Bret Devereaux

In terms of the main point, I want to make clear that I think the world of @AncientWorldMag is very important and valuable. Classics - at least in the USA - is in trouble in the long run; embattled departments, disappearing funding, falling enrollments. 14/?

And while there are all sorts of Classicists doing that work, it seemed to me that, despite being a fairly small slice - in the USA at least - of 'Classics,' ancient historians tended to have outsized presence in public outreach. And I wondered why. That's all.

I think somewhere in my rambling thread I suggested an answer, which is historical questions and their answers are more digestible by the general public. The ideas of objectivity and truth are still relevant in that sphere, so more ephemeral types of studies

however valuable (as we in the academy view them) will not have the same traction. If you look at our readership numbers (and I think those from Eidolon would support this, though I don't know anything beyond public information on their numbers) then there is evidence of this.

I also want to point out, I wasn't trying to sound aggressive, but I also do not like the continued internal disciplinary boundaries in ancient studies. I understand that I am probably in the minority, but I think the future of the field is in integrated programs.

"Integrated" from the old perspective.

There is certainly a lot of debate over here between integrated ancient-world programs, vs. ancient history in history departments. I'm not sure I have a confident opinion yet, but I suppose even if I did, it'd be impolitic to say so while still on the job market :/

In any event, I find myself much more worried as to if Classics is going to be able to persist as a discipline (ideally a broader, more diverse one) in the long term. Very concerned that we're looking at a significant contraction in support for the study of the ancient world.