What Was The Difference Between Herodotus And Livy

Herodotus and Livy are arguably the earliest true historians in that they recorded occurrences with the goal accurately remembering them for educational purposes, rather than of entertaining the people. Although they do appear to attempt to provide an accurate account of the events of the time, there are some sections of the book where a clear bias is portrayed. Even though both Herodotus and Livy impart some of their personal opinion into their histories, they do so in different ways which ultimately leads to a divergence in their styles of writing.

Although there are times in Herodotus’ The Histories where he makes an assertion, based on his own opinion, and blatantly chooses a side to support, he claims that he will not. This is shown in

his introduction, where he says that he is writing his The Histories, “so that human achievements may not become forgotten in time, and great and marvellous deeds - some displayed by Greeks, some by barbarians - may not be without their glory,” (Herodotus, 1.1). He expresses that he does not plan to simply speak of the Greeks and their heroics, but rather of both deeds of Greeks and of barbarians. Although he says that he wants to speak of both groups of people, there are times when he strays from his intention and becomes biased. His bias directly contradicts the reason that he said he was writing his The Histories, and calls into question the validity of his work as an accurate historical exposition.
The best example of Herodotus’ bias lies in his story on the development of democracy in Athens. When speaking of the growth of Athens’ power, Herodotus says:
Thus Athens went from strength to strength, and proved, if proof were needed, how noble a thing equality before the law is, not in one respect only, but in all; for while they were oppressed under tyrants, they had no better success in war than any of their neighbours, yet, once the yoke was flung off, they proved the finest fighters in the world. This clearly shows that, so long as they were held down by authority, they deliberately shirked their duty in the field, as saves shirk working for their masters; but when freedom was won, then every man amongst them was interested in his own cause. (Herodotus, 5.78)
This is bias so blatant that it has no place in a work dedicated to historical accuracy. Herodotus not only portrays Athens in a favorable light, stating that they go “from strength to strength”, but he also clearly supports Athens’ new democracy. Where he says “if proof were needed”, implies that he believes that democracy is clearly the best form of government. This is also supported by when he says “this clearly shows”. Both of those statements have a certain tone to them that seems almost demeaning to anyone who does not support democracy. Finally, he says that “they [Athenian men] deliberately shirked their duty in the field,”. This is a grandiose claim with questionable grounds, as the only proof Herodotus has to support his idea that democracy makes men fight better is that coincidentally the Athenian army won battles after becoming democratic. The correlation between democracy and victory does not imply causation, and for a claim such as this, Herodotus truly needs more to support it. This quote also casts a shadow of doubt on Herodotus’ work as a whole, because although he was flagrantly biased in this situation, there could be veins of his bias running throughout his text, subtly hidden in the stories that the reader cannot easily validate.
Although Herodotus is at times biased, there are instances in which there is explicit proof of Herodotus following his introduction, in that he shows both sides of the story. As a conclusion to an Egyptian story, Herodotus says, “Anyone may believe these Egyptian tales, if he is sufficiently credulous; as for myself, I keep to the general plan of this book, which is to record the traditions of the various nations just as I heard them related to me” (Herodotus, 2.123). Here, he implies that although he does not believe in the tale he just told, he is relaying it to the reader simply because that is what he said he would do. Although he doesn’t necessarily believe it, he promised to relay things as he heard them, and that is what he did in this example. There is also proof of his attempt to be impartial when he says “In this conflict of evidence, you may agree with whichever party you think is telling the truth,” (Herodotus, 5.45). He presents both sides of the story and acknowledges that there is a clash in what he says and allows the reader to choose which story they support.
Livy’s introduction is somewhat similar to Herodotus. Livy says he “proposes neither to affirm nor refute,” the old tales which he might cite (Livy, 1.1). He is simply conveying them to the reader, and allowing the reader to make his own choice, much like Herodotus. Livy also says that he “hopes my [Livy’s] passion for Rome’s past has not impaired my judgement,” (Livy, 1.1) Again, Livy is similar to Herodotus here as he acknowledges his bias and says that there is a chance that his love for Rome will cloud his account of its history. Yet, although they have similar introductions, there are very few instances in Livy’s text where he states that he is being biased and that there are other sources to consider, whereas in Herodotus’ text, there are several examples of this.
Livy’s The Early History of Rome is biased in some situations, much like Herodotus’ The Histories.

The main difference in these two is that Livy is much more insidious in his bias. He is not overt like Herodotus, but rather much more subtle. A prime example of Livy’s shrewd bias lies in his portrayal of Camillus. Livy shows Camillus as an adept military leader as well as a religious figure who led to the revival of religion in Rome. Livy says, through Camillus, that there is no wonder “the country has gone raving mad,” and then goes on to say that “you [the Romans] think of anything rather than of your duty to make your peace with God,” (Livy, 5.24). The religious revival the Camillus instigates in Livy’s stories raises Camillus and depicts him as a morally good leader. Camillus also leads the Romans against Veii, succeeding and vanquishing them. So, Livy portrays Camillus as a great leader, powerful both religiously and militarily. It is no coincidence that Livy’s contemporary Gaius Octavius, the founder of the Roman principate and first true Roman emperor, also caused a religious revival and was very successful militarily. The similarities between Livy’s Camillus and the real Gaius Octavius, whose favor would certainly benefit Livy, are too great to be ignored. Although Livy does not display this comparison in a straightforward manner, it is still present in his

work.
The guileful way in which Livy weaves his bias is rather different than the visible bias in Herodotus’ work. The difference in the way these two historians interact with their own opinions leads to a disparity between them. Although Herodotus is biased, he is candid with it and often points it out, or is explicit enough that there is no question of whether or not he is being biased. Livy, on the other hand, is much more secretive. He rarely ever makes a real claim, yet there is a distinct bias in his work. He is not forthright with his influence on the historical events, rather choosing to veil it. This leads to a higher level of validity in Herodotus The Histories, where the reader can tell when Herodotus own opinions leak into the text, whereas Livy’s The Early History of Rome must be seen as a slightly inferior text, as his bias is covert and undisclosed.