[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't think the two of are really in disagreement on this issue. What you're both getting at is that Herodotus did something new. His historia [inquiry] is the first recorded investigation into the cause of something, namely the reasons behind the wars between the Persians and the Greeks. (1.1)

While Herodotus does engage in some rudimentary source criticism and takes efforts to establish his credibility, his account clearly contains some wild inaccuracies - causing some ancient writers to call him the "father of lies" as well as "the father of history."

Nevertheless, these epithets are the result of later historians' conception of historia, not Herodotus'. Modern ideas of genre, such as history, rhetoric, mythography, chronography, etc. are not really applicable in the ancient world.

It's not a coincidence that Herodotus has survived, but the writings of more "accurate" historians such as Ephorus, Hellanicus, or Theopompus have not. His work is hugely significant in the history of the western world.

If I were to start a religion, Herodotus would be my scripture.

So you don't like Thucydides?