Ancient Greek historian Herodotus is considered one of the earliest thinkers to explore international relations. In the introduction (proem) to his Histories, he presents an unexpected account of how Greece—and, by extension, Europe—became separated from Asia.
When discussing the Persians, Herodotus uses the phrase “learned Persians” (Greek: λόγιοι Πέρσαι), referring to educated Persians at a time when Greeks commonly described other peoples as “barbarians.” In the opening section of Histories, he introduces a fascinating explanation of how conflict between Europe and Asia supposedly developed, offering an early glimpse into the forces that shape international relations.
According to Tim Rood’s article, “Herodotus’ Proem: Space, Time, and the Origins of International Relations,” the Ancient Greek’s introduction serves as a sophisticated reflection on how different societies interpret international conflict, how geographical boundaries are formed, and how historical memory influences relations between states and civilizations.
A central feature of the proem is Herodotus’ reference to Persian intellectuals, who offer their own explanation for the origins of hostility between Greece and Persia—or, more broadly, conflicts between Europe and Asia. Their interpretation provides valuable insight into how ancient peoples understood international relations long before the emergence of modern political theory.
The “Learned Persians”
At the beginning of Histories, Herodotus explains that Persian scholars had their own account of the causes of conflict between Greeks and Asians, a discussion that sheds light on early ideas about international relations. They traced the origins of hostility to a series of legendary abductions of women.
Tim Rood, Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Oxford, presents this fascinating Persian version of events as recorded by Herodotus. According to the account, Phoenicians abducted Io from Greece and took her to Egypt. Later on, Greeks abducted Europa from Phoenicia and Medea from Colchis. Finally, Paris of Troy carried off Helen from Sparta. The Persians argued that although the earlier abductions were wrongful, the Greeks escalated the situation by launching a massive military expedition against Troy in response to Helen’s abduction.
From the Persian perspective, this reaction was excessive. Women had been abducted previously, but no one had launched a major war over such incidents. As a result, they viewed the Greek attack on Troy as the first significant act of aggression that gave rise to the long-standing conflict between Europe and Asia.
Rood argues that this narrative is significant because it presents a foreign perspective. Herodotus does not simply tell a Greek story; he also offers a Persian interpretation of international history and relations. The Oxford scholar perceives of this as one of the earliest instances of competing historical narratives. Different societies remember the same events in contrasting ways and use those memories to justify their political positions.
From an international relations perspective, the “learned Persians” functioned almost like early political analysts. They searched for causes, identified patterns of behavior, and attempted to explain why large-scale conflicts emerge between different peoples.
Herodotus and his multiple perspectives on international relations
Herodotus, whom many scholars regard as the “father of history,” possessed one of the most remarkable qualities of any ancient writer: a willingness to present differing viewpoints. He does not immediately declare the Persian explanation true or false. Instead, he records it and allows readers to evaluate it for themselves.
This approach resembles a key principle of modern international relations: conflicts often appear differently depending on the observer’s perspective. States construct narratives that justify their own actions and explain the behavior of their adversaries. The Persian account portrays the Greeks as aggressors. Greek traditions, by contrast, often depicted the Persians as expansionist and despotic—what many today might describe as imperialist. Herodotus places these competing interpretations side by side.
Tim Rood emphasizes that the introduction demonstrates an awareness that international politics is shaped not only by actions but also by how these are interpreted. Historical memory becomes a political tool, as different communities construct stories about the past that reinforce their present identities and interests.
Division between Europe and Asia
Another major theme in the prologue of Histories is the division between Europe and Asia. According to Rood, modern readers often assume that Europe and Asia are naturally distinct continents. Yet Herodotus shows that these categories are better understood as historical and cultural constructions rather than self-evident geographical facts.
In the Persian narrative, the conflict over Helen of Troy becomes the moment when Europe and Asia are first clearly defined in opposition to one another. The Greeks who attacked Troy are associated with Europe, while Troy and its allies are linked to Asia. The Trojan War thus takes on the meaning of a symbolic clash between two broad regional spheres. The professor suggests that Herodotus is interested in how such spatial divisions come into being. The distinction between Europe and Asia is not simply geographical; it also reflects the organization of political and cultural relationships.
This Persian explanation produces a kind of mental map of the world, in which events are sorted according to continental categories. People begin to think in terms of “Europeans” and “Asians” as collective identities. Such a development is significant for international relations because political identities are often shaped through geographical frameworks. Regions are not merely physical spaces but function as imagined communities defined by shared histories, relationships, and perceived interests.
Greece’s ambiguous geographical position
The separation of Europe and Asia also raises broader questions about Greece itself. Modern readers may assume that Greece naturally belongs to Europe, yet the reality in antiquity was far more complex. Greek colonies stretched across the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea, and Greek culture was in constant contact with Egypt, Persia, Phoenicia, and other eastern societies.
Herodotus frequently emphasizes these connections. His world is defined by movement, trade, migration, and cultural exchange, which makes the boundary between Europe and Asia more fluid. Rood notes that Herodotus both employs and interrogates continental divisions. He recognizes Europe and Asia as meaningful categories, while also revealing the extent to which they are interconnected. This tension reflects a recurring theme in international relations. Political boundaries may appear clear on maps, yet real-world interactions routinely cross them. States define themselves in opposition to others while remaining deeply intertwined with them through exchange and contact.
For Rood, space is as significant as time. Herodotus’ narrative does not only recount events. It also situates them geographically and shows how particular locations acquire political meaning. In this sense, Europe and Asia emerged as large geopolitical spaces whose relationship is often defined through both interaction and conflict.
In modern international relations, geography continues to play a central role. Regions such as Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia are not merely locations on a map; they function as political arenas shaped by historical memory and strategic relationships. In Herodotus’ introduction, the conflict between Greeks and Persians is embedded within this broader spatial framework, in which actions in one region can reverberate far beyond their immediate setting.
The abductions described in the Persian account involve individual figures, yet their consequences extend across regions. What begin as isolated incidents escalate into large-scale wars, a pattern that resonates with modern theories of international relations that examine how local disputes can trigger broader systemic conflict.
Time and historical memory
In Histories, Herodotus traces contemporary conflicts back to events in the distant past. The Persian Wars of the 5th century BC are linked to legendary episodes involving Io, Europa, Medea, and Helen. This connection underscores the significance of historical memory in international relations. States rarely understand conflict as beginning in the present. Instead, they invoke earlier grievances, previous wars, and inherited traditions to frame contemporary disputes.
Rood argues that Herodotus shows how the past is continually used to interpret present political realities in international relations. In the Persian account, the struggle with Greece is placed within a long historical narrative that stretches back across generations, assigning deeper roots and continuity to contemporary hostility.
Modern international relations offer clear parallels. Nations frequently draw on historical events to justify territorial claims, alliances, or rivalries, and collective memory plays a central role in shaping political behavior. The Ancient Greek historian Herodotus recognized this dynamic more than two thousand years ago, suggesting that international relations and conflicts cannot be fully understood without examining the stories societies construct about their past. Herodotus begins his inquiry by asking what lies at the origin of conflict: why do peoples go to war, and what transforms isolated incidents into large-scale violence?
The Persian explanation emphasizes escalation. Abductions occurred repeatedly, but most did not lead to major conflict. The turning point, in their view, came when the Greeks responded to Helen’s abduction with a massive military expedition against Troy. This interpretation closely resembles modern international relations theories that focus on escalation and perception, whereby wars do not arise automatically from disputes but develop through decisions made by political actors.
The Persians argue that the Greeks overreacted in their response to Troy. Greek tradition, however, would likely frame the same action as a matter of honor and justice. The disagreement itself highlights how difficult it is to isolate a single, definitive cause of war.
Herodotus and international relations
Herodotus did not offer a single, definitive explanation for the causes of war. Instead, he presented competing accounts and invites critical reflection. Tim Rood argues that the proem of the Histories can be read as an early inquiry into international relations.
Several elements support this interpretation. In his introduction, Herodotus examines relations between various peoples rather than focusing exclusively on a single community, whether Greek or Persian. He also juxtaposes multiple narratives about the origins of conflict, including those surrounding the Trojan War. In addition, he explores how geographical space is politically defined, how memory shapes collective behavior, and how disputes escalate into large-scale war.
These concerns anticipate key themes in modern international relations. The “learned Persians” are especially significant because they offer one of the earliest recorded attempts to interpret international politics from a non-Greek perspective. Their account shows that historical interpretation is never neutral, since societies understand events through their own experiences and interests.
In the introduction to Histories, the Persian version of events is presented as part of a broader explanation for the origins of conflict between Europe and Asia. Through a sequence of abductions and retaliations, the Persians argue that the Greeks were responsible for escalating isolated incidents into full-scale war. Herodotus includes this account not as definitive truth but as one perspective among several.
Rood’s analysis highlights the sophistication of the proem as a reflection on international relations in which Herodotus examines how political communities construct historical narratives, how regions such as Europe and Asia acquire meaning, and how collective memory generates conflict. In this reading, the division between Greece, Europe, and Asia appears not as a natural geographical fact but as a historical and political construction shaped by narrative and rivalry.
See all the latest news from Greece and the world at Greekreporter.com. Contact our newsroom to report an update or send your story, photos and videos. Follow GR on Google News and subscribe here to our daily email!
