EB and the West

[Tellos Athenaios]

Let's not make a hyperbolic argument shall we? Herodotus doesn't attribute "much of greek culture and science" to oriental origins. He says the Babylonians had an astrolabe. The facts are that some of Eratosthenes' calculations were an improvement over old Babylonian observations. Herodotus doesn't say the drama came from the orient, it came from Aeschylus. He doesn't say history came from the orient; it came from Hellanicus. He doesn't say poetry came from the orient; it came from Homer. He doesn't say the Greek polis came from the orient; he says how the Greek polis defeated the orient. As you can see, I am no dolt; please produce a more intellectually sound response in the future, especially since I have not attacked you even once. As you might know, that is called ad hominem and is a logical fallacy, recommended for avoidance in the future.

Hyperbolic? Hmm, might have to look it up for you but if anything becomes clear from Herodotos then it is his acknowledgement of foreign development - he even explains why in his opinion the Greeks had copied their entire Pantheon from Egytian examples. That is a rather large chunk of culture.

Also he specifically mentions the handles on shields being a foreign invention, IIRC a Lydian one to be precise. Also he attributes astrology & astronomy to Babylonians. IIRC he claims that they were the first to accurately measure time and date, and to incorporate it all into calendars.

While he certainly doesn't claim that all science comes from Greece, he certainly gives his audience the impression that Greek science is to a large extent based on "Barbarian" science. A rather audacious move, given the recently acquired bad blood between Greeks & Not-Greeks.

It is equally true, however, that in his vision other peoples often copied Greek inventions / designs and did some further thinkering with them.

As for history: according to Herodotos you best sources would be the local priesthood. He certainly doesn't claim that Hellenikos invented any such thing - anyone with even the slightest amount of education would've known better than that. Temples and Courts, that is where they expected to find sources on history.

Based on your last remark I think you either know jack of Herodotos' Historia or have a woefully wrong conception of the content of the books. He himself explicitly state what he is going to describe in his book in just one sentence - the very first one he makes.

Ἡροδότου Ἁλικαρνησσέος ἱστορίης ἀπόδεξις ἥδε, ὡς μήτε τὰ γενόμενα ἐξ ἀνθρώπων τῷ χρόνῳ ἐξίτηλα γένηται, μήτε ἔργα μεγάλα τε καὶ θωμαστά, τὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι τὰ δὲ βαρβάροισι ἀποδεχθέντα, ἀκλεᾶ γένηται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ δι᾽ ἣν αἰτίην ἐπολέμησαν ἀλλήλοισι.

Quick, raw translation:

[This is] the record of the research by Herodotos from Halikarnassos, in order that the [following] events [will] not become forgotten among people[s] because of [passing] time, and that the great and wonderous deeds perfomed among Greeks [on one side] and among Barbarians [on the other side] [will] not become unknown of either and especially the reasons why they [have] waged war against eachother.

Now one simply can't summarise his work any better than that. For those three topics are precisely the thing he discusses. He doesn't describe "how the Greeks won, and the Persians lost" - in fact that is how he describes the rise to power of Persia. "How did the Persians win, and how did everyone else lose." Read his 'chapter' on the war between Kyros and Kroissos for example, or read about the sieges of Babylon by the Persians.

Quite frankly you may point out that oudysseos isn't correct - eventhough one could have quite an argument over that statement - but you, yourself SigniferOne show an even more worrisome lack of knowledge of what you're talking about. (And with that I mean Herodotos' "Historia")