Before writing their historical works, 1st century Greco-Roman historiographers tended to laboriously investigate the relevant issues surrounding their topics of choice.
This page analyzes 8 arguments:
This is relevant because this goal is irrelevant unless one’s wider goal is to report the truth. [This is relevant because the laborious investigation involved consulting witnesses and local experts who knew witnesses in order for one’s account to be as 1st hand (and close to the tr]uth) as possible..1
In cases where witnesses were available, historians commenting on what is expected of historiography would often outright say interviewing them was required.
This page analyzes 4 arguments:
This is relevant because it represents an ideal (even if they did not always meet it). It is safe to assume that, if they could not get witness testimony, they got something as close as possible so that their work would still be witness-based.
Ideal Greco-Roman historiographer strove to relay information from eyewitnesses who were sufficiently involved and ideally saw the whole thing.
This page analyzes 2 arguments:
This is relevant because, if it is true, then it is also true that historians strove to be as 1st hand as possible (because witnesses who saw it all from the beginning are a kind of 1st hand source).
Greco-Roman inquirers about the past place great value the source's being directly witness-based, or close enough.
This page analyzes 5 arguments:
This is relevant because it would lead us to expect that Greco-Roman historians would strive to obtain and relay honest witness testimony.
On the other hand, this counterevidence is also analyzed in the linked page:
If you're following the tree, you have arrived at a circle. Otherwise, see the full page discussion here.
Greco-Roman inquirers about the past place little to no value on whether the source was directly witness-based closed to being such.
This page analyzes one evidence:
But against the accuracy of that claim (also discussed in the above page)...
Greco-Roman historiographers didn't really put much work into preparing for their histories.
This page considers 2 claims/arguments…
This is relevant because then they wouldn’t strive in this particular way: to produce a 1st-hand-as-possible history.