Originally Posted by Kinser79

It is self-evident because the evidence is very clear that the saeculum operates on the national scale. (Note I'm using nation here to refer to groups of people, rather than political entities)

Of course it applies to groups of people. The usual definition of nation is largely political. I was referring to that definition.

As to the fluidity of Europe's political boundaries that is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Poland was a huge state in the 17th century and then gradually shrank to nothing in the 18th only to come back after WW I. Germany and Italy were a collection of different states, whose borders shifted continuously. We think of Ferdinand and Isabella as co-rulers of Spain, but Ferdinand's domains were largely outside of Spain. The Netherlands and Belgium were once one nation, but when they rebelled against the Spanish crown, the Netherlands was successful and became a Protestant nation while Belgium (which the Spanish reconquered) stayed largely Catholic. Shifting political boundraies were the norm until WW II.

I would agree that there is a tendency to use political history, however, even if we simply just use economic history we still revert to national cycles. And that has to do with both the nature of nations. Namely: A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

This isn't a very useful definition because how do you determine whose cultures are similar enough to be a common culture? A couple of hundred years ago France contained a number of regions that spoke different languages, with different economic life and cultures. Was the France of the 18th century not a nation? Was the US a nation before the civil war considering the significant differences along these lines between North and South? It comes down to a matter of judgement and that makes the results less reproducible by others and not very generalizable.

There isn't a great solution. What I have done is look at the patterns of events in different regions and when they match up, figure these regions must be more or less on the same saeculum timing. An example is the timing of the religious events in the early 16th century showing that most of Europe seemed "ready" for an Awakenng at that time. You can also see this turning in the frequency of peasant revolts and popular uprisings.

Another time when there was a definite burst of unrest was over the 1355-1385 period. After the plague real wages in England were rising because the plague had reduced the labor supply. Since the plague happened all over Europe the same thing was probably happening everywhere. Rising real wages with no increase in labor productivity means hard times for property/business owners. Hence they attempted to use the power of the state to fix wages at pre-plague levels and to restrict labor mobility. It's not surprising that people were po'd and it shows up in the record.

During the Reformation the reverse was happening. Population was rising and real wages falling. People were unhappy about that. This too was manifest by elevated unrest which shows up in the record. It is also associated with an Awakening. It is possible that the Plague forced everyone on the same schedule and the Reformation re-inforced it. There was also a continent-wide famine in 1315-17 that was associated with some evidence of elevated unrest and relgious activity. Spikes in the frequency of religious events in the early parts of the previous two centuries can also be identified tentatively also. So there is some evidence of a saeculum-like cycle extending through multiple nations in Europe from Medieval times. But it is fragmentary and does not rise to the level of statistical signficance.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Of course it applies to groups of people. The usual definition of nation is largely political. I was referring to that definition.

That is a definition of nation, but not one that is particularly useful in historical and sociological analysis--which is basically what generational analysis is for.

Poland was a huge state in the 17th century and then gradually shrank to nothing in the 18th only to come back after WW I.

Historically true. But is it relevant for understanding the Polish Saeculum cycle? Not really. The Polish Nation is pretty stable in the territory that they have always occupied (mostly Poland today--excluding ethnic diaspora in other countries). As I pointed out political entities can have a single nations within their boundaries, more than one nation within their boundaries, and a nation can completely lack a state altogether.

Germany and Italy were a collection of different states, whose borders shifted continuously.

True but irrelevant. A German is a German no matter what state he lives in. Did the Germans in the East become something other than Germans after the DDR was set up? No. They were still German. Same with the states of Italy. No matter what state a person lived in, he was still Italian.

The squabbling of petty dukes and princes is simply not relevant to analysis of the the saeculum.

The Netherlands and Belgium were once one nation, but when they rebelled against the Spanish crown, the Netherlands was successful and became a Protestant nation while Belgium (which the Spanish reconquered) stayed largely Catholic.

The necessary correction here is that the Belgians and Dutch were once united into a single state. The two nations never really were united. The Belgians speak a Romance Language, the Dutch a Germanic Language. The definition of a nation that I use consistently therefore concludes that could only be a Belgian Nation, and a Dutch Nation united into a single state, but never a Belgian-Dutch Nation.

Shifting political boundraies were the norm until WW II.

True, but again for our purposes irrelevant.

This isn't a very useful definition because how do you determine whose cultures are similar enough to be a common culture?

I disagree with you on the usefulness of the definition of course. I've found it very useful, in more ways than just one. One would have to examine the aspects of the various groups which would contained within the proposed nation.

A couple of hundred years ago France contained a number of regions that spoke different languages, with different economic life and cultures. Was the France of the 18th century not a nation?

The political entity known as France in the 18th Century was not a nation--it was a state. It contained the French nation in it, along with a few others.

Was the US a nation before the civil war considering the significant differences along these lines between North and South?

The United States is not a nation, it never was a nation, it never can become a nation. It is a state. That was true in 1859 and 1959 and will be true in 2059 (assuming that state does not self-destruct). The largest nation within the United States is the American Nation. Which would still exist even if the Confederacy won their independence.

It comes down to a matter of judgement and that makes the results less reproducible by others and not very generalizable.

Given that the other option is to use nations politically, the shifting sands of squabbling princes, increases rather than decreases confusion when attempting to construct cyclical models on the basis of generation.

There isn't a great solution. What I have done is look at the patterns of events in different regions and when they match up, figure these regions must be more or less on the same saeculum timing. An example is the timing of the religious events in the early 16th century showing that most of Europe seemed "ready" for an Awakenng at that time. You can also see this turning in the frequency of peasant revolts and popular uprisings.

Agreed, however, confusing nations with states adds nothing.

Another time when there was a definite burst of unrest was over the 1355-1385 period. After the plague real wages in England were rising because the plague had reduced the labor supply. Since the plague happened all over Europe the same thing was probably happening everywhere. Rising real wages with no increase in labor productivity means hard times for property/business owners. Hence they attempted to use the power of the state to fix wages at pre-plague levels and to restrict labor mobility. It's not surprising that people were po'd and it shows up in the record.

If we assume a saeculum exists within nations (as I have defined them), then the plague was bad, but it was not necessarily a social crisis moment. A given territory that was undergoing a 1T or a 2T should not be thrust into a 4T. The generational constellation is not right for it.

However, it can be argued that a continental event like the Black Death could unify the child generation (that survives) into a single archetype. I believe that this is what has happened, in regard to the Black Death. One can see the saecular cycle within Europe that there is a +/- half-turning in the parts that are considered "Western." But I would not argue, like I'm sure some have, that this has a basis on the poorly defined concept of "civilization". Neither, would I argue that it was caused by a "world system"--after all even in the 1340s Europe was trading with India and China. Rather, I would argue that it is a coincidence caused by the Black Death itself.

During the Reformation the reverse was happening. Population was rising and real wages falling. People were unhappy about that. This too was manifest by elevated unrest which shows up in the record. It is also associated with an Awakening. It is possible that the Plague forced everyone on the same schedule and the Reformation re-inforced it.

I would argue that the Black Death forced everyone to be on a similar schedule for the Reformation because it heavily impacted the Child Generation during that time. I don't really think it is possible for Adult Generations to change their nature in response to a natural calamity--though it may be possible for them to take on necessary features of a missing archetype should one be present in a 4T.

I would also argue that given the closeness of the Reformation to the Black Death (less than 200 years) that the saeculum for the European Nations were closer together than they are now.

There was also a continent-wide famine in 1315-17 that was associated with some evidence of elevated unrest and relgious activity. Spikes in the frequency of religious events in the early parts of the previous two centuries can also be identified tentatively also. So there is some evidence of a saeculum-like cycle extending through multiple nations in Europe from Medieval times. But it is fragmentary and does not rise to the level of statistical signficance.

I would argue that the saeculum as we understand it today can be traced back to the Black Death--starting with the surviving child generation. That said I believe that there may have been a saeculum pattern within nations prior to the Black Death, and while it is possible for the saecular cycle to be quite similar across many nations (as I have defined nations) it is not necessary and what evidence for such we have is fragmentary at best.

As I alluded to in a previous post, I believe S&H started the Anglo-American saecular cycle in the 1430s because prior to that time there was very little literacy;as such the records (diaries, books, newspapers, etc that they studied) are scarce and incomplete where they exist. Whereas after the invention of the Printing Press in 1450 literacy was much more common because it was much more useful to persons outside of the court scribes and Church.

But again while we do agree on some fundimental things, I think, I cannot agree that the Saeculum is behaving the way it does on the basis of "civilization" or of "world system". Especially not if these concepts cannot be defined in an objective way.

The necessary correction here is that the Belgians and Dutch were once united into a single state. The two nations never really were united. The Belgians speak a Romance Language, the Dutch a Germanic Language. The definition of a nation that I use consistently therefore concludes that could only be a Belgian Nation, and a Dutch Nation united into a single state, but never a Belgian-Dutch Nation.

Technically, Belgium is two nations: Wallonia and Flanders. They speak different languages, have slightly differing cultures, and have trouble getting along, and yet have been married together due to one thing: religion (and well, not being Dutch too ). What's bound them together was that they were Catholics and they didn't like being under the rule of their Protestant neighbors to the north (who got Belgium after Waterloo). So they banded together to revolt and create Belgium because at the time their shared religion is what mostly held them together. However in this Saeculum with there having been a decline in religious belief in Europe (you know the fervent kind that founded Belgium) there have been frustrated talks this Saeculum of splitting up IIRC. Tussliago can of course fill in the details I'm overgeneralizing of course.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

Technically, Belgium is two nations: Wallonia and Flanders. They speak different languages, have slightly differing cultures, and have trouble getting along, and yet have been married together due to one thing: religion (and well, not being Dutch too ). What's bound them together was that they were Catholics and they didn't like being under the rule of their Protestant neighbors to the north (who got Belgium after Waterloo). So they banded together to revolt and create Belgium because at the time their shared religion is what mostly held them together. However in this Saeculum with there having been a decline in religious belief in Europe (you know the fervent kind that founded Belgium) there have been frustrated talks this Saeculum of splitting up IIRC. Tussliago can of course fill in the details I'm overgeneralizing of course.

~Chas'88

I stand corrected on the "Belgian Issue". Last time I was in Belgium I couldn't really tell the difference between the two (though apparently they could) but that would only revert the Belgian state as a state with two nations in it rather than a single-nation nation-state (which are exceptionally rare anyway).

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It could be the absenc eof biographical material from earlier times. How much do we know about the lives of people other than royalty (whose circumstance may them very atypical). If yu chose to identify turnings using non-biographical material, it has been done by a number of people. I have a saeculum scheme developed from these results that goes back a bit more than two millennia. I generally don't come up with my own date but rather choose which of other people's schemes fit the data best. Here's a piece of it: It's standard S&H for the more recent turnings.

Type	McGuiness Turnings	Strauss and Howe	Working Saeculum
C	Barbarossan Crisis (1147-1176)	--	1147-1176
H	Saladian High (1176-1204)	--	1176-1204
A	Albigensian Awakening (1204-1231)	--	1204-1231
U	Mongol Unraveling (1231-1258)	--	1231-1258
C	Sicilian Crisis (1258-1282)	--	1258-1282
H	Venetian High (1282-1305)	--	1282-1305
A	Avignon Awakening (1305-1328)	--	1305-1328
U	Valois Unraveling (1328-1348)	--	1328-1348
C	Bubonic Crisis (1348-1378)	--	1348-1378
H	Florentine High (1378-1415)	--	1378-1416
A	Hussite Awakening (1415-1447)	--	1406-1435
U	Bohemian Unraveling (1447-1471)	1435-1459	1435-1459
C	Tudor Crisis (1471-1492)	1459-1487	1459-1487
H	Habsburg High (1492-1517)	1487-1517	1487-1517
A	Lutheran Awakening (1517-1542)	1517-1542	1517-1542
U	Calvinist Unraveling (1542-1571)	1542-1569	1542-1569
C	Huguenot Crisis (1571-1598)	1569-1594	1569-1594
H	Bourbon High (1598-1625)	1594-1621	1594-1621
A	Presbyterian Awakening (1625-1649)	1621-1649	1621-1649
U	Puritan Unraveling (1649-1676)	1649-1675	1649-1675
C	Salem Crisis (1676-1702)	1675-1704	1675-1704
H	Hanoverian High (1702-1727)	1704-1727	1704-1727
A	Methodist Awakening (1727-1752)	1727-1746	1727-1746
U	Anglican Unraveling (1752-1776)	1746-1773	1746-1773

Cool, Mike! Thank you! I have never really tried to work out the Medieval Turnings on the Continent, only for England, and somewhat (being in New Mexico, where Spanish Colonial history ties into Medieval Spanish pretty tightly), in Spain.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It could be the absenc eof biographical material from earlier times. How much do we know about the lives of people other than royalty (whose circumstance may them very atypical).

I would say the absence of biographical material could be tied to the general lack of literacy. A need for literacy (and the subsequent creation of biographical material) is I feel necessary to assign turnings with any degree of accuracy.

As I said previously I certainly believe that turnings existed prior to the 1430s though.

If yu chose to identify turnings using non-biographical material, it has been done by a number of people. I have a saeculum scheme developed from these results that goes back a bit more than two millennia. I generally don't come up with my own date but rather choose which of other people's schemes fit the data best. Here's a piece of it: It's standard S&H for the more recent turnings.

<snip table>

I will have to read the link. It might be useful. That said I typically focus on more recent saeculua, I've yet to see a real need to go much past the Reformation when applying generational analysis to questions of the day.

In response to the Potato famine the proto-Nomad children were smothered-those who stayed in Ireland grew up Adaptive-like, while those who moved overseas remained Nomads.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

The squabbling of petty dukes and princes is simply not relevant to analysis of the saeculum.

I agree, but I was responding to your claim that political boundaries in Europe hadn't changed much until recently. They did change a lot.

Neither, would I argue that it was caused by a "world system"--after all even in the 1340s Europe was trading with India and China.

I do not believe the trans-continental trade was direct. European merchants had no contact with Chinese or Indian merchants. My understanding was that the direct connection were between Central or Western Asian merchants and traders from Genoa and Venice. There was a flourish Baltic trade involving the Hanseatic towns. Here's a graphic. Asian and African trade was mediated through the two Italian trading cities, the Hansa were all well-linked and connected to England, Spain, France, much of Germany and western Poland. It looks like Ottoman Europe was not part of the Western European trade linkage.

I would also argue that given the closeness of the Reformation to the Black Death (less than 200 years) that the saeculum for the European Nations were closer together than they are now.

It can look that way. With scarcity of data (we know more of recent events than of those 600 years ago) it is hard to fix periods precisely so you have a lot more "slop" in your measurement, but with the longer turnings it can still appear to "work" OK. Today there is more data and so you can have greater precision. Turnings are shorter making the targets harder to hit and misses more noticeable. It’s hard to tell if it’s an artifact.

The issue for me is how do you determine between multiple turning schemes for the same bit of history? For example there have been saeculum schemes proposed here for ancient Rome (republic and empire). I recorded a couple while I could still access them.

But again while we do agree on some fundamental things, I think, I cannot agree that the Saeculum is behaving the way it does on the basis of "civilization" or of "world system". Especially not if these concepts cannot be defined in an objective way.

I don't think civilization is useful because it is hard the define. I think nation isn't useful either because how can you determine which nation was where at a particular time? For example post-Roman Britain. You had Picts in the north, Angles, Saxons and Jutes invading. These different Germanic groups are often labeled as tribes, as were native American groups. The latter call themselves nations, I see no reason to not consider these groups nations. And then there were the Roman Britons, who themselves were either Celts or Britons (the indigenous peoples at the time of the Celtic invasions). Are the Welsh separate from these or the same nation? We have no way of knowing which languages they spoke, presumably the fact that different names are attached to Angles, Saxons and the Jutes suggest separate identities and so probably languages and cultures. So you have this hodgepodge of nations all in a rather small geographical area, how can you assess their presumably separate saeculae?


And it’s the same on the continent, scores of nations occupying the former western Roman Empire.

If the Civil War Saeculum had been "normal" I wonder if we would have a more joyful 1T similar to what many of us today who were alive at the time now recall as the "Golden Age". And, of course, what if Lincoln had lived to complete his second term? Many on this forum have pointed out that the country is similarly divided today as it was during that time. Some already have pegged GWB as this era's equivalent of Buchanan. But if that's the case, certainly then Obama would be this era's equivalent of Lincoln. But I just don't see that happening. But there were three very ineffectual President prior to Abe.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I agree, but I was responding to your claim that political boundaries in Europe hadn't changed much until recently. They did change a lot.

Then you misunderstood my point. The territorial boundraries of nations (but not states) in Europe have been more or less the same since the middle ages.

I do not believe the trans-continental trade was direct. European merchants had no contact with Chinese or Indian merchants. My understanding was that the direct connection were between Central or Western Asian merchants and traders from Genoa and Venice. There was a flourish Baltic trade involving the Hanseatic towns. Here's a graphic. Asian and African trade was mediated through the two Italian trading cities, the Hansa were all well-linked and connected to England, Spain, France, much of Germany and western Poland. It looks like Ottoman Europe was not part of the Western European trade linkage.

I'm not sure of the relevance here. Either a world system involves world wide trade or it does not. Direct trade or indirect trade makes no real difference.

It can look that way. With scarcity of data (we know more of recent events than of those 600 years ago) it is hard to fix periods precisely so you have a lot more "slop" in your measurement, but with the longer turnings it can still appear to "work" OK. Today there is more data and so you can have greater precision. Turnings are shorter making the targets harder to hit and misses more noticeable. It’s hard to tell if it’s an artifact.

The issue for me is how do you determine between multiple turning schemes for the same bit of history? For example there have been saeculum schemes proposed here for ancient Rome (republic and empire). I recorded a couple while I could still access them.

As I said previously the bigest problem we have is a scarcity with data. From my vantage point biographical data is necessary to propose a saeculum scheme with any sort of accuracy. This of course does not dismiss that saecula existed prior to known saeculum dates.

My statement had more to do with the fact that the last time I was in Western Europe I noticed clear mood differences in moods between the two countries. For example while I was in Germany they felt very unraveling-crisis whereas Austria was still unraveling-unraveling.

I do think that the PIGS crisis in Europe though may reset the saeculums in the Eurozone. But only time will tell.

I don't think civilization is useful because it is hard the define. I think nation isn't useful either because how can you determine which nation was where at a particular time?

It is relatively simple. Either the nation proposed has the four characteristics or it does not.

For example post-Roman Britain. You had Picts in the north, Angles, Saxons and Jutes invading. These different Germanic groups are often labeled as tribes, as were native American groups. The latter call themselves nations, I see no reason to not consider these groups nations.

Native American "tribes" call themselves nations because they are nations. They have all four traits, even if their language is English and their territory is limited to a reservation.

In the case of the Picts they eventually coaleced into what is today the Scottish Nation. The Angles, Saxons and Jutes intermingled with the Britons and eventually coalesced into the English Nation.

And then there were the Roman Britons, who themselves were either Celts or Britons (the indigenous peoples at the time of the Celtic invasions). Are the Welsh separate from these or the same nation? We have no way of knowing which languages they spoke, presumably the fact that different names are attached to Angles, Saxons and the Jutes suggest separate identities and so probably languages and cultures. So you have this hodgepodge of nations all in a rather small geographical area, how can you assess their presumably separate saeculae?

I would reguard the Welsh as a nation today. The UK is generally thought to have four nations within its territory. English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish.

As for forming separate saecula for each that relies on biographical information. We have very little from that time period so I cannot with any degree of accuracy establish the time periods and cycle of the saecula of each of these previously existing nations.

It should be noted that in the case of the UK's nations, and in Europe more generally it is possible for "invading" nations to intermingle so much with an "existing" nation in a given territory that both are consumed by a third "created" nation. Case in point the English Nation.