history 'objectivly', as it was, is an idea that became the norm much later.

And to your current comment:

There are no greek narratives of the change in distribution in the maens of production because that was not something they had thought about, there were not any greek narratives about ordinary events, or history focused on females, because that was not viewed as imortant, etc.

What you are attempting basically is the classic Galactus legacy of underminning the importance of the major Greek contributions in civilization(such as the innovation of the concept of Historical methodology). You are attempting to revise the fact that History:

Historical texts were rarely ment to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist

Begun with Herodotus and became refined by Thucidides.

Your argument is a general argument on the Philosophy of History, which applies to this modern day history as well, but that is not the object of your revisionism. The object of your revisionism is to break the link between the Ancient Historical tradition and methodology of the Greeks with the modern one; you write "is an idea that became the norm much later", using an argument on the general premise of the Philosophy of History, that applies to both cases equally.

Your argument on the Philosophy of History in other words, fails to illustrate your initial point, and it is a mere rhetorical device to catch the minds of some adherents of anti-Hellenic revisionism inside the forum. Ill-informed and ill-formed.

What is funny is that, that is the reason you brought the Tolkien comment on the first place as a "provocateur", comment which would allow you to elaborate on the Philosophy of History in general, the funny part is that only just yesterday you were mocking others for exactly these aspects of their posts.

The tradition of Herodotus, Thucidides, Plutarch and the whole legacy of historical methodology, have one objective, and are driven by one motive, and their success on it is irrelevant:

"to show wie es eigentlich gewesen ist".

And it did not become the norm much later, the norm begun exactly there(with Herodotus) and continued unchanged into the Roman/Byzantine times. If you mean that it became the norm in regards to other people much later, then you are probably correct.

Some prominent Greek historians continuing the Historical methodology during the European Dark-ages that i remember:

Socrates of Constantinople
Procopius
Suidas
Anna Komnene
Michael Psellos
Attaliates
Georgios Monachos
Nicetas Choniates
Ioannis Kinnamos
Ioannis Zonaras