What was the purpose of herodotus'history?

The lines which begin the Histories are a model of clarity and simplicity. There is no excess rhetoric, no flowery overstatement. Herodotus states succinctly in the above passage the purpose for his account. His “enquiries” (ἱστορία) were made to serve memory and understanding—memory in preserving the deeds of men, understanding in examining how the circumstances of those actions came about.

Herodotus’ treatment of memory in this passage is more than just a simple remembrance. He is doing more than just recording a how, where, and when. The preservation of memory here is active, even aggressive, as if time were attempting to destroy the things of man, and history is a brandished weapon holding it at bay.

Almost as an afterthought, Herodotus appends onto his paean to memory a secondary goal. Among the matters covered will be “…the cause of the conflict between the Greeks and non-Greeks.” This is just casually thrown in as if to remind you to look for it along the way. Here Herodotus is understating his purpose, and by playing down this item, he shows its importance. The discovery of the causes of action, and why men have acted as they have, is the heart of the study of history.

So what is the cause of the conflict between the Greeks and the non-Greeks? What was the spark that began the fire that led the largest army in antiquity to cross from Asia to Europe in order to subdue the cities of Attica and the Peloponnese? Herodotus’ examination of this is more subtle than some will give him credit for, and is composed of one part scholarly guile, and one part showmanship. He will look at the opinions of the Asians and the Greeks, and then settle on the pattern that will lead him through his entire enquiry.

“According to learned Persians, it was the Phoenicians who caused the conflict”1 So begins Herodotus’ examination of the causes of the great conflict. Right away, he is already showing historians their business - he is sourcing his work. He is telling you whose opinion he is working with. As he proceeds, he relates the Persians’ story of Phoenicians going to Argos and abducting Io. In a turnabout, some Greeks go to Tyre and abduct Europa, while some others go to Colchis and abduct Princess Medea (there is some confusion amongst the Persians as to whether the former group were properly Greek, or Cretan). All of the second round of abductors justify their actions by pointing to Io’s earlier capture.

Finally, the son of the Trojan king, Alexander (Paris), abducts Helen from her home in Sparta. At this point, according to the Persians, the Greeks gain culpability, for “…so far it had only been a matter of abducting women from one another, but the Greeks…took the initiative and launched a military strike against Persia.”2

While it is true that the Persians viewed this kind of rapacious activity to be illegal, they found the Greek reaction to Helen’s abduction odd because, “…it is stupid to get worked up about it“ They viewed the Greek reaction to be unjust and “…date the origin of their hostility towards the Greece from the fall of Illium.” 3

After sourcing these opinions, and running through them, Herodotus gives his own opinion: forget the abductions; they are not the issue.

d. japan's attack on pearl harbor

in 1803 the louisiana purchase took place, doubling the size of the country. by 1840 almost 7 million americans had migrated westward in hopes of securing land and being prosperous. the belief that settlers were destined to expand to the west is often referred to as manifest destiny.

explanation: