Many have written on this topic, each telling a different version of what really happened. Each time there are new heroes and new villains. .
What would history be like if we heard it from the other side's perspective? What would the story of the .
Persian War be like if we heard it from a Persian .
Historian? What would the battle at the Alamo be like if we heard the story or read it from a Mexican perspective? .
We probably would get a much different perspective of what happened at these events. .
Herodotus was proud of his background and it seemed .
it was his intention was to glorify the Athenians. His use of mythology and heroism puts into question the events that he wrote about. The Persian War certainly seems to set this kind of tone, one that shows pride in his heritage and that of his country men.
Thucydides texts have shown to have more of a realist tone to them. He will occasionally criticize or downplay the efforts of the Athenian people. His text or work seemed to be more factual, more than that of Herodotus. His works even though they were written thousands of years ago more closely resemble the work of a modern Historian. .
Thucydides also seems to be more in favor to talk about the power structure that represented Greece during his era. He goes into much more detail behind the political machine that ran Greece during the Peloponnesian War. At times it is apparent that Thucydides attempts to analyze power politics through political realism. This is one of the differences between Herodotus and Thucydides. This is what separates the two Historians. Thucydides writes on the events that had significance to try and teach future generations on the issues that plagued his people during his era. His writings implied that he was anti-politics. His fight it appeared to be to try and preserve human freedom and dignity rather than to live and obey the rules of a government power.