&& Evaluating crisis wars
|
Generational Dynamics distinguishes between two very different kinds of wars:
The principle underlying Generational Dynamics is that crisis (generational) wars occur in roughly 80 year cycles (70-90 year cycles), the maximum length of a human lifespan.
The major criticism that history scholars have stated with Generational Dynamics is the vagueness of the distinction between crisis and non-crisis wars. The most direct form of the criticism is the accusation that the crisis wars have been chosen to make the cycles come out right. Very often, World Wars I and II are posed as examples of this accusation.
In my last book, Generational Dynamics: Forecasting America's Destiny, I gave an informal list of criteria by which to identify crisis wars without reference to any cycles. Then, in different chapters, I gave summaries of America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia and other regions, summarizing the crisis war cycles for each of the countries in each region.
However, readers have complained that those descriptions are too vague. It's important to provide a set of evaluation criteria that any scholar can apply to determine whether or not a war is a crisis war.
We do that here. Using the criteria presented here, a scholar can analyze any war at any time and place in history, and determine whether or not it's a crisis war. Once all the wars for a given region have been identified over a few centuries, it can then be verified whether or not they occur in roughly 80 year cycles. If they do, it amounts to a rigorous verification of Generational Dynamics.
Ask any college student to tell you what he knows about the following American wars:
In each case, he'll probably be able to tell you at least some basic information, such as what the issues were, who the participants were, what caused the war, who won, and the war's relevance today.
Now ask any college student to tell you what he knows about the following American wars:
Unless the college student is majoring in history, he probably won't be able to give you any such comparable information about any of these wars. These wars have essentially been "forgotten" by the vast majority of Americans.
That's just one of the many difference between crisis and non-crisis wars. The first group of wars listed above are crisis wars because they were fought with a great deal of energy (what I like to call "visceral energy" or even "genocidal energy" for reasons I'll explain), and were extremely consequential in America's history. The second group of wars were far more political and politicized, with little visceral energy, and have had little historical impact.
The crisis wars are the most memorable, the most significant, the ones with the greatest historical impact. Look at the wars portrayed in the following graphic:
|
I believe that any scholar looking at this graphic would have to agree that these are the most important, most significant, most transformational wars of the last few centuries in America and Europe. You would find it very difficult to identify a war that isn't on here and is more important than the wars on here.
If you agree with that, then you already agree with most of the point we're making, because these wars do indeed occur in roughly 80-year cycles.
And that's the underlying basis of Generational Dynamics: That crisis wars do indeed occur in roughly 80 year cycles, and that therefore we can forecast future crisis wars.
While crisis wars come "from the people," mid-cycle (non-crisis) wars come from the politicians.
While crisis wars are fed by viceral and even genocidal hatred of the population toward their enemy, mid-cycle wars are pursued by a population usually feeling no particular hatred of the enemy.
While crisis wars are fought by a united society or nation, mid-cycle wars are politically controversial, often fraught with antiwar (pacifist) movements and political embarassments.
Let's compare the Vietnam War of the 1960s and 70s with World War II and the War on Terror today.
During the Vietnam War, few people felt the war was important to their own lives, except insofar as their own sons, brothers and fathers were fighting and dying in the war. The American people did not fear the Vietnamese people, were not angry at the Vietnamese people, and did not desire vengeance against the Vietnamese people. There was massive political turmoil about the Vietnam War, with constant riots and demonstrations against the war, especially by college students.
These are all indicators that the Vietnam War as a mid-cycle (non-crisis) war. It was a political war, a war that comes from the politicians rather than from the people. No one doubts that America could have won that war if we had used America's military power to the fullest, but we never did because of political opposition. In the end, we lost the war because of political opposition.
Now consider the War on Terror today.
The American people are infuriated and anxious following 9/11. They fear that terrorist acts are going to harm America's way of life (and, indeed, Osama bin Laden said he wanted to do exactly that). There was overwhelming support for both the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. Both political parties strongly support the war on terror; the Democrats have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war, but there is no effective effort to end the war. In fact, there's almost no antiwar movement at all.
One of the most telling things is that following 9/11, Americans were willing to lock up American Muslims in jail without a trial. Nothing like this happened in the Vietnam War. The last time anything like this happened was in World War II, when we locked up Japanese-American citizens in camps.
During World War II the Japanese hated us and we hated the Japanese. Like today, President Roosevelt received enormous criticism and contempt by his political enemies for the way he conducted the war, but no one ever suggested that the war against Germany and Japan should be ended before there was total victory. By the end, we were firebombing and destroying entire cities like Dresden and Tokyo, and of course we used two nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities.
These examples illustrate the dramatic differences between crisis and non-crisis wars. If you've never looked at wars this way, you may think that these differences aren't always so sharp, that some wars are half and half with respect to the characteristics described here.
But in fact I've performed hundreds of evaluations of wars to determine whether they're crisis or non-crisis, and I've found that, if the evaluation parameters are followed, all wars are either one or the other, are either visceral or political.
We described the difference between generational crisis wars and mid-cycle wars as being visceral, genocidal wars versus political wars.
There's one more complication: In a war between two countries, just because the war is a crisis war for one of the belligerents doesn't mean that it is for the other belligerent.
This was the case with the Vietnam War, which was a mid-cycle war for America, as we discussed.
But for the Vietnamese it was a crisis war. The previous crisis war in the region had been
-------------------
The major naive criticism of Generational Dynamics by scholarly historians is that the wars are "cherry-picked" to make the cycles come out right.
Actually, Generational Dynamics is a very sophisticated methodology for analyzing and forecasting history,
Crisis War Criteria
When you wrote that you've given up trying to understand generational dynamics stocks I almost went into a state of shock. I realize that I don't always write as clearly as I should, but what you were telling me was that I had been almost completely incoherent, indicating that I must be totally out of touch with something.
I went back to square one to try to figure out how I got to this point. When I read The Fourth Turning more than 2 1/2 years ago, and reread several times in the following few months, the generational changes didn't always make complete sense to me, but the "Fourth Turning" concept was always crystal clear. What I did since then is to take S&H's Fourth Turning concept, refine it so that it applies to regions, and tested that against hundreds of regions, very successfully.
I'm really sorry I screwed this up so badly in the past, but I would be very grateful if you'd take a look at the following material, and tell me whether you now understand what methodology I'm using and the results I'm getting and, as a separate issue, whether you agree that the results are useful.
I've revised the evaluation criteria for crisis wars, and I've re-evaluated dozens of wars using these criteria, and provided summaries in the following messages.
In each case, I evaluated the war on its own merits. I didn't use any cycle information. I simply asked, "Does this war evaluate to a crisis war or not, using the stated criteria."
I've included the following information:
(*) Revised evaluation criteria for a crisis war.
(*) Evaluations of American wars since 1776, including separate evaluations of other participants.
(*) Evaluations of all French religious wars from 1491 to 1714. I tried to include all wars, and I evaluated each war on its own merits, according to the crisis war criteria.
(*) Evaluations of African wars. This is some work that I started a couple of months ago. I decided to include this because this evaluation is largely incomplete, but it shows the kinds of information I look for in doing the evaluations.
(*) Evaluations of Roman wars based on buried coin hoards. This is a summary of material I've previously posted.
I hope that this time what I've written makes enough sense so that at least you can understand what I've been doing. And I hope that this will make enough sense that you'll agree that it's a valid, meaningful analysis of generational cycles.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=98543
http://fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=98544
[b][size=20]Revised Evaluation Criteria for Crisis Wars
(New section with Algorithmic Evaluation Criteria - added June 18, 2004)
Mike: The following are the revised criteria for crisis wars. John
Americans don't understand crisis wars, even though they happen all the time. Americans don't even really understand their own crisis wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II.
There are in fact two distinctly different kinds of wars that occur in any society. The vast majority of wars are non-crisis wars (also called mid-cycle wars). These are political wars, fought to achieve some political goal. Frequently they're fought with little enthusiasm from the general public, and there is usually a political resolution that restores roughly the balance that existed before the war. Some societies have wars of this type as a way of life. Frequently these wars are forgotten within a generation. (For example, the Korean War is almost forgotten today. Even the Vietnam War per se is forgotten today, except for the politics surrounding it.)
But crisis wars are different. They have political goals, but they have an energy all their own, often genocidal in nature. The energy increases until an extremely violent and historical climax is reached. If there's a political resolution, it's almost always with the intention of forcing compromises so that no such war will ever happen again. Crisis wars are not forgotten by the nations participating in them, even centuries later.
Any war might begin slowly, as the participants continue to hope for a peaceful resolution. In non-crisis wars, there sometimes is a peaceful resolution that ends the war quickly. But crisis wars do not end peacefully. They continue to gather energy until they explode in a final crisis climax.
In The Fourth Turning, Strauss and Howe describe what happens during the climax of a crisis war: "The Crisis climax is human history's equivalent to nature's raging typhoon, the kind that sucks all surrounding matter into a single swirl of ferocious energy. Anything not lashed down goes flying; anything standing in the way gets flattened. Normally occurring late in the Fourth Turning, the climax gathers energy from an accumulation of unmet needs, unpaid bills, and unresolved problems. It then spends that energy on an upheaval whose direction and dimension were beyond comprehension during the prior Unraveling era. The climax shakes a society to its roots, transforms its institutions, redirects its purposes, and marks its people (and its generations) for life. The climax can end in triumph, or tragedy, or some combination of both. Whatever the event and whater the outcome, a society passes through a great gate of history, fundamentally altering the course of civilization."
This kind of climax, occurring after the war has gathered energy sometimes for years, is what defines a crisis war.
There are other secondary criteria that distinguish a crisis war, but these other criteria are important only because they help us determine historically whether the kind of climax just described actually occurred. The secondary criteria indicate whether or not the war is gathering energy or losing energy over time. For example, the presence of an active antiwar (pacifist) movement is almost always a sign that the public has little energy for the war, and that it's not a crisis war.
**** Gauging Public Attitudes
The main factor that distinguishes a crisis war is the attitude of the public toward the war and the enemy. In crisis wars, the public feels a visceral anger and hatred at the enemy, a fear for the country's survival or at least for its way of life, and a desire to achieve total victory, no matter what the cost. In many crisis wars, this rage becomes genocidal.
Americans today can understand this feeling. We can turn on the television today and see news stories about the hatred of Palestinians and Islamic extremists toward Israel and America, towards Jews and Americans. For many, this hatred extends to Europe and to the West in general. In return, Americans can probe their own hatred toward Islamic extremists, especially in the months following the 9/11 attacks.
Americans can also remember (or read) that they didn't have these feelings during the Vietnam or Korean wars. Few if any people hated the Vietnamese or Koreans, and most people didn't even know where Vietnam and Korea were.
But Americans can also read news accounts of attitudes in World War II. German and Japanese documents of the time show clearly how much the Germans and Japanese hated the English and Americans. And the feeling was returned, as shown by how the Americans firebombed and destroyed Dresden and Tokyo, and then dropped two nuclear weapons on Japanese cities. These are the kinds of attitudes that you have to be able to gauge to assess whether a war is a crisis or non-crisis war.
The difference between crisis and non-crisis American wars is as plain as the nose on your face if you know just a little bit of history. The Revolutionary War, Civil War and World War II were fought with a great deal of energy and determination. The Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American war, World War I, the Korean war, the Vietnamese war and the Gulf War all caused huge political debates and internal dissension in America. One interesting fact is that a recent historical assessment of all American Presidents found that the second most controversial President (after Clinton) was Woodrow Wilson. Why? Because Wilson's decision finally to enter World War I is still hotly debated and highly controversial even today. By contrast, there is little or no controversy over Franklin Roosevelt's decision to declare war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
So it's possible to evaluate American wars simply because we have so much information about them. Unfortunately, such information rarely exists for historical wars. As a result, all we can do is look for clues in the historical descriptions to indicate the public attitude toward the enemy and the war.
That's the purpose of the criteria used for evaluating a given war. These criteria do not directly tell us what the attitudes of the people were, but they do provide indirect evidence of the public attitudes.
**** Criteria indicating crisis war
A crisis war is like a ball rolling downhill. It may (or may not) need a push to start, and it may be temporary stopped by obstacles on the way down. But it keeps gathering energy, and at some point its momentum becomes so great that it's unstoppable, until it reaches the bottom of the hill in an explosive climax that forever changes the landscape.
The criteria we're describing measure the rolling of this ball of war. Since we can't measure public attitudes during historical wars, we look for "clues" in the historical descriptions of the wars to see if the criteria for a crisis war are met. If the clues are ambiguous, then it's necessary to refer to additional sources to get more information. In my experience, it's rare that an ambiguous situation remains ambiguous for long. Whether a war is a crisis war becomes abundantly clear very quickly.
There are two major criteria that identify crisis wars, and several secondary criteria. The secondary criteria do not by themselves necessarily indicate a crisis war, but they often point to way to seeing how the major criteria should be evaluated.
**> There are two major criteria that identify crisis wars:
Violent, explosive climax. The clues for this in historical descriptions are huge genocidal massacres, devastation or destruction of a large part of a nation or society, or a "D-Day" type willingness to sacrifice everything to win. A massacre occurring in just one or two battles is not enough to make it a crisis war; it must be violent over a period of at least months, and involve the killing or displacement of large segments of the enemy population, and possibly risking the nation's own population.
Large historical consequences. A crisis war is usually remembered for centuries by the nation or society that took place in it. It almost always ends in imposition of conditions and compromises designed to ensure that no such war will ever happen again. If the war contain atrocities, then the bitterness and hatred gets regurgitated over and over, for centuries to come, in new fault line wars. A war that's quickly forgotten cannot be a crisis war.
**> The following are secondary criteria that identify crisis wars:
Secret mobilization. Example: Germany in 1930s. A country that mobilizes for war in secret is usually preparing to strike first in a crisis war. Why? Because secret mobilization requires the cooperation of a great deal of the public, and indicates very broad support for the impending war.
Surprise attack on enemy. Related to the previous point is that a surprise attack on an adversary usually indicates a crisis war.
"Spiraling out of control". Examples: Rwanda, 1994; French Revolution, 1792. If a war, especially a civil war, seems to spring from nowhere, it almost always indicates widespread public desire for war and vengeance.
Refusal to surrender. Example: Germany 1944. If a nation continues fighting even when defeat is clearly unavoidable, it's most likely a crisis war.
**** Criteria indicating non-crisis war
A non-crisis (mid-cycle) war is like pushing a ball uphill. It has to be constantly pushed, and if you stop pushing, then the ball stops. Depending on the hill, the ball might roll by itself for a little while, but it always comes to a stop without more pushing. Finally, you get tired of pushing, and the war stops.
The main criterion for a non-crisis war are that it doesn't satisfy the major criteria for a crisis war.
**> The following are secondary criteria that identify non-crisis wars:
Open planning and mobilization. Examples: 1991 Gulf War, 1982(?) Falklands war. If a country openly plans for war and mobilizes, and open states conditions under which war will or will not occur, then the war, if it occurs, is almost always a non-crisis war.
Exogenous cause of war. Example: Germany in WWI. If a country is pulled into a war because of an exogenous factor, such as a treaty with another country or an unexpected invasion, then a non-crisis war is indicated. This situation is a weak indicator since it can also arise in crisis wars, but in the absence of other factors it indicates a non-crisis war.
"Top-down war." Example: Korean War. This refers to situations where a politician leads a country to war with little enthusiasm or support from the people.
Strong antiwar (pacifist) movement and political turmoil. Example: Vietnam War, WW I. This indicates lack of public support for the war.
Surprising capitulation or unclear conclusion. Example: Vietnam war, Korean war. If there's no clear winner to the war, or if a nation capitulates or withdraws before it's necessary to do so, then it's most likely a non-crisis war.
Punishment of losers by winners. Example: Gulf War against Iraq, WW I against Germany. This is a complex criterion and really requires further study, but the overwhelming feeling after a crisis war should be that there's plenty of blame to go around and to impose conditions to guarantee that another such war won't occur. If punitive conditions are imposed by the victor, then it means that the crisis war has yet to be fought.
**** Mixed Wars
Some wars are more difficult to evaluate because it's a crisis war for one participant and a non-crisis war for the other participant. In these cases, there may be no final "violent explosion," since the non-crisis participant may simply capitulate rather than face that kind of vengeance. An example is the colonists (crisis) versus the English in the Revolutionary War.
In these cases, it's necessary to use secondary factors to evaluate the participant.
[b][size=20]Algorithmic Evaluation Criteria
(New section - added June 18, 2004)
The above descriptive criteria are not specific enough to provide historians with a specific algorithm for historians who are attempting to evaluate historical wars.
The following is intended to provide such an algorithm.
To determine whether a given war is a crisis war for a particular nation or society, apply the Evaluation Algorithm.
The Evaluation Algorithm is in four steps, to be applied in order. Each step might produce three results:determines C or N This step determines a "crisis" or "non-crisis" result, respectively, and there is no need to perform any more steps (although in practice we often do so for illustrative purposes)
supports N or C This step supports a determination of N or C, but it is not determinative, so more steps must be performed.
can't be determined (usually because of lack of historical information)
If different steps produce conflicting results, then the first step which produces the "determines x" result is the one that counts.
Evaluation algorithm.
**** Step 1: Evaluate Historical significance.
Determine whether the general public in a nation or society remembers the war, remembers what the war was about, remembers why the war was important. In America today, the Korean War is all but forgotten, so it can't be a crisis war, but most people in the general public have some idea of the significance of the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II. However, a large historically significant war must still be evaluated for each participant separately, since it might be a non-crisis war for some participants.
Evaluation: Historically significant war -- supports C Forgotten war -- determines N
**** Step 2: Determine intensity of genocidal violence
A political war might be fought for a logical reason, but a crisis war is fought for visceral emotional reasons, for blood lust, for vengeance, to prove that you can make your enemy pay for his mistakes. Here are some of the factors that indicate that a war exhibits what I call "genocidal violence":
highly secretive mobilization, with the intent to from other countries the war intention massive surprise attack on the enemy a pursued desire for "ethnic cleansing" a sustained program of mass murders, mass rapes, massacres, destruction of entire towns (with inhabitants), forced relocation of huge populations of people - sustained over a period of months (a single battle doesn't count) nation at end is "devastated" or perpetrates devastation a "D-Day" type mass assault, a willingness to sacrifice ones own forces for victory "spiraling out of control" a refusal to capitulate, a willingness to fight to the death, even when defeat is almost certain
Note that a crisis war may begin slowly, with some political hesitation, and both participants may continue to hope that the war will be resolved peacefully. But a crisis war will gather energy as time goes on, leading to an extremely violent conclusion. It's the violence conclusion that's typical of a crisis war.
Evaluation: High genocidal violence - determines C Intermittent, stalemated, low-level violence - supports N
**** Step 3: Determine level of political considerations
Some wars are pursued for political considerations, while others are pursued for visceral feelings of fury and hatred. A judgment must be made of the level that politics plays in the conduct of the war.
Here are some factors that indicate that a war is highly politicized:
use of reasonable triggering political objectives for initial mobilization or termination ("we won't invade if you withdraw from Kuwait" or "we've driven you from Kuwait so we'll stop now") exogenous cause of the war (peace treaty, invasion by someone else) "top-down war" - initiated by politicians with little sustained public support "revanche," rather than revenge open and non-secret mobilization, without exceptional speed strong antiwar or pacifist movement lots of political controversy, little political unity political pauses (such as "Christmas truces") stalemates willingness to capitulate before necessary desire to save lives rather than fight to the death
A war may be somewhat politicized at the beginning, but whether it's a highly politicized war depends on whether the politicization continues to the end.
Evaluation: Highly politicized war -- determines N Nonpolitical pursuite of war -- supports C
**** Step 4: Determine resolution
After a crisis war, it's everyone's desire to see that "nothing like that must ever happen again," and this should be the overriding feeling. As a result, the participants will impose painful compromises whose intention is to prevent another war for as long as possible. These compromises may be imposed by the victor on the loser, or they may be imposed by international conference or treaty. Usually these compromises lead to substantial changes in the nature of the nation itself (such as America's 1945 "decision" to change from an isolationist nation to "policemen of the world.")
Probably the most common form of crisis war resolution or imposition is the adjustment and assignment of national boundaries to match populations on the ground, so that further war will be unnecessary, at least for a few decades. But the motivation must be to prevent another major war.
In non-crisis wars, there is usually no such resolution. Sometimes there is an international conference or an imposed resolution, but either the resolution does nothing, or else its purpose is to punish or to exact reparations. If this is the motivation of the resolution, then it's likely to be a non-crisis war. (And incidentally it's also likely that the punitive impositions will lead to a crisis war in a decade or two.)
Evaluation: Painful resolution to prevent future war: supports C Resolution imposes punishment or reparations: supports N
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
&&2 American Wars
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=98543
http://fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=98545
[b][size=20]Evaluation of American Crisis Wars
(Algorithmic evaluations added June 18, 2004)
The following are evaluations of American wars, with separate evaluations for other countries participating in the wars.
In each case, the war is evaluated based on the previous criteria. There is purposely no mention at all of cycles in the following evaluations, to make it clear that each war is being evaluated on its own, without reference to other wars.
The 1991 Gulf War. This war fizzled within a few weeks. The Americans defeated the Iraqi army, but there was no crushing climax. If this had been a crisis war, then the Americans would not have hesitated to smash into Baghdad and destroy Saddam Hussein's government, as well as Saddam himself. As it was, we just stopped fighting. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: little - (supports N)
Politicization: high (determines N)
Resolution: Punitive (supports N)
Iraq. The Iraqi army collapsed immediately, obviously having no will to fight. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: Uncertain
Genocidal violence: little - (supports N)
Politicization: high (determines N)
Resolution: Punitive (supports N)
The Vietnam War This war fizzled as well. If America had wanted to win this war, it could have bombed much more aggressively, instead of being bound by antiwar politicians who imposed everything from Christmas truces to personnel restrictions. Americans "Vietnamized" the war, allowing us to back out, leaving South Vietnam in charge of its own defense. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: little - (supports N)
Politicization: high (determines N)
Resolution: Unnecessary capitulation - (supports N)
Vietnam. Now look at the Vietnam War from the North Vietnamese point of view, and you get quite a different picture. The North Vietnames, led by Ho Chi Minh, exploded in fury as early as the 1968 Tet Offensive, and energetically pounded the Americans and South Vietnamese, ruthless crushing the opposition. The Vietnamese War was a crisis war for North Vietnam, but a mid-cycle war for America.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: High - determines C
Politicization: Low - (supports C)
Resolution: Imposed reunification (supports C)
This makes the point that when you're evaluating wars, then you have to evaluate them from the point of view of all the major participants, since it may be a crisis war for some but not for all.
The Korean War Few people under age 50 know anything at all about this war, and that fact alone means that this could hardly be a crisis war. The war ended (or didn't end) in an armistice. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: little - (supports N)
Politicization: high (determines N)
Resolution: Armistice - (supports N)
Korea. From the Korean point of view, the war evaluates to a mid-cycle war as well. Not only did this war not end in any kind of explosion, it technically didn't end at all, even though fighting stopped because of an armistice.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: little - (supports N)
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Armistice - (supports N)
World War II. America. It took several months for America to become fully mobilized after the Pearl Harbor attack, and in that sense World War II got off to a slow start for America. If WW II had been a mid-cycle war like Korea or Vietnam, America would never have had the energy to mount the 1944 D-Day attack. America did mount that attack, showing how massive energy for war can build up. By 1945, America's vengeful fury was in full force, with the massive firebombing and destruction of Dresden and Tokyo, climaxing in the use of nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities. It's worth noting that nuclear weapons have never been used since then -- and the reason is that no country since then has developed a nuclear capability and then had a crisis war. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - (supports C)
Resolution: "Policemen of the world" - (supports C)
England. WW II was also a crisis war for England. England entered the war before America did, but it also got off to a slow start, with repeated warnings to Germany, and the famous "peace in our time" speech by Prime Minister Chamberlain. However England's efforts also gathered energy, and even exceeded America's efforts in some respects. By D-Day, the two countries were fully together. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - (supports C)
Resolution: Joins US as policement (supports C)
Germany. Hitler mobilized quickly and pursued the war vigorously. By 1944 it was clear he had lost, but he refused to surrender, and fought to the bloody end. This evaluates to a crisis war.
In evaluating whether WW II is a crisis war for Germany, we can also look at the issue of secrecy during mobilization. This is a secondary factor in evaluating wars, but it provides an additional indication. If an attacking country mobilizes in secret in order to attack with the greatest possible power and effect, this is a fairly certain sign of a crisis war. However, it's not completely certain, because even some mid-cycle wars are pursued with some initial secrecy.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - (supports C)
Resolution: Partitioning (supports C)
Japan. Like Germany, Japan refused to surrender even when loss was certain. And like Germany, Japan mobilized for war in secret for a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - (supports C)
Resolution: Gives up imperialism (supports C)
Russia. Evaluating WW II for Russia is a surprise for many people because it's not a crisis war.
Russia suffered enormously in what they called the Great Patriotic War, but Russia had had a brutal crisis war just a few years earlier, in the 1910s and 1920s. They were war-weary and had little of the genocidal energy necessary to pursue a crisis war.
Like England, Russia had made peace with Hitler, and expected "peace in our time." But unlike England, Russia did not declare war against Hitler until after Hitler had already begun its invasion. Russians in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) and Leningrad suffered massive starvation from German encirclement, but it took until 1944 for the Russian army to finally expel the Germans. At that point, Russia was ready to stop fighting, but the Allies wanted Russia to keep on fighting to help defeat Germany. Josef Stalin achieved a tremendous political victory at the Yalta conference in 1945, where he allowed Churchill and Roosevelt to convince him to keep on fighting, in exchange for hegemony over Eastern Europe. Stalin also promised to declare war against Japan, but he didn't do so until several days after America had already dropped a nuclear weapon.
So there was no explosion of violent energy from Russia. Like many mid-cycle wars, this one was fought defensively and politically. That's why it's not a crisis war for Russia.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: low to moderate - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Negotiates Eastern Europe (supports N)
World War I. Germany. World War I began in the Balkans and spread to Austria. Germany was pulled into it because of a treaty with Austria. Russia supported its ally Serbia, and Germany attacked France because France had a treaty with Russia.
Germany pursed the war as almost a comedy of errors. There was constant vacillation. First they were going to encircle Paris, but then they moved forces from the east to the western front, so they stalemated in France. Then in the west they fought well, but they didn't bother to fully coordinate with their Austrian allies -- in effect allowing individual egos to take precedence over the war. At the end, Germany capitulated because of internal political problems, while German troops were still deep into France. [Schivelbusch, 189-90] Germany had little energy throughout this war, and so it evaluates as a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Capitulation - punitive reparations(supports N)
England and America. England was pulled into the war to prevent Germany from overrunning France, as had happened in 1869. One of the most dramatic indications of how little energy there was the 1914 Christmas truce -- four months after the war began, the English and German troops took time off on Christmas eve to drink beer and sing Christmas carols together. Allies' participation ended with German capitulation, while German troops were still deep into France. There was no explosive violence at the end, so it evaluates as a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Punitive reparations (supports N)
Russia. Americans seldom realize that World War I was mainly an East European and Middle Eastern war, and only touched Western Europe incidentally (even though many lives were lost).
Russia's management of the war was disastrously wild and frenzied, and it led to one humiliating defeat after another. The 500-year-old tsarist government collapsed, leading to the Bolshevik (Communist) revolution of 1917, and the Russian Orthodox Church was reduced to near wreckage. Russia pulled out of WW I, but then succumbed to a massive civil war, resulting in tens of millions of deaths by 1928.
When you're evaluating where a war was a crisis war for a given nation, you sometimes need to look beyond the war itself. Russia's participation in World War I would not, per se, evaluate to being a crisis war. But when you look at the entire crisis period, beginning in 1914 with World War I and ending in 1928 after the civil war, you get an extremely violent, explosive picture.
When examining the violent, genocidal energy that accompanies a crisis war, think of this energy as a fire hose that a nation can turn on anyone, and can also turn on itself.
A crisis period generally lasts 10 to 20 years. Sometimes it begins and remains explosive in one region. In other cases, it begins slowly in one region and grows explosively in the same region. In other cases, the war starts out slowly in one region, but then explodes into a completely different region, and even a civil war, as happened here. All of these must be taken into account.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Bolshevik Revolution - supports C
Turkey / Ottoman Empire. Turkey began with a war against Russia, but had a violent civil war with its own Armenian population. By 1922, the centuries-old Ottoman Empire had been completely destroyed. This evaluates to a crisis war period.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Ottoman destruction - supports C
Spanish-American War (1898). Cuba. The Cuban War of Independence (1895-98 ) ruthlessly devastated the island, killing 10% of the population. [Stearns, 638] This evaluates to a crisis war for Cuba irrespective of American intervention.
Once again, we see that we have to go beyond a single war to examine an entire crisis period.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Devastation - supports C
America. The Cuban war aroused public sympathy for the rebels, against Spain. When the U.S.S. Maine mysteriously blew up in 1898, America declared war against Spain and the Spanish Fleet. One of the operations was a blockade of Cuba, something that was repeated in 1962. Spain withdrew from Cuba. [Stearns, 614] This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: no - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Fizzles or punishes Spain - supports N
Spain. After the Maine exploded, Spain immediately agreed to all American demands, hoping to avoid war. [Stearns, 614] When war occurred, Spain was descredited, causing political problems. [Stearns, 496] This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: no - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Punitive - supports N
Civil War (1861-65). The Civil War got off to a slow start, as both sides continued hoping for a peaceful compromise. The war became decisive with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which signaled a change in attitude. 50,000 men were killed or wounded in the Battle of Gettysburg in July. In March 1864, Sherman destroyed Atlanta and then marched to the sea, ravaging everything in his path. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: yes - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Ends slavery - supports C
Mexican-American War (1846-48). American troops seized California and Monterrey, and occupied Mexico City. There was a huge antiwar movement [Almanac 251]. The war ended as Mexico ceded Texas and other territories to the U.S., and the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million in return. [Stearns 605, 637] This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: no - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Negotiated - supports N
Mexico. Mexico was invaded an occupied by American forces, and dealt with several internal uprisings, including a war with Mayan Indians in the Yucatan, culminating in a massive peasant revolt in Queretaro. [Stearns 637] This really requires deeper information from other sources, but based on this information it evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: yes - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Negotiated - supports N
War of 1812. America declared war on England because England was restricting American shipping to Europe during the Napoleonic Wars. The war was indecisive and ended when the Napoleonic wars ended. The 1814 Treaty of Ghent restored the status quo ante. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: no - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Negotiated - supports N
England. England was engaged in the Napoleonic crisis war. England tried initially to avoid war by agreeing to America's demands, but war began anyway because of a miscommunication. England pursued the war energetically, even to capturing and burning Washington D.C. at approximately the same time that France was capturing and burning Moscow. Both England and France lost these forays, in both cases because they were eventually overwhelmed by native (American and Russian) forces. Even so, this is part of the Napoleonic wars, and evaluates to a crisis war for England.
Evaluation: C (Napoleonic wars)
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: yes - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Congress of Vienna - supports C
Revolutionary War. The colonists fired the "shot heard 'round the world" and changed history. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: New constitutional government - supports C
England. The British should have won. They had many more soldiers and vastly greater provisions. But even when they saw the war coming, they did requisition provisions to fight the war. There was a powerful antiwar movement in England opposed to the war. In the end, British General Corwallis let himself be encircled at Yorktown, and then surrendered with 7,000 men. England immediately established trading relations with America. Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: no - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Capitulation and acquiescence - supports N
**** Sources
The following sources were used in the above evaluations, as well as the evaluations in the following messages.
[Almanac] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., general editor, The Almanac of American History, Revised and Updated Edition, Barnes & Noble Books, 1993
[Braudel] Fernand Braudel, A History of Civilizations, 1963, translated by Richard Mayne, Penguin Books, 1993.
[DK] Jeremy Black, general editor, DK Atlas of World History, Dorling Kindersley Publishing Inc., 2001
[Stearns] Peter N. Stearns (Editor), The Encyclopedia of World History, 6th edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001
[Trevelyan] George Macaulay Trevelyan, A Shortened History of England, Penguin Books, 1942
[Roberts] J. M. Roberts, The Penguin History of the World, Penguin Books, 1995
[Schivelbusch] Wolfgang Schivelbusch, The Culture of Defeat: On National Trauma, Mourning, and Recovery, 2000, translated by Jefferson Chase, Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company LLC, 2001
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
&&2 French Religious Wars
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=98543
http://fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=98546
[b][size=20]Evaluation of French Religious Wars
(Algorithmic evaluations added June 18, 2004)
Because of our long previous discussion of the French religious wars, I wanted to do an analysis of the French religious wars from 1467 to 1714. I wanted to include every war, so I checked several sources.
As before, each war is evaluated on its own, with no reference to cycles.
Louis XI defeats Charles the Bold (1467-1491). Louis united Burgundy, Anjou, Provence and other provinces with the French crown. Needs more information, but appears to evaluate to a crisis war which merged together the timelines of several provinces.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Merging provinces and timelines - supports C
Charles VIII's expedition to Italy (1495-6). Charles conquered Naples, but quickly withdrew. Evaluates to mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Fizzled - supports N
Invasion of Emperor Maximillian (1513). Battle of the Spurs named after the hasty flight of the French. [Stearns] Evaluates to mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Fizzled - supports N
French-Habsburg wars (1515-59). "Charles V, Emperor from 1519-56, ruled Spain, Flanders, and much of Italy as well as the Habsburg lands of Central Europe. He was opposed by the German princes, especially the Protestant ones, and Francis I and Henry II of France, who pursued the claims of their predecessors to Italy. Constant wars wasted many lives and much money, but gained nothing. In 1556, Charles V abdicated, dividing his empire between his brother and his son." [DK Atlas, p. 194] This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Gained nothing - supports N
Religious Wars (1562-98 ). In analyzing a period this long, 36 years, I would look for a climax - something that's clearly remembered, and changed history. There are two candidates: St. Bartholomew Night's massacre (1572) and the Edict at Nantes (1598). So, it makes sense, at least for purposes of investigation, to split this long period into two parts.
Religious Wars Part I (1562-73). There were several wars between the Catholics and Huguenots (Protestants) during the 1560s, with an increasing level of conflict and acts of brinkmanship. In 1572 a decision was made to kill all the Huguenot leaders. This led to the Massacre of St. Bartholomew on August 24, 1572, when Catholics massacred some 1,000 to 2,000 Huguenot civilians in Paris in a single night. During the next two months, some 10,000 to 100,000 civilian Huguenots were slaughtered throughout the country, often in their own homes. This massacre is an important event in history to this day. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Devastation - supports C
Religious Wars Part II (1573-98 ). After 1573, with their leaders killed, the Huguenots reorganized into a political organization, and the war turned into a "permanently organized revolt." [ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07527b.htm ]. The wars ended with a political document, the Edict at Nantes, which granted freedom of worship to Huguenots. This evaluates as a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Political Edict at Nantes - supports N
France in 30 Years War (1635-48 ). The war ended with the Peace of Westphalia, agreed in 1648. It was called the "Peace of Exhaustion" by its contemporaries. It settled by treaty the boundaries between France and its ally Sweden on the one hand and the Habsburg possessions on the other hand. About 250 separate German states were recognized as sovereign. This evaluates as a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Devastation - supports C
The Fronde (1648-53). The nobility revolted against Cardinal Mazarin. The Fronde ended and Mazarin returned to power. Little had changed. [Stearns 326] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Little change - supports N
Second Anglo-Dutch War (1666-67). France allied with Holland. Ended with restoration of territories. [Stearns 328] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Little change - supports N
War of Devolution (1667-68 ). Louis XIV's war with Spain over his wife's inheritance. Settled by Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. [Stearns 328] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Little change - supports N
War against the Dutch (1672-78 ). Settled by Treaties of Nimwegen, which divided up the region, with gains by France. [Stearns 315] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Little change - supports N
Invasion of Spanish Netherlands (1683-84). Temporary truce in 1684. [Stearns 315] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Little change - supports N
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685). There was no war.
War of the League of Augsburg (1688-97). Louis tried to prevent the success of the Glorious Revolution. France was engaged on all her land frontiers in operations agaisnt Spain, Holland, and the German Princes, and even so she held er own; neither side won any sensational victories. Ended with the indecisive Treaty of Ryswick. [Trevelyan, 363-64, 369] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: high - determines N
Resolution: Indecisive treaty - supports N
War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14). France began the war with every apparent advantage except sea power, already holding vast terroritories when the war began. "But contrary to all expectation, the allies, who in the previous war had seemed no painful inch to gain, chased the French out of every one of these lands with the exception of Spain. These tremendous victories, as compared to the stalemate of the previous war, can be accounted for in no small degree by the military genius of Marlborough...." [Trevelyan, 370] The war ended with Treaty at Utrecht, which defined many of the borders of Europe that hold to this day. Western political geography was thus set for a long time, owing much to the need felt by all statesmen to avoid for as long as possible another conflict such as that which had just closed. For the first time a treaty declared the aim of the signatories to be the security of peace through a balance of power. [Roberts, 584-86] This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Treaty at Utrecht - supports C
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
&&2 African wars
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=98543
http://fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=98547
[b][size=20]Evaluation of Southern African Wars
(Algorithmic evaluations added June 18, 2004)
A few months ago I did some incomplete work on African wars. Since I want to provide you with as many examples as possible, I'm including it here even though the wars need additional evaluation.
**** African Geography
If you look at some maps of Africa, you might think that Africa is about as big as Texas. People who think that Africa is about the same size as Texas also think of Africa as a continent of continuing violence. Some people attempt to provide racial explanations, while others look to tribal analyses.
But once you start to look at African geography, it's easy to see why all of those thoughts are terribly, enormously wrong.
 |
First off, Africa is just a little bit bigger than Texas.
In fact, Africa is bigger than the ENTIRE United States INCLUDING Alaska PLUS all of China PLUS all of Europe -- and there's still enough room left over to throw in New Zealand.
So when we think of continuing violence in Africa, remember that, for its size, it's no more violent than comparable areas on the rest of the planet.
There were other important geographical factors as well.
 |
There was little European penetration of Africa until the mid 1800s, especially into the rain forests. Why? Because Europeans who tried to penetrate Africa usually died pretty quickly. Why? Because they got either malaria from the mosquito or sleeping sickness from the tsetse fly.
The worst were the rain forests, which act as "sponges, soaked with water; they are thick with giant trees and tangled underbrush, dark and silent." They are inhabited only by African pygmies, one of the four major ethnic groups in Black Africa. [Braudel, p. 120]
Other black ethnic groups exist outside the rain forest.On the edge of the Kalahari Desert (in the south) are the Khoi-khoi or Hottentots and Saan or Bushmen; in Sudan are the Sudanese, and all along the east are the Bantu, the largest group. These groups all have distinct ethnic origins, languages, and customs. [Braudel, p. 122]
As a result of the medical and geographical problems, most of Africa was off limits to Europeans for centuries. The result was that the Africans themselves suffered the most of all, since they had little or no access to the technological advances of the outside world.
But Africa wasn't entirely off limits to outsiders. There were some areas of early outsider settlements:
[list][*] Northern Africa, the strip above the Sahara Desert that bordered the Mediterranean Sea, was repeatedly conquered by armies of various civilizations, including the Greeks, the Romans and the Muslims. Today, Northern Africa is pretty much entirely Muslim. In addition, the Muslims in Egypt moved down the Nile River valley, using the Nile to irrigate crops.
[*] Ethiopia is unique in that it's the oldest independent country in Africa, and has never been colonized by Europeans. The earliest evidence of Ethiopian history was in around 1000 BC when the Queen of Sheba visited King Solomon. Judaism spread, and Ethiopia became the site of the black Jews. Christianity was adopted in 330 AD.
[*] South Africa was settled first by the Dutch in the 1600s, who found it virtually empty. In 1815, the British seized it, forcing the Dutch (known as Boers or farmers) to move into the grassy plains of the veld. South Africa developed an internationally condemned apartheid (segregation) of the whites from the blacks that was only dissolved in 1990. [Braudel, p. 119]
[*] Liberia was first settled in 1822 by freed American slaves. The capital city was Monrovia, named after President Monroe.
[*] The island of Madascar was colonized jointly by the African black Bantu and by Malaysian tribes that came in from the east. [Braudel, p. 119]
[*] Muslims and Europeans established numerous outposts on the shores of Africa for the purpose in trading in gold and slaves. The Muslim slave trades came first, around 700 AD, mostly on the East coast of Africa, and the Europeans came later, in the 1500s, mostly on the West coast.[/list]
A little more needs to be said about slavery.
Slavery is as old as humanity. It's only in recent times that wars have become "civilized," with conventions about prisoners of war, war crimes trials, and so forth. In today's world, the winner of a major, murderous war usually simply kills all the men and rapes all the women, but this is somewhat new. In the old days, war victors had a third choice, enslaving the losers, and that was done as a common matter. The Romans had slaves, the Muslims had slaves - every civilization had slaves, and every civilization was enslaved when it lost major wars. People were enslaved by other people in their own civilization, and by people in other civilizations.
So why was black Africa the last civilization to been enslaved? It seems to me that returns again to the question of the impenetrability of Africa, the resulting demonization of an unknown race, and a lack of the technology that would have made it possible for Africans to tell their story. Once colonization began in earnest, and Africans could use modern communications to tell their story, slavery could no longer survive. However, slavery still exists today within Africa itself, especially where modern technology hasn't yet reached.
But in the 1850s it was discovered that malaria could be controlled with quinine, and by the 1870s the floodgates opened. The "Scramble for Africa" pitted England, Belgium, France, Portugal, Italy, Spain and Germany against each other to snap up as much of the continent as possible. By the mid 1890s the Scramble had just carved up just about all of Africa, and in 1914, all of black Africa except Ethiopia and Liberia were European colonies. Since 1914, former colonies have become independent nations.
So the problem of finding generational timelines for all the major African regions is a big one -- probably as big as finding them for the rest of the world combined.
**** Crisis wars for Southern Africa
The following identifies crisis wars in Southern Africa starting in 1817. This work is far from complete. Many of the wars have been identified, and the crisis wars have been tentatively identified as the Mfecane and the Anglo-Boer war. But these evaluations require additional sources and evaluations before we can be certain.
The Mfecane - The Crushing (1817-28 )
The Zulus were a tribe in the northern portion of what is now South Africa. The Zulus went from obscurity to world reknown as a result of Shaka, born in 1787, who became the tribal chief in the early 1800s.
Shaka revolutioned tribal warfare: "During his reign he revolutionized warfare ... by replacing the throwing spear with the stabbing assegai and by developing radical new tactics. Use of the short, stout assegai meant that warriors could no longer throw their spears and run, but had to close with their foes. His army in fighting formation was likened to the head of an ox; from either side of the main body came "horns," troops that ran ahead to envelope the enemy. He organized his regiments by age groups; no man could marry until he had washed his assegai in the blood of an enemy. Footwear was forbidden, and to make sure his warriors' feet were tough, he required them to dance on thorns; those whose dancing was not vigorous enough were clubbed to death." [Byron Farwell - http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/mil/html/mh_059900_zuluandthezu.htm ]
 |
(This picture shows Skaka's stabbing assegai on the top, contrasted to the throwing spears on the bottom.)
Leading an army of 40,000 to 80,000 warriors in the early 1800s, Shaka merged with or conquered a number of nearby tribes, killing more than a million men, and by 1818 became Emperor Shaka the Great, head of the Zulu Kingdom. At the point, the Mfecane began in earnest. Genocidal warfare broke out among the tribes that the zulus had defeated, turning much of the region into a wasteland. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: significant - supports C
Genocidal violence: high - determines C
Politicization: low - supports C
Resolution: Established Zulu kingdom - supports C
Zulu vs Boer Voortrekkers (1837-38 ). Zulus kill Boer Voortrekkers in a meeting, and also also attacked trekker encampments. Other Boers defeated Zulu army, and created the Republic of Natal. [Stearns] Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N?
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Republic of Natal - supports C
British vs Boers in Natal (1842-43). British annexed Natal. Evaluates to mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N?
Historically significant war: forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: low - supports N
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Republic of Natal - supports C
Zulu kingdom civil war (1856). "Civil war in Zulu kingdom established the supremacy of the Usuthu faction and the right to succession of Cetshwayo, while Mpande remained king." [Stearns] This needs more information, since civil wars are sometimes hard to evaluate. In this case, it sounds like the civil war was led from the top, rather than from the people. Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N?
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: Little change - supports N
Orange Free State vs Sotho (1865-66). "War between the Orange Free State and Moshoeshoe's Sotho resulted in cession of most of Sotho state's arable land." Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: ?
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: ?
Ndebele civil war (1868-71). "Lobengula became Ndebele king after a civil war over succession to Mzilikazi." I really need more information about this war.
Evaluation: ?
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: ?
Last Cape-Xhosa war (1877-78 ). The last Cape-Xhosa war resulted in famine and defeat for the Xhosa. More information needed.
Evaluation: ?
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: ?
British vs Zulu kingdom (1879). Zulus attacked British, British win decisive victory after rushing in reinforcements. [This is like the Gulf War after Iraq invaded Kuwait.] Evaluates to mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N?
Historically significant war: Forgotten - determines N
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: ?
Zulu civil wars (1879-87). Defeat by British led to a series of civil wars in the former kingdom. British annexation of Zululand in 1887. Need more information because there may be a partially diverged timeline for the zulus since the Mfecane.
Evaluation: ?
Historically significant war: ?
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: ?
Resolution: ?
Boer revolt against British (1880-81). After four months, British recognized the republic in the Treaty of Pretoria. Evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: Forgooten - determines N
Genocidal violence: ?
Politicization: Yes - supports N
Resolution: Negotiated - supports N
South African War / Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). "At the outset, Boers had the military advantage of numbers and knowledge of terrain. Britain had only 25,000 men available. By Feb. 1900, the tide of battle favored British forces. By November, the Boers turned to guerrilla tactics, frustrating British army strategy. In Jan. 1901, Gen. Herbert Kitchener used a scorched earth policy to counter Boer guerrillas. Some 120,000 women and children were confined in concentration camps, where poor sanitation and malnutrition contributed to high mortality (around 20,000 died). British journalist J. A. Hobson, covering the war, developed a new theory of imperialism. At the end of the war, the British had 300,000 troops in South Africa against 60,000-70,000 Boers. By the Treaty of Vereeniging (May 31, 1901) the Boers accepted British sovereignty but were promised representative government. The British promised 3 million to enable the Boers to rebuild their farms." [Stearns] Evaluation: This is very much like the Vietnam war, with heavy British antiwar sentiment, except that the Brits were able to overwhelm the Boers with massive reinforcements. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war for the British and a crisis war for the Boers.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: Yes - Supports C
Genocidal violence: Yes - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Negotiated settlement - supports N
&&2 Rome - buried coin hoards
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=98543
http://fourthturning.com/forums/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=98548
**** Roman Crisis Wars from Buried Coin Hoards
(Algorithmic evaluations added June 18, 2004)
This is the final set of evaluations that I'm posting. It's an analysis of three Roman periods, based on evidence from buried coin hoards. I once posted some of this material in another thread.
This came about because a reader of my book challenged it on the basis that Rome didn't follow the 80-year timeline. As evidence, he provided the following page from a book, Michael Crawford, The Roman Republic, 2nd Edition, Harvard University Press, 1993, p. 162:
 |
This table shows how many Roman coin hoards were found with coins in various four year periods. During times of war, people tend to bury their gold coins for safety, and come back for them later. Thus, the number of gold coin hoards tells us when the wars were.
The person challenging my book pointed out that the three periods with highest activity were 218-201, 91-64, and 55-35. He said that these periods did not run in 80 year cycles, proving that my book must be wrong.
I did an analysis, and found that the first two are crisis periods, but the third is an awakening period, which is consistent with Generational Dynamics.
This indicates that coin hoards were buried during awakening periods as well as crisis war periods.
Here's a summary of the analysis:
Second Punic War (218-201 BC). Hannibal marched his Carthaginian army through southern France and headed for Rome, defeating one Roman army after another along the way. The war raged on for years, until 202 when Hannibals army was annihilated. Carthage was to accept Rome's terms of surrender, and the unfaithful Italian allies were punished as well. Evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: Yes - Supports C
Genocidal violence: Yes - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Annihilated - supports C
Social War, Civil War, Mithridatic Wars (91-64 BC). Italian allied states formed their own republic, Italia, and declared war on Rome. Rome attempted to undermine Italian solidarity by extending Roman citizenship to all Italians (unraveling strategy), but the war continued. Before the war was over, 50,000 had died on each side and Italy was devastated. [Stearns] A further civil war in Rome resulted in much further bloodshed. This evaluates to a crisis war.
Evaluation: C
Historically significant war: Yes - Supports C
Genocidal violence: Yes - determines C
Politicization: Low - supports C
Resolution: Devasted - supports C
Rioting in Rome, Civil War, Caesar assassinated (55-35 BC). Caesar "crossed the Rubicon" and thus initiated a short-lived civil war. Caesar made Cleopatra ruler of Egypt -- gender issues are often important during awakening periods. Caesar carried out other foreign campaigns, achieved power in Rome, and was assassinated in 44. This evaluates to a mid-cycle war.
Evaluation: N
Historically significant war: No - determines N
Genocidal violence: No - supports N
Politicization: High - determines N
Resolution: Fizzled - supports N
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com