Athenian wrote up the war of the Peloponnesian and the Athenians" Thucydides is the nominative subject; the war is the object he is the actor and it is his setting. Thucydides unlike Herodotus does not focus on the evidence but on an intellectual synthesis he draws from the sources. This puts the reader in a position of either accepting the conclusions he draws or rejecting them.The evidence available to the modern historian invites scepticism toward Thucydides the historian, for instance an inscription suggests that he is wrong about the commander of an Athenian expedition in Leukimme. Also later writers have disagreed about the composition of the committee, which paved the way for the oligarchy of the four hundred in 411. Also he ignores some figures who in other accounts receive great notoriety; for instance Hyperbolus. Hyperbolus has a play named after him by Plato comicus and is named in the Archanorus of 425 and is generally seem as an influential figure but he doesn't feature in Thucydides. As he doesn't fit in the story he wants to tell.Thucydides was a good researcher and a good storyteller; he shaped the individuals and events of the Peloponnesian war to suit a dramatic story, but as a historian he doesn't quite succeed; The Oxford English Dictionary defines a historian as: "A writer or author of a history; esp. one who produces a work of history in the higher sense, as distinguished from the simple annalist or chronicler of events, or from the mere compiler of a historical narrative." Thucydides, through suppression and exclusion of evidence became a dramatist as he did not produce history in the higher sense, in terms of evidence he was a mere compiler of historical narrative. He made too many assumptions to remain an adequate historian, but he is not inadequate because he disables us from disagreeing with him by suppressing evidence; it is also because he is more concerned with providing a "Piece of writingdone to las...
