Talk:Thucydides

cleanup
Article needs cleaning up a bit: new section for quotes; moving section about war to the actual article on the work; etc. Mat334 14:28, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Photos of Thucydides
. Hello, I would like to submitt some pictures. How do i do that? I have many pictures. do you put it in via HTML? Posted, December 13, 2005


 * Hi - you might need to create an account and login to upload pictures. Once logged in, click on the "Upload file" link to the left.  Once uploaded, you can use it in articles with this code.  Just look at the code in existing articles to find out the correct code.  For instance, here's the code in Isaac Newton's article : [[Image:newton.jpg|thumb|left|Engraving after Enoch Seeman's 1726 portrait of Newton]]

needs more
i think the site needs more external links. thanks.

working on it
Hello... I've been working on the entry a bit today, December 15th. I added some secondary references and cleaned up some of the other sections. Since Thucydides' only work was the History, there will be inevitable overlap between this entry and the History of the Peloponnesian War entry. It might be worthwhile to consider joining them at some point, but maybe that process would be too unwieldy? Just a thought...

Jim James Sullivan

Quotes
I've removed the quotes section copied below) until we find sources for these.


 * "The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it."
 * "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
 * "It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions."
 * "War takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes."
 * "The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel it"
 * "Men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them"
 * "That which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools"

Citations needed for quotes.

Indeed. then why are there still none, especially for the reappearance of the bogus last "quote"? (comment added by IP 12.216.25.204 on21:56, June 16, 2006)

Paul August &#9742; 20:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section containing the erroneously attributed quote to reflect that it is inarguably not from Thucydides and to clarify it's actual origin. However, I feel it should remain in the article along side said clarification given the prevalence of the popular myth and Wikipedia's implied mission to not only disseminate information but to rectify misinformation as well whenever possible.JoeTheDrafter (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "But, the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it." - Thucydidies Pericles' Funeral Oration as cited and presumably translated by Steven M Cahn in Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy
 * "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thucydidies Melian Dialog as cited and presumably translated by Jon Elster in Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions
 * "It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions." - Thucydidies History of the Peloponnesian War as translated by Rex Warner
 * "War takes away the easy supply of daily wants, and so proves a rough master, that brings most men's characters to a level with their fortunes." - Thucydidies History of the Peloponnesian War Unknown translator. Kessinger Publishing.
 * "The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel it" - Unverified
 * "Men naturally despise those who court them, but respect those who do not give way to them" - Unverified
 * "That which separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools" - Attributed to the History of the Peloponnesian War but not actually in the text of it. Unverified. Putting back the verified quotes. EvilCouch 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This page http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/?p=3666 identifies the "fighting done by fools" quotation as actually belonging to a 1889 book by Sir William F. Butler about Gordon. I'll be removing the quote, if I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.42.9 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Issues
Interesting read, concerned about the lead it needs a rewrite and expand particular concern This work is widely regarded a classic sounds weaselly without a cite. Suggest maybe a copy edit there are other weasel style sentences. I know a lot of the information isnt exactly concise.

Not a concern for GA but suggest that the references get changed to the  style it saves time in the long run as this autonumbers references and adjusts with edits. Gnangarra 14:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Use of his work in IR theory really needs more coverage before this should be promoted. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to do something about the intro; but Thucydides is widely regarded as a classic, and has been for centuries; citing some random book on Greek lit would be trivializing. Septentrionalis 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it would be verifying it, in line with Wikipedia's editing policies. The trick is in how you cite it. Don't say "M. Inorprof, in his Random Greek lit textbook, has described Thucydides' work as a classic"! But instead say something like "Thucydides' work has been regarded for centuries as a classic[7]" with footnote 7 (or whatever) at the bottom giving a citation that verifies that the work has been generally regarded for centuries as a classic. It's completely unacceptable to have the statement that his works are classic unverified; the fact that this is a basic fact about Thucydides doesn't exempt it from WP:V (in fact it probably makes verifying it both easier and more important). Just cite your source carefully to avoid trivializing it. TheGrappler 05:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of an absurdity to have an article that declares Leo Strauss's book a classic, but not Thucydides' History. I don't agree that verifying obvious material is "more important" than verifying obscure and dubious claims.  I agree with both Septentionalis and TheGrappler to some degree, and I think that, in order of preference, we should have:
 * (most desirable) An appropriate and authoritative citation for the history of Thucydides' classic status in a given milieu.  Was Thucydides more praised than read during some centuries?  What impact did Hobbes' translation have?  How far back can we date his current ascendency, where vast ranks of respected & authoritative judges consider him one of antiquity's few most indispensable and original thinkers and writers?
 * (less desirable) The obvious, carefully stated so as to be obvious (for example, "for centuries" requires caution&mdash;I'm not ready to assert without evidence that Thucydides was a classic in sixteenth-century Poland), sans citation.
 * (least desirable) Some random source testifying to the obvious. This, frankly, makes Wikipedia look ignorant, and putting it in a footnote doesn't help.  If any college student assigned the task of writing a scrupulously sourced paper tried this, he or she would get a lesson in when not to make otiose and worthless references.  It's like quoting Webster's or citing a 1978 article by an obscure Canadian moral philosopher to support the idea that "anger and jealousy can be destructive emotions."
 * (least desirable&mdash;tie) Obvious and essential information and perspective omitted because of a verification fetish that goes way beyond the spirit or letter of WP:V.
 * Just my two cents. Wareh 03:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or to put all that more concisely, let's honor Common knowledge too (without which WP:V alone is not sound). This dispute, which has resulted in deleted content as of now, does not meet any of that guideline's "when it's a bad idea" situations, and the claim is neither "likely to be challenged" nor, as far as I can tell, has it in fact been challenged.  Wareh 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Passed GA
Congratulations to the editors of this article Gnangarra 13:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Thucydides
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Lot of work needed on this article
IMHO, there are some problems with this article. To begin with, substantial material from the "life" section is not substantied "from Thucydides' History" as it claims to be. I think it necessary to demarcate clearly between material gleaned from the History and other material. Secondly, in the very first section, there is a reference to the scientific and detached character of the History. This seems irrelevant in an article about *Thucydides*. The opening blurb ought to talk about him. Will it mention the History? Of course. Should it go into depth about it? No. It should probably be formatted as: 1 Sentence identifying Thucyd. 2. Say he wrote the History. 3. Some summarizing sentence about his character, stature etc. I would have just gone ahead on done this, but the article is GA status and has had a lot of good work put into it, so I figured I'd discuss first! Have a good day! Jim 17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree strongly with you that all the material in "Life" should be clearly sourced, so that the reader can tell on what passages of Thucydides' work, or on what other sources, the statements are based. (If help is needed tracking down a text believed to exist in Thucydides, I'd be glad to help; I'm the one who added the book and chapter references for the quotations.)  I'm less persuaded by your second suggestion.  Thucydides is an important topic only because of the huge importance of his single surviving literary work; what makes him notable is what makes it notable.  Surely someone reading through the "Thucydides" article should get, front and center, a clear outline of his work's notable features, even if the reader will have to click over to History of the Peloponnesian War for some more in-depth discussion of some of its significant features.  Now, I'm sure the lead can be improved, and I'm not wedded to the exact way it's currently stated.  But, if I may use it as a model without improving it, would it satisfy your concern if rewritten, "Thucydides is widely considered the first scientific historian because of his efforts in his History to describe the human world as produced by men acting from ordinary motives, without the intervention of the gods."  Any quibbles aside, something like this is surely fundamental enough to the importance of the historical individual Thucydides to go in the lead, in my opinion.  Wareh 18:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Wareh! (P.S. I perused your contribs, nice work)  I will try to work on that "Life" section, sorting out the sourcing.  An example of the kind of thing that needs to go is this sentence: "Thucydides lived between his two homes, in Athens and in Thrace."  While a perfectly reasonable inference from the evidence we have, there is no actual evidence of "two homes" (puts one in mind of summering in Thrace and the like) and no certainty that Thucydides "split time" between the two regions in any meaningful way.  I will avoid radical re-edits, of course.  As for the lead, I agree that mention must be made of the History of the Peloponnesian War and that a sentence characterizing the History should be included.  My gripe now (Sorry!) is that the "human motivation" rubric is slightly idiosyncratic (only slightly).  I largely wrote the lead in the History of the Peloponnesian War article, and I tried there to strike a balance between the "scientific" reading of the text and the more "literary" reading.  How about this as an edit of your edit above: " Thucydides is considered by many to be a scientific historian because of his efforts in his History to describe the human world in terms of cause and effect, his strict standards of gathering evidence, and his neglect of the gods in explaining the events of the past.  But other scholars point to the History's elaborate literary artifices and emotionally charged purple passages in order to characterize Thucydides as less a scientist and more of a literary artist."  Having written this out, it doesn't quite satisfy me even, but I guess you get the idea.  Let me know what you think!! Jim 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it just fine. My own interest in Thucydides very much stresses that he often uses the language of modern rational inquiry and explanation in the service of, or at least together with, traditional (e.g. tragic, so "literary") views of human successes and failures.  I might suggest your second sentence be tweaked in the following direction: "Other scholars lay greater emphasis on the History's elaborate literary artistry and the powerful rhetoric of its speeches and insist that its author exploited non-"scientific" literary genres no less than newer, rationalistic modes of explanation."  I'll go ahead and put it in like that, and feel free to make any further improvements that you see possible!  (I realize that now the lead raises one strand of analysis of Thucydides' mentality to which the article below does not do justice; but I believe it can and should stand there as at least a reminder of the kind of issues article improvements ought to explore eventually.)  Wareh 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great. Sounds really good now.Jim 20:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

STYLE/LITERARY QUALITIES
I hope long-serving contributors to the Thucydides page won't mind my offering one suggestion. Neither that page, nor the one on the "History" itself, includes any discussion of Thucydides' distinctive stylistic traits, or much on the literary qualities of his book. Does anyone already have it in mind to draft something on these topics? If not, I could offer up something myself in due course for consideration by others - though I'm sure there are people on here much better qualified than I am to do so. John Winterton 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is more important to an understanding of Thucydides the historian and thinker than an account of his style! I hope you will give us something to build on, at least!  Wareh 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your response. I should finish my translation of Thucydides within the next few weeks, and will then have a go at a first draft of something on his style, for you and others to consider and improve.

Sacred and profane (Thuc. 2.52.3)
Today someone linked sacred or profane in the quotation. Indeed the standard lexicon has established the view that ἱερά and ὅσια together mean "sacred and profane." But I recall that John Chadwick has questioned this pretty convincingly in his Lexicographica Graeca. Wareh 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the reference and have changed the translation accordingly. Wareh 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Philosopher and psychologist
It should also be noted that THUCYDIDES, above all, is a great philosopher and psychologist in the sense that he penetrates through the core of facts and expresses his views (albeit indirectly but certainly) letting it be known what he thinks of a certain situation. So, it is not only the historian but the thinker and philosopher, all together, that make the man special in historiography.{user: TERENCE KRIGAS, 27 August 2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.252.145 (talk • contribs)

Scientific Historian
The second sentence "Thucydides is considered by many to be a scientific historian...." may be a problematic. There have been long and knotty arguments about what exactly defines "scientific history" and whether such a definition is even helpful. It would be better not to plunge the first-time reader of an encyclopedia article on Thucydides into that debate. I also would drop the reference to his systematic gathering of the evidence since nothing seems to be known about that. I propose to rewrite the second sentence as: "His work was the first study of the war-time policies of a nation analysed in terms of cause and effect and explaining the events of the past without reference to the action of the gods." (RFB 16:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC))
 * I see your point, but the article does not need to define "scientific history" and does not call Thucydides a scientific historian. Rather, it says that he "is considered by many...because..."  Granted, this is vague and weaselly, but it states a true fact about one of the main ways in which Thucydides remains notable in our consciousness: he generally is given that description and significance in the history of historiography.  I therefore don't think you should replace that sentence, imperfect as it may be, as you propose.  If you don't like what it suggests, the solution would be to write a section of the article presenting both the importance of this idea about Thucydides (scientific historian, his use of evidence, etc.), and criticisms of it that have been made in reliable sources.  I don't want to be rigid about this, but what I like least about the proposed edit is switching "describe the human world" for "study of the war-time policies of a nation."  The latter formulation does not do justice to Thucydides' range of material&mdash;his interest in the plague, the Corcyrean stasis, and even in war policies has generally been appreciated by his critics as far more ambitious than a treatment of military policy.  "Standards of gathering evidence" is comparatively unimportant to me.  But there is a long trail of scholarship using external evidence to demonstrate the impressive accuracy of much of Thucydides' account, so, presented in this form (as a reason why many regard him in a certain light), I don't see the problem.  Wareh 18:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I indeed would be happy if the sentence refers to the term "scientific historian" in the context of specific authors who do regard him so. Readers can then check themselves what precisely is meant with that. The remaining sticking point for me is the phrase "because of his efforts in his History to describe the human world". Thucydides sticks very closely to the War, after the introduction, and does not write about the human world in general. Implicitly he does of course present a new method for interpreting past events and writing history. Would this be reasonable: "Thucydides is viewed by a number of historians {references to Eduard Meyer and de Sainte Croix} as a scientific historian and political theorist because of the efforts in his History to describe the Peloponesian War, and the human world in general, in terms of cause and effect,..." I will follow your other suggestion. Perhaps the best would be to try to write a short section on the differences in methodology between Thucyidides and Herodotus, since that is discussed by a number of historians. (RFB 20:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Those are all good ideas. "The human world" was somehow convincing to me in the earlier sentence but not in your proposed revision (I think it actually brings out more strongly the note you found dubious in the first place).  I'm not sure how to fix it--"human actions" might be more specific but maybe too narrow.  Can you think of a slightly more ambitious formulation that tries to cover human nature, speech, actions, values, politics, motivations--when you think of the wide scope over which Thuc. is usually accorded the status of important thinker ("Thucydides on justice, power, and human nature," to quote the title of an excellent abridged version, Paul Woodruff's introduction to which is a simple summation of this common perspective on Thuc.), perhaps it become clear why previous Wikipedia editors turned to the somewhat vague "the human world."  Sorry I'm not coming up with a more useful specific suggestion here, but I do feel the casual reader needs to be told "Thuc. is often seen as some kind of brilliant analyst of how human beings work in the crucible of war's necessity" as much as he/she needs to be told, "Thucydides is often claimed to be the first historian who attempted standards of scrupulous accuracy."  You may not agree with either, but these two sentences, or something like them, express Thucydides' significance as seen by whole shelves full of books.  (The previous post on this talk page, "philosopher and psychologist," may come across as crude, but the idea expressed derives from a very widespread view of Thuc.)  Wareh 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)  P.S.  While it would be really easy to write a very basic "Thucydides the thinker" section with citations (requested more than once above), I don't have the time to do it.  It'd be nice if we had more constructive opinions and contributors here.  I would like to see all the possible points of view preserved, at least as stubs for later development in the article, and I do appreciate your taking that point into account.  But please don't let me keep you from going ahead and contributing to the article!  Wareh 22:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your post. Here is my attempt at a more ambitious version for sentence 2: "Thucydides has been regarded as the father of scientific history (references to Eduard Meyer, de Sainte Croix,...) because of his strict standards of gathering evidence and because he attempted to discover universal principles governing the behavior of nations in conflict without reference to intervention by the gods. He also has been considered as the father of the school of political realism that views the relations between nations as based on might rather than right (reference to Leo Strauss/Chicago School)." I picked political philosophy here as an important area outside history where his views continue to have impact (in the US at least) with other areas, particular psychology, covered in the article. I wish I was qualified to write a general "Thuc. the thinker" section but, alas, I am not. I will try to write a Herodotus/Thucydides section though. (RFB 05:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC))
 * How about, "Thucydides has been regarded as the father of scientific history (references to Eduard Meyer, de Sainte Croix,...) because of his strict standards of gathering evidence and his analysis in terms of cause and effect without reference to intervention by the gods. He also has been considered as the father of the school of political realism that views the relations between nations as based on might rather than right (reference to Leo Strauss/Chicago School).  More generally, he shows an interest in developing an understanding of human nature to explain human behavior in such crises as plague and civil war."  My only objection was that "nations" is great for the international relations observation but falsely narrow modifying "behavior."  We should not completely get rid of "human," given that Thucydides does explicitly use to anthrōpinon; one book on Thuc., which I haven't read, even uses that as its title, The Human Thing [from the subtitle, I suppose based on 1.22].  Thucydides says events like the Corcyrean stasis will always happen as long as ''physis anthrōpōn" remains the same.  I'm not wedded to my sentence, but something like it and, eventually, a follow-up section (which I only said would be "easy" because I envisioned a stub quoting a couple of critics) can, I hope, be included by general consensus.  Wareh 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC
 * I would use your sentence. It conveys very well his "laws" that might is right at the level of nations and that human psychology (e.g., response of humans to weaker and stronger individuals) ultimately underlies the behavior of nations. (RFB 22:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)) "
 * I inserted the sentence. This reference system is not self-numbering, which makes it a bit ugly looking. Would it not be better to use the self-numbering system? (RFB 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, absolutely, it would be a service to the article to update the refs to . I have found it quite cumbersome to edit this article because of the current system.  Wareh 14:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed the first 4 footnotes. If this works for you and the other editors, I can (slowly) change the remainder. Cheers (RFB) —Preceding comment was added at 05:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finishing the chore! Wareh (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation
A Citation is needed for one of the statements in the section "The History of the Peloponnesian War" for the statement: "as he himself states, were literary reconstructions rather than actual quotations of what was said — or, perhaps, what he believed ought to have been said. "(67.194.68.36 (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC))

I added a section on the influence of Thucycides and Herodotus. I started with two famous quotes from the end of book I, Chapter 1 (taken from the translation by Rex Warner, Penguin edition), normally assumed to refer to Herodotus. They have been replaced by a different quote, which seems less pertinent to me. I would like to change it back but let's talk. Best, (RFB 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * It's not a different quote, it's the same two quotes in a more accurate translation. Rex Warner's translation is extremely loose.  The translation I replaced it with is fairly free, too, though not as loose.  "Seems less pertinent" doesn't seem to me a valid criterion for choosing, because the article says that Thucydides' text supports the ideas presented; if a closer translation doesn't seem to provide support, that would suggest there is a problem with the ideas presented, though I'm not saying that's the case.  If you're not convinced by what I've just said, it would be helpful if you say what in Warner's version seemed especially pertinent that has been lost by switching to another translation&mdash;not just the words (e.g. "romantic"), but what you took them to mean that was pertinent.  Wareh 16:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To help the discussion, here is a more literal translation than either Warner or Woodruff, that of Thomas Hobbes: "To hear this history rehearsed, for that there be inserted in it no fables, shall be perhaps not delightful. But he that desires to look into the truth of things done, and which (according to the condition of humanity) may be done again, or at least their like, he shall find enough herein to make him think it profitable. And it is compiled rather for an everlasting possession, than to be rehearsed for a prize." Wareh 16:42, 8November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for straightening me out. I very much liked the "romantic" from the Warner translation because it sounded so amazingly snide and toxic but I quite agree that if this is unsupported by a literal translation it would be misleading. The Woodruff reads a little wooden to me but how about using the Hobbes translation? The article even refers to it further down. The "rehearsed for a prize" would be even more toxic - Thucyidides was wealthy whereas Herodotus is indeed believed to have had to make an income by being a professional "story teller" - but is that phrase supported by a literal reading? (RFB 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Hobbes would be great; I'll let you decide how to edit it for inclusion. In the first sentence, Thucydides' word is "myth-like."  I could give an opinion about the "storyteller" if you give me the reference (Lucian?); but it would seem to agree with the insinuation of "rehearsed for a prize," which is the naturally Greek concept of presenting a literary composition orally for an audience, often as part of a competitive display of rhetorical or poetic skill.  In fact, many scholars have accepted the idea that such lectures could have been an important means by which Herodotus presented his history.  Wareh 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that. The "storyteller" reference is Lucian, Herodotus 1-2. I did not read it but according to the article (see: http://www.jstor.org/view/00029475/ap010397/01a00020/0) where I found the reference (#10), Lucian claims that Herodotus read his book at a festival in Olympia (during the Olympic Games???) over a 4 day period. If true, that sure would have gotten the attention of his colleagues. Best, (RFB 20:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Yes, the anecdote (which in its embellished versions, with Muse-named books, sequences of days, colorful details, etc.) is not given any credence (e.g. by Flory in the cited article), but surely there are those willing to consider such performance contexts. (Yes, the reference is to the Olympic Games, with the idea cited from Davison that what Hobbes translates "for a prize" really just means "in the general context of a Panhellenic gathering for some contest.")  Wareh 14:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It presents a wonderfully malicious image of Herodotus declaming at top speed to small groups of sport fans in search of a bit of light relief. I finished the section. Any suggestions for improvement? (RFB 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC))

Ancient?
The word ancient in the first sentence is redundant: modern Greeks were rather thin on the ground in the period 460-395 BC, so there's no risk of confusion. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Removed --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 00:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotations Section
Would the quotations section of this article perhaps be best transferred to a separate link on the WikiQuotes site, with a link to it about the bottom of this page? With compliments. DAFMM (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious quotation
I removed this quotation from Green, but some editor reverted me, claiming that he didn't trust me:

"The cleverest intellectual move Thucydides made was the severe limiting of what he deemed permissible as elements of historiography, on the grounds that everything else outside this canon was not only irrelevant but unserious. Out went personal anecdotes, most foreign ethnography and domestic or private motivation: out, above all, went anything to do with women. Religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too. The essence of history was war and politics, as conducted by men in authority. His exclusive privileging of the male political association, in its most public form, became accepted, and historians (being political males themselves) were not inclined to argue. His revisionism not only won out at the time, but established the basic principles of historiography for over two millennia.[24]"

Green is admittedly an established scholar, but this paragraph is nothing but speculation without a shred of evidence. It definitely does not represent Green's best work. On the Humanities reference desk, I recently asked whether the statement "religion was women's business, and mostly nonsense anyway, so that could be discarded too" had any basis in Thucydides' work. Neither I nor any ref desk volunteers could find any reference to either religion or women in the History of the Peloponnesian War. There is no evidence suggesting that Thucydides thought religion was women's business, or that religion really was women's business in ancient Athens, or that the fact it was women's business had anything to do with why Thucydides was atheistic in his treatment of history. In fact, it seems that Green is saying the only reason people don't believe in gods is because they hate women!

Green makes the extraordinary claim that "out, above all, went anything to do with women", but everything we know about ancient Greece suggests that women played no role in public life, and certainly no role in the military. Green goes against this firmly established historical fact derived from numerous sources--Athenian laws, contemporary writings, public records, etc--and postulates that Thucydides threw out everything to do with women, all without offering any evidence.

What bothers me the most is that Green tries to discredit 2 millenia of historiography. That's an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, being based on speculations about Thucydides that no other scholars (as far as I can tell) share. I therefore conclude that it's the historical equivalent of pseudoscience, and has no place on Wikipedia. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is fine. I didn't say that I didn't trust you, but rather an inflammatory and profane edit summary with a dubious claim (i.e., apparently accusing the important scholar Peter Green of "feminist bullshit".)  I agree that the quote is a bit out of place and am fine with removing it, but those kinds of inflammatory edit summaries tend to raise red flags.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious representation of Herodotus
The photograph I've removed is the same as the one that is identified on the Herodotus page as a "Roman copy of a purported bust of Herodotus." Since the Thucydides page is linked to the Herodotus page, and there is already another photographic representation of Herodotus on this page, it seems inappropriate to retain this image. Activist (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe
https://web.duke.edu/classics/grbs/FTexts/48/Hansen.pdf http://europa.eu/scadplus/european_convention/objectives_en.htm

1492
The theory that the landings in America by Columbus caused a revival of interest in Herodotus is very far-fetched. I am wondering what it is doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.72.219 (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Herodotus, father of lies
"Cicero calls Herodotus the "father of history;" yet the Greek writer Plutarch, in his Moralia (Ethics) denigrated Herodotus, as the "father of lies"."

Plutarch never used this expression, although he criticized some of his lies. It was invented, I believe by Juan Luis Vives, De Disciplinis. Cf. A. Momigliano, Herodotus in the History of Historiography, Secondo contributo, p. 41-42.

Fabrice Ferrer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From a search of the text, especially section 11 of the part on Herodotus, which the ref appears to mention, it seems you're right. I don't see the phrase "father of lies" or anything like it. — Eru·tuon 09:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Works
Coming to this article with no knowledge of Thucydides, I am unsure after reading it whether The History of the Peloponnesian War was his only work, or whether he produced other works too. Can it be made explicit, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.222.112 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Thucydides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090705045732/http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12547 to http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12547
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100610064048/http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Classics/gk701/8crit.htm to http://web.gc.cuny.edu/Classics/gk701/8crit.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061205230746/http://oll.libertyfund.org:80/Intros/Thucydides.php to http://oll.libertyfund.org/Intros/Thucydides.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation Missing from Notes / Imbalance of Article
Notes 63 and 64 cite someone called Peter Green, supporting a less than worshipful view of Thucydides (and his contemporary fans). I'd like to read more by Green on the topic, but both notes merely refer to an "op. cit." that isn't actually cited. (Also, isn't the use of "op. cit." deprecated in Wikipedia notes?) Anyway, I'd be grateful if someone could provide the full reference, and/or provide more in the same vein: anything that undemrines Thucydides' ludicrous reputation for "objectivity" or even "scientific history" (one of the great oxymorons of all time) would be welcome, if only to give a more balanced tone to a mostly far too favourable article. (signed) Herodotus Fan Club Member no. 001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.170.130 (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Predecessor?
Herodotus is called Thucydides' "predecessor" and even "his immediate predecessor". Predecessor in what sense? Although H. was older, they were contemporaries. Did T. succeed H. in some office? If so, which office? Or did T. in some other sense replace H.? If so, in what sense and how did that happen? --Lambiam 07:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversions 22 February 2018
Dear. Re: the reversion of recent edits to Thucydides by. Whilst your reasoning for doing is fine, I find that language that you used to describe these changes as wholly inapproriate for dealing with edits by a new user. These were first edits by Abachi and your comments in the reversion notice were unsupportive and entirely failed to Assume good faith. I understand from Twitter that this user has just written a blog highlighting this - their first experience of editing - as their last as a result of these comments. Please try to treat new editors with a degree of courtesy in future and for the love of all that may or not be holy Please do not bite the newcomers! Zakhx150 (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I deeply apologize; I did not think my tone was so harsh. Sometimes when I say things they come across much harsher than I intended them. I honestly thought my first edit summary was completely respectful; I did not see it as an insult towards the editor I was reverting, but merely as an explanation of why I was reverting him/her. There are only so many characters allowed in an edit summary and I wanted to make sure my reasoning was clear. My second edit summary was a bit harsher, I will admit, but it was talking about the preexisting section, not the new user's edit. Please note that my problem was not necessarily with the content of the section, but rather its incorporation into this Wikipedia article; I think the material I removed would have a much better home over at WikiQuote. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good, lesson learned hopefully. Why don't we see if we and can incorporate some of the content, in a prose-based form. The stuff about the influence of Thucydides post-Renaissance seems particularly relevant to this page, as do perhaps one or two of his more famous quote and those incorrectly associated with him - it all sounds like good encyclopedics stuff to me.Zakhx150 (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with two or three well-chosen quotations placed in relevant sections of this article. The article Pythagoras used to have a similar problem with large quantities of extended quotations before I started working on it; I cleaned out most of them, but kept a few that I thought were really pertinent. I do not think that any of the misattributed quotes should be included in this article, though. Unless they are more famous than anything he actually said, they are not relevant here and we should devote our limited space instead to authentic quotes rather than false ones. I do think that all of the quotations I removed should definitely be incorporated into the WikiQuote article for Thucydides (including the misattributed ones), if they are not there already. Unfortunately, I am not an editor over there and I do not really know much about how their system works. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth and death
The infobox currently says he was born "c.  460 BC" and died "c.  400 BC (aged approximately 72)". The math doesn't work between those three numbers. Can anyone resolve this apparent contradiction? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)