Historiography

Historiography with special reference to the following texts. Compulsory passages for translation and comment will be set from those in list a.

(i) For Course I candidates:

a)
Herodotus VII.1-52, 8.56-95
Thucydides VII. 42-87
Livy XXI. 1-23, 30-8
Tacitus, Histories I

b)
rest of Herodotus VII and VIII
rest of Thucydides VI and VII
Polybius III
rest of Livy XXI and XXII
Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum

 (ii) For Course II candidates who specialised in Greek:

a)
Herodotus VII.1-52, 8.56-95
Thucydides VII. 42-87
Polybius III. 1-56

b)
rest of Herodotus VII and VIII
rest of Thucydides VI and VII
rest of Polybius III
Livy XXI and XXII
Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum
Tacitus, Histories I

(iii) For Course II candidates who specialised in Latin:

a)
Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum 1-10, 20-31, 40-5, 63-9, 77-101, 107-14
Livy XXI. 1-23, 30-8
Tacitus, Histories I

b)
Herodotus VII and VIII
Thucydides VI and VII
Polybius III
rest of Livy XXI and XXII
rest of Sallust, Bellum Iugurthinum

Greek and Roman historians saw their subject matter as epic in scope. Like Homer, they were drawn to treat great wars that involved great suffering. In this paper we look at how the greatest historians of antiquity handled some of the greatest military expeditions of antiquity: the Persian invasion of Greece , the Athenian invasion of Sicily , the Punic Wars, the war against Jugurtha, and the Year of the Four Emperors. We see how the historians exploited their place in the tradition of historiographical writing about great expeditions; with Polybius and Livy, we analyse how two very different historians, one Greek, one Roman, treated the same historical event. We also explore how the historians used speeches to raise questions about the use of the pre-emptive strike, about the tactics of shock-and-awe, and about the causes of war, and we compare the rhetorical techniques employed in their narratives. How far did this rhetoric involve writers in sensationalism and fiction, and how far was it a matter of presenting interpretation in a forceful and persuasive way? How far is interpretation textured by moral and patriotic bias? How concerned were writers to explore what it was to be a Greek or a Roman? How seriously should we take historians' professed ambitions to guide their readers in practical politics?

J. Marincola, ‘Greek Historians', Greece and Rome New Surveys (2002)

C. S. Kraus and A. J. Woodman, ‘Latin Historians', Greece and Rome New Surveys (1997)