" (8.6-7) Humanity, this suggests, cannot serve two masters -- God and a king, and humanity in the form of Israel chooses kingship. Thus, humanity is far more servile and weak and in need of divine guidance, than human beings who actively resist tyranny, in Herodotus, whether it be in their schema of governance of not. "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots." warns Samuel. (8.11) Unlike Herodotus, failures to come are moral, rather than active events in battle, and they are the failures of Israel, not of her opponents alone.

Thus, Herodotus' vantage as an outsider to Persian customs, and Samuel's view as an insider to the land of Israel affects their points-of-view as well. Both authors take a negative view of autocracy, although one judges it in practical terms and the other in moral terms....

And both authors use their societies as moral benchmarks, for good or for ill, against other ancient societies. However, the means by which they judge these benchmarks differ -- Herodotus remains a narrative, secular historian, concerned with hearsay rather than heresy, for all of his flights of fantasy and belief in what seems less than credulous, and Samuel spins tales with clear morals, rather than political lessons. Prophets cannot fail in Samuel, for they provide the voice of God, while in Herodotus prophets merely unfailingly reinforce political realities in their words. Prophesy limits kings by reminding them of their human limits in Samuel, while in Herodotus defeat in battle is the only limit upon tyranny.
Works Cited

Herodotus. Histories. Lewis Stiles, Translator. (14 October 2004) http://duke.usask.ca/~porterj/DeptTransls/Hdt.html#xerxes?

Samuel. King James Version. (14 October 2004) http://www.bartleby.com/108/09/8.html