What strikes you as interesting or surprising about Thucydides’ approach or attitude to the distant past in comparison with Schliemann’s and/or Evans’? Although their methods of gathering evidence differed greatly, Thucydides and Schliemann both had similar opinions over the historical accuracy of Homer’s writings. Thucydides sought out to believe in the history of the past by acknowledging the events that occurred at the time period and correlating it with the oral accounts of them. Thucydides mainly found proof from the oral accounts of the events that were mentioned in Homer’s writings, which I believe to be a bit untrustworthy. Moreover, the oral accounts could have been altered when transferred from person to person. This creates a discrepancy regarding if the events that are told actually occurred. I believe Thucydides did great job writing about the events that occurred during the war between Athens and the Peloponnesians but the creditability of his writing should be questioned. An example of this is seen when he writes that there were no settled population in the ancient time of what is not Hellas but in contrary there were frequent migration that occurred on the land. (Thusydides 11). Because of these fallacies in his writing, it is clear that some of the information that he writes about may actually not be completely true. In contrast to Thucydides, Schliemann found evidence that directly correlated to the events that occurred in Homer’s writing. Since Schliemann was an archeologist, he located the places that were mentioned in Homer’s work. In his excavation he was successful in discovering the city of Troy where the Battle of Troy took place. Since he was successful in locating the remains of Troy, he furthermore went on to explore the site of Mycene. In his exploration of Mycene he was able to identify evidence that proved the city was invaded by attackers and burned down, which was also written in Homer’s works (Sansone 17)....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document