This paper focuses on the ways in which Richlin’s work has been influential far beyond Roman studies – for instance on the panelist’s own work on Greek tragedy. A fearless deployment of contemporary approaches marks Richlin’s work, making it relevant to others working on subjects far from her own. In her introduction to Arguments with Silence she summarizes the debate about incorporating theoretical approaches to work in Classics, and demonstrates the positive effects of using modern theory.

In the span of a decade, Digital Humanities (DH) became a discipline.

In 2009, I responded to a job advertisement from Tufts University. The Classics department sought a junior or senior colleague with a strong record of teaching and research to teach Latin and Greek at all levels. The ad specified that the candidate should advance the study of Greek and Latin in an interdisciplinary context. Candidates who could support contributions to original research by undergraduate and graduate students were especially welcome.

The graduating Ph.D. will naturally understand Digital Humanities as it is organized at research-intensive universities: as a large-scale enterprise based in a ‘Centre’ or ‘Program’, often with its own programming staff, a teaching curriculum and long-standing relationship across the Humanities and Computer Science. However, a great number of tenure-stream positions are to be found in small universities where these conditions do not pertain.

It is unclear how long we will be able to treat the term Classical Studies as largely synonymous with the study of Greco-Roman culture -- this usage reflects assumptions of European cultural hegemony that few students of Greco-Roman culture still share and fewer still would publicly defend. Certainly students of Greco-Roman culture in the United States and Europe have various pragmatic reasons, political and economic alike, to recognize the importance of Classical Arabic, Chinese, Sanskrit, Persian and other cultural languages from beyond Europe.

This paper will argue that the Spartans exploited the emotionally fraught aftermath of victory and defeat to stage didactic spectacles, which aimed to bolster their socio-political structures and the ideology of cooperative sociability that underpinned the Spartan politeia (see, esp., Hodkinson 2005: 258-63; 2006: 128-29).

The economic aspects of classical Greek warfare are well studied (Pritchett 1974; 1991; Kallet-Marx 1993; Kallet 2001; van Wees 2004 and 2013; Trundle 2016). As the fifth century progressed, coinage professionalized and centralized warfare, which became bigger and less seasonal (Trundle 2010; Pritchard 2010). The fifth century, especially, saw war become as much an economic as a socio-political phenomenon (Thuc. 1.10-13). States fought wars for economic gain, but not all wars were profitable. Losers suffered deprivation, and wars cost winners dearly.

In sharp distinction to Thucydides, who (contra Kallett 2013) was highly skeptical about such things, Xenophon and Herodotus, as well as the fragmentary historians of the fourth and third centuries, attributed an historical agency to supernatural powers. Modern historians, despite arguments to the contrary (Parker 2000, 2004; Pritchett 1979: 140-53; Flower 2008), continue to assume that these writers simply made up portents and omens or that all such phenomena were the contrivances of elites who were intent on manipulating popular opinion.

This paper will explore the aftermath of battle and will challenge the conclusion reached by a number of scholars, that the experience of combat left many Greek warriors psychologically traumatised.