Heodotus's incompetence regarding history of India

I read herodotus's history of the worlds and i have to say that his passages regarding India leave a lot to be desired. This region's wealth was so that its annual tribute was more than the rest of the Persian provinces combined and Persia ruled much of the known world at the time including Egypt and Mesopotamia. The tribute of the other provinces was measured in talons of silver while India's wealth was measured in talons of Gold, such was this regions wealth and of course the culture which produced that wealth must have been pretty sophisticated but instead of telling us about the mainstream Indian culture he instead focuses on a few exotic (to him at least) tribes living on the fringes of Indian society who eat their dead and had sex in the open and who according to Herodotus had semen the colour of black. There might be the possibility that they may have been the ancestors of modern shudras. Also i find his works to be very timeless because his focus are the stories and myths of a culture instead of describing the modern day to day lives of the people of the culture. Would the focus of any historian or any intellectual for that matter would be what is the focus of Herodotus if they are transported to those places and times. I don't think so.  

Originally posted by Chilbudios Herodotus, much like most ancient and medieval history chronicles are not to be taken at face value. Read sources (also) through scholarship, otherwise the image you'll get from them will be most probably erroneous.

Please elaborate what you mean. I have read his actual works including account of egypt so how can scholarly sources beat reading the actual thing. Its the same like people trying to find all sorts of meaning in bible or the Vedas or nostradamus's calling it the hidden meaning and the miracle of that book. The rest of us would rather be a lot more objective. I read his account of Egypt hoping to get a window of ancient Egypt but apart from some of the sections which he devotes to some practices of Egypt like their metrarchial society he devotes the bulk of their books to the tall stories of the Egyptians which frankly i could have read anywhere. So please tell me that what could other scholars enlighten me about something which i did not see while reading  the primary source thoroughly.

Please elaborate what you mean. I have read his actual works including account of egypt so how can scholarly sources beat reading the actual thing. Its the same like people trying to find all sorts of meaning in bible or the Vedas or nostradamus's calling it the hidden meaning and the miracle of that book. The rest of us would rather be a lot more objective. I read his account of Egypt hoping to get a window of ancient Egypt but apart from some of the sections which he devotes to some practices of Egypt like their metrarchial society he devotes the bulk of their books to the tall stories of the Egyptians which frankly i could have read anywhere. So please tell me that what could other scholars enlighten me about something which i did not see while reading  the primary source thoroughly.

He gives the details he knew and thought they are worth saying. He gives them in his own manner, but also reflecting his time and place. He did not write for you, but for him and the world he knew or - let's say - he could anticipate. The purpose of his writing is what he intended not what you expect, 2500 years after him.

Your judgements are simply wrong for you're not reading the sources as you should. But in the end you can believe what you like on Herodotus.

Edited by Chilbudios - 13-Sep-2007 at 11:45

I agree with all that you have said. Its just that i was expecting something else. But yes you are right he had no way of knowing that what will be my expectations 2500 years later than when he composed his works.     

Herodotus was well read in the complete Greek intellectual library up to his day, he knew the works of all major thinkers of his and previous generations. Herodotus did not visit any of the places he mentions, at least the ones outside of the Aegean. The source has many erronous accounts, however, it shouldn't be looked at face value, and should be looked at for overall truths, and trends, and also as a guide to the Greek worldview in 4th century BC.

Originally posted by Chilbudios He gives the details he knew and thought they are worth saying. He gives them in his own manner, but also reflecting his time and place. He did not write for you, but for him and the world he knew or - let's say - he could anticipate. The purpose of his writing is what he intended not what you expect, 2500 years after him. Your judgements are simply wrong for you're not reading the sources as you should.

What do you expect from him? As other fellows had say he only wrote few things based on few information. If you want great quality in grecorromans authors you should read the work of peoples after the macedonian  invasion of India, specially Megasthenes and the survived portions of his work "Indika" wich is used in most of the books about India for tell about that society:

Edited by Ikki - 14-Sep-2007 at 16:06

Hi bilal, if you are interested you can read too the "The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" writed by the greeks around I and III century CE, some people say before I century BC; it is an economic manual of the Indic ocean, and talk about India between the 40 and 63 chapters, but give some information in all the text:

At the time of Herodotus there were many jonian travellers now called the Logographers but i don't know if survived any of their works. I only know the famous authors of roman time, like Herodotus or Strabo who said that he travelled to Egypt, Kush... And of course of second hand, Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus the same Herodotus who wrote following the information of other peoples, but if you ask me i don't know any better example of true traveler than Megasthenes.

Edited by Ikki - 19-Sep-2007 at 08:09