In considering whether to label Herodotus as either an historian or a storyteller, it is first necessary to understand that no such distinction would have been apparent to him. Herodotus' Histories are the first instance of a narrative history; His work adopts a form somewhere between the previous tradition of epic and the yet non-existent novel, which has led to the understanding of it as a work of creative style, perceived as almost synonymous with fiction. In Herodotus' explanation of the past, the most ready medium through which he knew to make himself understood was that of the Homeric epic. The similarities between his work and the previously dominant medium for understanding the past can be assured through linguistic features, such as the use of rhetorical questions, quasi-Homeric discourse, similarities in phraseology [aklea vs. klea andron (¶1.1) or the use of grand terms such as 'the cities of mortals'], and the presence of tangential stories that the author considers worth telling, though they are not directly relevant to the plot. This demonstrates Herodotus standing in a murky, grey area between accurate history and the tradition of glorifying the past, from which we might conclude that less attention should to be given to the divisions between the two, as such a medium, was appropriate for engaging a contemporary audience, and was readily available for Herodotus to express his narrative.
Furthermore, Herodotus' aim in this work, as set up in his preamble, demonstrates an impartiality for which we have no prior precedent. His aim to preserve the deeds of both "Greeks and non-Greeks" is indicative of an absence of bias, and a want to enshrine honest history within his work. The dramatic scene immediately following the Persian capture of Sardis demonstrates a positive view, from Herodotus, on the Persian king Cyrus, wherein Cyrus shows compassion to Croesus, and decides not to have him executed (¶1.