I'm going to move on. I was a little surprised by your conclusion that the 7 years war was a crisis war for the Iroquois, especially since I am so used to you being right all the time.

But I'm just going to assume it was little more than an educated guess because of your wording, and it seemed so obvious to me when I did my research. But still, just to make sure, I reread my notes and found that the genocidal energy exhibited in the Revolutionary War wasn't present in the Seven Years War.

Plus, it is difficult to ignore that there was an Iroquois Civil War and that the Great Peace expired.

----------------------------
So now I have done the timelines for the Wampanoag, Narragansett, Massachusset, Pequot, and the Iroquois. What do you want me to do with them exactly? I'm having trouble finding awakenings and unravelings.

Thanks John

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I actually found the American Revolution to be the crisis war for
> the Iroquois, with the dissolution of the Iroquois league and the
> "great peace" expiring.

> I'm going to move on. I was a little surprised by your conclusion
> that the 7 years war was a crisis war for the Iroquois, especially
> since I am so used to you being right all the time.

> But I'm just going to assume it was little more than an educated
> guess because of your wording, and it seemed so obvious to me when
> I did my research. But still, just to make sure, I reread my notes
> and found that the genocidal energy exhibited in the Revolutionary
> War wasn't present in the Seven Years War.

> Plus, it is difficult to ignore that there was an Iroquois Civil
> War and that the Great Peace expired.

> So now I have done the timelines for the Wampanoag, Narragansett,
> Massachusset, Pequot, and the Iroquois. What do you want me to do
> with them exactly? I'm having trouble finding awakenings and
> unravelings.

You're right that naming the Seven Years War was an educated guess.
It's just that this war figures very prominently in the history of
the time, and usually such famous wars are a crisis war for SOMEBODY.
I wonder - is it possible that there's a separate timeline west of
the Mississippi, where the French fought different Indian tribes?
Once again, this is just speculation, but there must be some way to
explain the historical significance of that war.

Having generational timelines for the Wampanoag, Narragansett,
Massachusset, Pequot, and the Iroquois tribes is a great piece of
research, and can add a great deal to our understanding of colonial
America (assuming, of course, that we can ever get any mainstream
historians to pay attention to generational issues.)

As for what to do with them, what we need is a narrative that tells
what happens in a way that illustrates the generational transitions
and is also an interesting story. The narration should be
accompanied by specific evaluations using the the Crisis War
Evaluation Algorithm criteria established in Chapter 8 of
Generational Dynamics for Historians (the current draft of
which, as you know, can be read for free on my web site).

However, if you really have nothing on awakenings and unravelings,
then it really isn't a complete generational picture. We can simply
add the crisis wars to the list (as in Chapter 9 of my book), but
that just isn't very satisfying.

Since I haven't seen what you've done, I don't know all the questions
to ask, but just doing the brief little piece of research for my last
posting raised a number of questions that really need to be answered
as well as possible. And where the historical record isn't
available, then the questions still need to be answered by inference,
with the narrative clearly stating where inferences are being made,
and what the theoretical justifications are.

So, expanding on my posting of the other day, here are some of the
questions that really need to be answered, one way or another:

What do we know about the Iroquois federation? Can the date 1570 be
confirmed, or did you infer it by subtracting 80 from 1649? The
Iroquois "nation" needs to be summarized through the three generational
cycles. Any crisis war changes a nation in many ways. For example,
the Civil War made us a nation that emphasized freedom, both personal
and economic. The economic freedom unraveled as large monopolistic
trusts were formed, and the WW II crisis changed us into a regulated
economy, which is now unraveling in huge debt. Internationally, WW
II changed us from an isolationist country to "policemen of the
world," and that's now unraveling as we overextend ourselves trying
to bring democracy to the world.

So we need some sort of narrative like that for each of the three
segments of the Iroquois nation.

In the first segment, exactly why didn't the Huron join the Iroquois
confederation? Even if the Huron didn't join, there would have been
some specific agreements between the federation and the Huron
regulating such things as commerce and other relations. These
agreements would have created dissent among the young prophet
generation in both sides, and then unraveled completely in the Beaver
Wars. Information on that era may be scarce, but my guess is that if
the Huron and the French really had such close trade relations, then
there must be a wealth of French material on the Huron, and possibly
also on the Iroquois.

Similarly, after the 1649 crisis war, with the Huron tribe
essentially destroyed, what were the new austere rules and
compromises involved in the Iroquois' new relationship with the
French? Was there a trade agreement and, if so, how did it unravel
into a new crisis war in the 1690s?

I think you get the idea of what work needs to be done to complete
this study. If you really need to move on now because you have other
obligations, then my suggestion is that you write up and post what
you have, and then come back and fill in the blanks as your time
permits.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Having generational timelines for the Wampanoag, Narragansett,
Massachusset, Pequot, and the Iroquois tribes is a great piece of
research, and can add a great deal to our understanding of colonial
America (assuming, of course, that we can ever get any mainstream
historians to pay attention to generational issues.)

We'll need a new crisis war for that. When this stuff all happens, you should send your predictions to anyone and everyone.

However, if you really have nothing on awakenings and unravelings, then it really isn't a complete generational picture. We can simply add the crisis wars to the list (as in Chapter 9 of my book), but
that just isn't very satisfying.

We'll..my first goal is to find the crisis wars. The austerity is easy, since there is almost always a peace treaty, and a willingness to avoid war at all cost. As for the awakening, I haven't looked too hard yet (I will), but I really haven't found anything. There isn't a lot of information, and I'm sure the Mohawk didn't march on Washington protesting civil rights. :wink: I'm guessing the unraveling is the most difficult to spot, and I don't know what to look for. Do you have any suggestions?

What do we know about the Iroquois federation? Can the date 1570 be confirmed, or did you infer it by subtracting 80 from 1649?

1570 is the date most widely accepted by historians. Some suggest dates ranging back to 1000 AD though. It just so happens that 1570 fits in with GD. Suits me.

....So we need some sort of narrative like that for each of the three segments of the Iroquois nation.

OK. Will do.

If you really need to move on now because you have other
obligations, then my suggestion is that you write up and post what
you have, and then come back and fill in the blanks as your time
permits.

What I meant is that I am going to go to other tribes. I plan on doing a good portion of the eastern woodland tribes, since there will be the most information there.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> We'll need a new crisis war for that. When this stuff all happens,
> you should send your predictions to anyone and everyone.

I've sent out newsletters and press releases, but Gen Xers don't want
to listen to anything that Boomers say. However, once you get a
good, solid narrative down, fully sourced and defended, then I'll put
out a new national press release. If they won't listen to Boomers,
maybe they'll listen to a Millennial.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Well..my first goal is to find the crisis wars. The austerity is
> easy, since there is almost always a peace treaty, and a
> willingness to avoid war at all cost. As for the awakening, I
> haven't looked too hard yet (I will), but I really haven't found
> anything. There isn't a lot of information, and I'm sure the
> Mohawk didn't march on Washington protesting civil rights. Wink
> I'm guessing the unraveling is the most difficult to spot, and I
> don't know what to look for. Do you have any suggestions?

Awakening periods can often be spotted by generational splits. A
historical account might mention that young people were objecting to
something or other, and a horizontal split of that kind is almost
certainly an awakening.

Unraveling periods are always crazy and giddy, and often the easiest
way to spot that is through some aspect of economic craziness. In
this case, the Beaver Wars appear to give a pretty good picture of
what must have happened, and when you know what to look for it makes
it easier to confirm what happened.

Here's the paragraph from the Wikipedia article:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

> With the establishment of Dutch trading posts in the Hudson in
> the 1620s, the Iroquois, and in particular the Mohawk, had come
> to rely on the trade for the purchase of firearms and other
> European goods. The introduction of firearms, however, had
> accelerated the decline of the beaver population such that by 1640
> the animal had largely disappeared from the Hudson Valley. The
> center of the fur trade thus shifted northward to the colder
> regions along the St. Lawrence River, controlled by the Hurons,
> who were the close trading partners of the French in New France.
> The Iroquois, who considered themselves to be the most civilized
> and advanced people of the region, found themselves displaced in
> the fur trade by other tribes in the region. Threatened by disease
> and with a declining population, the Iroquois began an aggressive
> campaign to expand their area of control.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Iroquois_Wars

The following is an "educated guess" as to what probably happened:

The fact that the Iroquois were aligned with the Dutch and the Huron
were aligned with the French provides a clue that when the Iroquois
federation was formed, the Huron didn't join because of their
separate alliance. Even so, the Huron and Iroquois would have made
specific agreements and treaties in 1570, probably dividing the
hunting grounds between them in a specific way.

The Hero generation of the crisis war would have honored those
agreements faithfully, in order to guarantee that the crisis war
would not be repeated. But the new generation of Prophets would
challenge those agreements as being too restrictive and unnecessary.
As population grew and the beaver population was thinned, these
challenges would become increasingly strident.

By the end of the awakening period, there would be few people left
who would even remember what the agreements were. Does this forest
belong to us or to them? Who knows? Who cares? So the hunting
agreements would completely unravel during that period.

But economics would intrude harshly. During the austerity period,
hunting patterns and trade routes would be built up, faithfully
following the treaty agreements that followed the crisis war. During
the awakening period, those trading relationships would become very
lucrative. I've read elsewhere that furs became quite fashionable
among the women in England and on the Continent in the mid 1600s, so
both the Huron and Iroquois would be making out like bandits. The
money they made would be spent on weapons from Europe, but since it's
an awakening period it would also be spent on consumer goods. Women's
demands tend to become prominent during awakening periods, and so
high-fashion items from Europe would be prized status symbols for both
women and men during this period.

This kind of lifestyle becomes addictive, so as the beaver population
thinned out, the entire economic situation would begin to unravel as
well. Fewer beaver skins would mean less income, the women would be
complaining to their husbands that they needed more money for the
teepee and the papooses, and the men would be competing with each
other for money, status and power. Concern for those ancient 1570
trading agreements would reach a new low. The Prophet generation
would be expressing outrage whenever the other side violated the
hunting treaty and would demand that something be done.

This would lead to early skirmishes between the Huron and Iroquois,
but as long as there were tribal elders from the old Hero and Artist
generation still around, any such border issues would be resolved
through compromise and containment. However, as generational changes
cause a gradual 3T to 4T transition, both sides practice
brinksmanship more and more. Finally, the Prophets are the elder
leaders, and one side or the other really crosses a line (literally
and figuratively). This causes the initial 4T shock and surprise,
and then a series of ping-pong actions finally leads to a total
crisis war.

And if I could be even more speculative, I would say this: The Huron
were apparently no match for the Iroquois, so they probably started
the final crisis war. Why would they do that? For the same reason
that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the South fired on Fort Sumter.
Because they had entered a state of giddy denial, when everything
they did was completely emotional.

And so, Matt, what we have here is a narrative that's a combination
of a bunch of facts, a lot of theory-based inference, and a bit of
speculation. This narrative needs to be made credible by tying it to
as many known historical facts as possible.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> 1570 is the date most widely accepted by historians. Some suggest
> dates ranging back to 1000 AD though. It just so happens that 1570
> fits in with GD. Suits me.

The 1570 date should be supported by quoting actual historians,
giving citations (books, page numbers, URLs, etc.) for the sources.
It's important for you to establish a pattern of solid historical
research, and then combine it inference and speculation only when
necessary, but also clearly stating when you're using inference and
speculation, and why you feel it's justified in each case.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> What I meant is that I am going to go to other tribes. I plan on
> doing a good portion of the eastern woodland tribes, since there
> will be the most information there.

That's great. I think this is a really exciting project.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

OK John. Sounds good.

----

John, how do you think a particularly bad non-crisis war would affect a generation?

For example, while I agree with you that Russia was not in a crisis war during WWII, it was still awful. While there was little genocidal energy from the people, horrible atrocities were committed by the Germans. Millions upon millions of Russians died. Why would a generation that grew up during World War Two in Russia not be scarred and risk-aversive? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

Thanks again,
Matt

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

OK John. Sounds good.

----

John, how do you think a particularly bad non-crisis war would affect a generation?

For example, while I agree with you that Russia was not in a crisis war during WWII, it was still awful. While there was little genocidal energy from the people, horrible atrocities were committed by the Germans. Millions upon millions of Russians died. Why would a generation that grew up during World War Two in Russia not be scarred and risk-aversive? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

Thanks again,
Matt

Russia... not in a Crisis War during WW2? How silly.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Russia... not in a Crisis War during WW2? How silly.

His explanation for what makes a crisis war is here.
On that page is the analysis for Russia.

Originally Posted by GD For Historians

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 non-crisis 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)

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> John, how do you think a particularly bad non-crisis war would
> affect a generation?

> For example, while I agree with you that Russia was not in a
> crisis war during WWII, it was still awful. While there was little
> genocidal energy from the people, horrible atrocities were
> committed by the Germans. Millions upon millions of Russians died.
> Why would a generation that grew up during World War Two in Russia
> not be scarred and risk-aversive? It just doesn't make much sense
> to me.

I get a lot of questions about Russia in WW II, both here and in
e-mail messages from web site readers. There's a lot more research
to be done for Russia in the Crimean War, WW I and WW II.

There's no doubt that the Great Patriotic War (WW II) was a horrible
war for Russia, but there's also no doubt that when the crisis war
criteria are strictly applied, then Russia's relatively passive
pursuit of the war makes it a non-crisis war. (For those not
familiar with these criteria, they're in Chapter 8 of my new book,
Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current draft of
which can be read for free on my web site.)

And this wasn't the first time it happened. There have been three
occasions when Europe had a crisis "world war," and one of the
belligerents invaded Russia, with the result that a crisis war for
Europe was a non-crisis war for Russia. The three invasions were:
Sweden during the War of the Spanish Succession (Great Northern War
for Russia), France during the Napoleonic Wars, and Germany during
World War II (Great Patriotic War for Russia). In each case, Russia
won, as their enemies were swallowed up by the harsh Russian winter,
but they were all non-crisis wars for Russia.

About six months ago, someone named "catfishncod" raised the same
issue about Russia in this thread. His argument is that WW II was so
bad that the Prophet generation growing up during that period turned
into another Artist generation.

I'm not so sure. It is true that an Artist generation is created by
the "generational child abuse" that comes from growing up surrounded
by death and destruction, but the effects of that generational child
abuse also depend on the naïveté of their Nomad and Prophet parents.
In the case of Russia in WW II, the new generation grew up with
Artist and Hero parents, the same generations that normally spend
their lives willing to do anything to prevent any such crisis war
from occurring again. Such parents would find ways to protect their
children from the emotional effects of the new war, and reduce the
"generational child abuse" effects.

Still, we have certain facts on the ground today: The Chechen war is
over ten years old, and it hasn't spiraled out of control, even
though the Soviet Union itself has collapsed, reversing the effects
of the Bolshevik Revolution. It's possible that the crisis war has
been delayed because there are Russian leaders who have personal
memories of the horrors of WW II.

This gives rise to another much-discussed theoretical subject: Why
are there long inter-crisis periods? Inter-crisis periods are
"supposed" to be 60 years long, but my finding has been that some 15%
of inter-crisis periods throughout history have been longer than 80
years. Why do these long periods occur?

One possible reason is that a mid-cycle war is so bad that the
generational patterns shift slightly. That would be the tentative
explanation for Russia's current inter-crisis period.

Something like that might also be the explanation for why the
American Revolution occurred in the 1770s rather then the 1750s:
There couldn't have been a Revolutionary War while the Seven Years
War was going on.

Another possible reason is that a country has plenty of money. This
is possibly the reason why Saudi Arabia is having a very lengthy
inter-crisis period

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> John, how do you think a particularly bad non-crisis war would
> affect a generation?

> For example, while I agree with you that Russia was not in a
> crisis war during WWII, it was still awful. While there was little
> genocidal energy from the people, horrible atrocities were
> committed by the Germans. Millions upon millions of Russians died.
> Why would a generation that grew up during World War Two in Russia
> not be scarred and risk-aversive? It just doesn't make much sense
> to me.

This gives rise to another much-discussed theoretical subject: Why
are there long inter-crisis periods? Inter-crisis periods are
"supposed" to be 60 years long, but my finding has been that some 15%
of inter-crisis periods throughout history have been longer than 80
years. Why do these long periods occur?

One possible reason is that a mid-cycle war is so bad that the
generational patterns shift slightly. That would be the tentative
explanation for Russia's current inter-crisis period.

Something like that might also be the explanation for why the
American Revolution occurred in the 1770s rather then the 1750s:
There couldn't have been a Revolutionary War while the Seven Years
War was going on.

Another possible reason is that a country has plenty of money. This
is possibly the reason why Saudi Arabia is having a very lengthy
inter-crisis period

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

I'm thinking we've had two rather bad inter-crisis wars during the Twentieth Century. The first, an Unraveling Era war which scarred an entire generation later known as the Lost, was World War I, which was devastating, at least in Europe. The second was Vietnam, which so scarred the Boomers that even an author as perceptive as David Brin treated it (in his preface to his novel EARTH) is if it were a crisis war.

Brin is a Boomer himself, and the novel is an excellent picture of a late 1T (heading into the Awakening rather slowly) after an honest-to-S&H Fourth Turning. He states in his preface that he was trying for exactly that, and so invented a Crisis Era war "Like World War II or Vietnam." to have left serious marks on the postwar generation. In that he succeeded.

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

About six months ago, someone named "catfishncod" raised the same
issue about Russia in this thread. His argument is that WW II was so
bad that the Prophet generation growing up during that period turned
into another Artist generation.

I should do a search next time.

I'm not so sure. It is true that an Artist generation is created by
the "generational child abuse" that comes from growing up surrounded
by death and destruction, but the effects of that generational child
abuse also depend on the naïveté of their Nomad and Prophet parents.
In the case of Russia in WW II, the new generation grew up with
Artist and Hero parents, the same generations that normally spend
their lives willing to do anything to prevent any such crisis war
from occurring again. Such parents would find ways to protect their
children from the emotional effects of the new war, and reduce the
"generational child abuse" effects.

I figured that the hero parents would be the main thing to stop the creation of a second artist generation. There might be a way to validate this. If an artist generation is made, there wouldn't be an awakening in the 50s, since the prophet/hero dynamic creates the awakening. What do you know about this John?

Still, we have certain facts on the ground today: The Chechen war is over ten years old, and it hasn't spiraled out of control, even
though the Soviet Union itself has collapsed, reversing the effects
of the Bolshevik Revolution. It's possible that the crisis war has
been delayed because there are Russian leaders who have personal
memories of the horrors of WW II.

This gives rise to another much-discussed theoretical subject: Why
are there long inter-crisis periods? Inter-crisis periods are
"supposed" to be 60 years long, but my finding has been that some 15%
of inter-crisis periods throughout history have been longer than 80
years. Why do these long periods occur?

There has to be a reason for war. A reason for a crisis war. Maybe the thought that some questions to be answered (America breaking away from Britain, slavery) delays the crisis war.

In short mid-cycle periods (40-50 years), here is a thought: The hero generation does a better job in delaying the crisis war than the artist generation, so occassionally a short mid-cycle period can take place.

Dear Pat,

Originally Posted by Idiot Girl

> I'm thinking we've had two rather bad inter-crisis wars during the
> Twentieth Century. The first, an Unraveling Era war which scarred
> an entire generation later known as the Lost, was World War I,
> which was devastating, at least in Europe. The second was Vietnam,
> which so scarred the Boomers that even an author as perceptive as
> David Brin treated it (in his preface to his novel EARTH) is if it
> were a crisis war.

> Brin is a Boomer himself, and the novel is an excellent picture of
> a late 1T (heading into the Awakening rather slowly) after an
> honest-to-S&H Fourth Turning. He states in his preface that he was
> trying for exactly that, and so invented a Crisis Era war "Like
> World War II or Vietnam." to have left serious marks on the
> postwar generation. In that he succeeded.

I understand the point you're making, though I see the situation in a
different way. Every war is horrible to the people directly affected
by it, but the Vietnam war and WW II affected the nation in
completely different ways. I guess I'd have to read the novel to
find out, but I don't even see how you can write a novel that covers
a crisis era "like WW II or Vietnam." Those are two diametrically
different directions. A novel that depicts WW II attitudes would be
completely different from a novel that depicts WWI or Vietnam war
attitudes. I'll go out on a limb and guess that since Brin is a
Boomer, his novel depicts the conflicts of the Vietnam era, without
conveying the sense of national purpose in the WW II era. Just a
guess.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I figured that the hero parents would be the main thing to stop
> the creation of a second artist generation. There might be a way
> to validate this. If an artist generation is made, there wouldn't
> be an awakening in the 50s, since the prophet/hero dynamic creates
> the awakening. What do you know about this John?

I don't know a great deal about Russia in the 1940s and 50s, but I do
know that one of the major things was the Rapprochement between the
Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet government, as illustrated by
the following Orwellian text:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~sshoema...xts/karpov.htm
Lenin had destroyed Church, but during the 1940s war the Church
revived. This is usually attributed to the war, but in fact it's the
kind of thing that would naturally happening during an awakening.

I think that the best way to get the full story would be to go back
to using Strauss and Howe's original methodology -- study the
contemporary histories and diaries of people who lived through the
Great Patriotic War and later, to see what their attitudes are. A
lot of these are inaccessible of course, unless you read Russian, But
there's a lot of stuff that's been translated, such as Aleksandr I.
Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> There has to be a reason for war. A reason for a crisis war.

I always cringe at something like this. Yes, there's always a
reason, but the reason is usually formulated after the war is over,
or at least after it's begun. I've never heard a reason that makes
to me for why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor or why the South fired on
Fort Sumter.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Maybe the thought that some questions to be answered (America
> breaking away from Britain, slavery) delays the crisis war.

That may be true of mid-cycle wars, but crisis wars are visceral. A
crisis war is a force of nature, and you might as well try to figure
out the political cause for a tsunami.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> In short mid-cycle periods (40-50 years), here is a thought: The
> hero generation does a better job in delaying the crisis war than
> the artist generation, so occassionally a short mid-cycle period
> can take place.

One of the projects I've been meaning to undertake is to go through
the list of crisis wars in my book and find all the ones that began
40-50 years after the end of the preceding crisis war and see what,
if anything, they have in common. If I were to guess, I would guess
an unexpected invasion from a country on a different generational
timeline would be the most common cause, but I've never looked into
it.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

I always cringe at something like this. Yes, there's always a
reason, but the reason is usually formulated after the war is over,
or at least after it's begun. I've never heard a reason that makes
to me for why Japan bombed Pearl Harbor or why the South fired on
Fort Sumter.

Well the reason the U.S.A. isn't in a crisis war now is because we don't have anybody to fight for any good reason. We have to wait for one of the regions of the world to boil over.

That may be true of mid-cycle wars, but crisis wars are visceral. A
crisis war is a force of nature, and you might as well try to figure
out the political cause for a tsunami.

Maybe, but why didn't the French and Indian War turn into a crisis war for the United States? Why hasn't Russia had it's crisis war yet? The crisis war has to probably involve a Russian civil war. That's what I meant.

One of the projects I've been meaning to undertake is to go through
the list of crisis wars in my book and find all the ones that began
40-50 years after the end of the preceding crisis war and see what,
if anything, they have in common. If I were to guess, I would guess
an unexpected invasion from a country on a different generational
timeline would be the most common cause, but I've never looked into
it.

That's a good idea. There has never been a crisis war where there should be an awakening (Heros reach peak power), but on occassion there are ones where you would think an unraveling should be (Hero power declines and dies out, Artist Power reaches peak). I've always thought that the crisis war would affect the heroes more than the artists, especially when the war isn't at home. And since Artists tend to be silent, they may not wield as much influence over the people.

----

I've been slacking off the last couple of days, I'll get back to my timeline/narrative tonight.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Maybe, but why didn't the French and Indian War turn into a crisis
> war for the United States? Why hasn't Russia had it's crisis war
> yet? The crisis war has to probably involve a Russian civil war.
> That's what I meant.

How could the French and Indian war turned into a crisis war for the
United States? How would that have worked? We were British citizens
fighting against the French and the Indians. Would we have turned
around and sided with the French and Indians?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I've been slacking off the last couple of days, I'll get back to
> my timeline/narrative tonight.

Tsk, tsk. I hope she was pretty.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

How could the French and Indian war turned into a crisis war for the
United States? How would that have worked? We were British citizens
fighting against the French and the Indians. Would we have turned
around and sided with the French and Indians?

I don't get what you are trying to say. Couldn't we just fight the French and Indians with the energy needed for it to be considered a crisis war?

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I've been slacking off the last couple of days, I'll get back to
> my timeline/narrative tonight.

Tsk, tsk. I hope she was pretty.

Haha ok John.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I don't get what you are trying to say. Couldn't we just fight the
> French and Indians with the energy needed for it to be considered
> a crisis war?

I can't see how that would have been possible under the
circumstances. You need a fault line to have a crisis war, and the
fault line has to be built on hatreds and anxieties that have been
building for decades. The war was between the British and the
French, and the colonists didn't particularly hate the French. As for
the Indians, they were split between the English and the French, so
there was no effective identity group among them in this war.

Perhaps if we imagine a scenario where there were no French in North
America, then the Indian tribes might have massed into a single
identity group that waged war with the English colonists, but that
didn't happen.

As I read the Wikipedia coverage of these wars, I can't get over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
the feeling that I've been missing something important. This was a
big war, almost a world war, with huge international consequences. It
has to be a crisis war on someone's timeline, but whose?

England and France had last fought in the War of the Spanish
Succession, whose climax was the battle of Malplaquet, the bloodiest
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...?p=99025#99025
battle in Europe for the entire eighteenth century. The Seven Years War
thus occurred early in an unraveling era for England and France, so
it's not surprising that the war didn't occur on English or French
soil.

What I'm now thinking is that the French colonists were on a
different timeline from France, just as the English colonists were on
a different timeline from England. Thus the French and Indian war
was a crisis war for the French colonists, and perhaps for all of
Canada - not only in North America but also in India (the 2nd Carnatic
War?), since the 1763 agreement covered the wars in both those
regions.

Getting back to the British colonists, they fought in the French and
Indian war because they were British citizens. But that was a
non-crisis war for them; they were preparing for battle with their
real "enemy," the British crown, and that fault line became quickly
exposed once the Seven Years War was settled in 1763 by the Treaty of
Paris.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

John,

Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis

Dear Matt,

I can't see how that would have been possible under the
circumstances. You need a fault line to have a crisis war, and the
fault line has to be built on hatreds and anxieties that have been
building for decades. The war was between the British and the
French, and the colonists didn't particularly hate the French.

I don't understand. Do Americans hate the Chinese? Not now, but maybe in a few years we will. Please explain the difference.

As I read the Wikipedia coverage of these wars, I can't get over
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
the feeling that I've been missing something important. This was a
big war, almost a world war, with huge international consequences. It
has to be a crisis war on someone's timeline, but whose?

England and France had last fought in the War of the Spanish
Succession, whose climax was the battle of Malplaquet, the bloodiest
http://fourthturning.com/forums/view...?p=99025#99025
battle in Europe for the entire eighteenth century. The Seven Years War
thus occurred early in an unraveling era for England and France, so
it's not surprising that the war didn't occur on English or French
soil.

What I'm now thinking is that the French colonists were on a
different timeline from France, just as the English colonists were on
a different timeline from England. Thus the French and Indian war
was a crisis war for the French colonists, and perhaps for all of
Canada - not only in North America but also in India (the 2nd Carnatic
War?), since the 1763 agreement covered the wars in both those
regions.

Hmmm. This is from pure memory, but in doing research on the Iroquois, I found heavy fighting in the early 1610's (the result was the beaver wars) between the French and Iroquois ending in 1615. If you put the next crisis war as King William's War (1690-97), it fits in quite nicely. I don't see that same energy in Queen Anne's War (1702-1714) except in the Deerfield Massacre (1704), an isolated event.

I think I agree with Mr. Rdbldr.

20,000,000 Russians died during the second world war, millions more than from any other single country.

I don't how the deaths of 20 million people could not be called a crisis.

Originally Posted by le nomade jake

I think I agree with Mr. Rdbldr.

20,000,000 Russians died during the second world war, millions more than from any other single country.

I don't how the deaths of 20 million people could not be called a crisis.

Not only that, but Russia was fighting for it's very existence against an enemy determined to wipe them off the face of the Earth (for the sake of lebensraum). That, I believe, is another qualification for calling it a 4T war.

Dear Matt,

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> I don't understand. Do Americans hate the Chinese? Not now, but
> maybe in a few years we will. Please explain the difference.

Americans don't hate the Chinese and we're not going to attack the
Chinese. It's the other way around. The Chinese believe that Taiwan
would already be part of China again if it weren't for our defense
treaty with Taiwan, and they're increasingly furious about it, just
as we'd be furious if, say, Washington state seceded from the United
States and was protected by the Chinese army. In addition, China's
hatred of the Japanese is palpable, and since we're allied with the
Japanese, those feelings spill over to us.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston10

> Hmmm. This is from pure memory, but in doing research on the
> Iroquois, I found heavy fighting in the early 1610's (the result
> was the beaver wars) between the French and Iroquois ending in
> 1615. If you put the next crisis war as King William's War
> (1690-97), it fits in quite nicely. I don't see that same energy
> in Queen Anne's War (1702-1714) except in the Deerfield Massacre
> (1704), an isolated event.

I agree with this analysis. It seems completely right. And the
previous crisis war was probably the first part of the 30 Years War,
and the one before that was probably the German religious wars that
were settled with the Peace at Augsburg in 1555.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Originally Posted by le nomade jake

> I think I agree with Mr. Rdbldr.

> 20,000,000 Russians died during the second world war, millions
> more than from any other single country.

> I don't how the deaths of 20 million people could not be called a
> crisis.

There's no doubt that 20 million deaths is a horrible thing, and it
certainly was a crisis in some sense, but it wasn't a generational
crisis.

A generational crisis war has certain very specific characteristics,
and the number of war deaths is a small part of them. This is
discussed in obsessive detail in Chapter 8 of my new book,
Generational Dynamics for Historians, the current draft of
which can be read for free on my web site.

I must say that I get many questions and comments on this issue, both
here and from my web site. I wish there were a simple way to explain
it, but Russia's behavior during the Great Patriotic War was very
subtle and complex and, in the end, won the war, of course.

With regard to war deaths, there's another relevant point. The
number of war deaths in the 20th century was much higher -- by a
factor of almost ten -- than war deaths in previous wars. Question:
Why so many war deaths? Answer: Because of the reduction in infant
mortality. In the 1800s, the infant mortality rate was very high.
During the first half of the 1900s, infant mortality decreased to
under 10%. The result was a huge "youth bulge" of young men available
for war.

If you compare the Napoleonic wars (1700-1714) to WW I (1914-18 ), you
find that Napoleon mobilized two million men, but in WW I, the Allies
mobilized 40 million men and the Central Powers mobilized more than 25
million men.

Now, granted that the two regions we're discussing aren't identical,
but the difference of 2 million to 65 million is quite remarkable.
The population would have grown by a factor of about 4 between those
two wars, but the number of soldiers mobilized for war increased
thirty-fold. How is that possible?

That's possible because of the youth bulge. The infant mortality
rate was probably around 50% at the time of Napoleon, and was 12% at
the time of WW I. The population increased by a factor of 4, but the
population of war-age males was many times larger. The figures were
even greater in WW II.

That's why there were 20 million deaths in Russia in WW II -- not
because it was a crisis war, but because there were so many more
young men to be killed.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

> Not only that, but Russia was fighting for it's very existence
> against an enemy determined to wipe them off the face of the Earth
> (for the sake of lebensraum). That, I believe, is another
> qualification for calling it a 4T war.

I would quibble with this characterization. Not only was Russia not
fighting for its very existence, the Russians didn't even
believe they were fighting for their existence.

Hitler's invasion of Russia was nothing new for them. They'd seen it
twice before in the recent past. Two great previous European "world
wars" had been accompanied by invasions from Europe, and Hitler's was
the third. The two previous ones were the Swedish invasion during
the War of the Spanish Succession -- the Russians call this the Great
Northern War of 1700-1720 -- and Napoleon's invasion of Russia in
1812. All three invasions were crisis wars for the Europeans, and
non-crisis wars for Russia. Russia fought all three of those wars
relatively passively, and Russia won all three of those wars because
the European invaders were finally beaten down by the harsh Russian
winter.

Stalin was caught completely by surprise by Hitler's invasion, and
was indecisive for a long time. But Stalin and the Russians were
very well aware of what happened in the Great Northern War and the
Napoleonic invasion, and they never had any doubt that Germany would
be no more successful than Sweden and France were.

Sincerely,

John

John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com

Nonetheless, on one level at least, Russia was fighting for it's existence, whether they realized it or not, because Hitler had every intention of not only destroying the Soviet state, but of exterminating 100 million Russians, and either forcing the rest over the Urals into Siberia, or literally enslaving those few permitted to both live, and to remain west of the Urals. The land was to be repopulated with Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, perhaps even English (after Britain's surrender, that is). Was he mad? Yes, most definitely. Therein lies the only reason for taking his stated intentions seriously. Madmen are typically dead serious about their delusions.

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

Nonetheless, on one level at least, Russia was fighting for it's existence, whether they realized it or not, because Hitler had every intention of not only destroying the Soviet state, but of exterminating 100 million Russians, and either forcing the rest over the Urals into Siberia, or literally enslaving those few permitted to both live, and to remain west of the Urals. The land was to be repopulated with Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, perhaps even English (after Britain's surrender, that is). Was he mad? Yes, most definitely. Therein lies the only reason for taking his stated intentions seriously. Madmen are typically dead serious about their delusions.

You are missing the point. What you just said would make it a crisis war for Germany, not for Russia. The Crisis War is all about the response and energy, not what is (or is going to be) inflicted upon you. I believe Strauss and Howe said that somewhere in TFT.

John, do you see a crash this month? Just cruising around the net, I'm seeing growing pessimism although no one realizes the reality.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

John, do you see a crash this month? Just cruising around the net, I'm seeing growing pessimism although no one realizes the reality.

Even if it doesn't happen within the next week and a half (all the month of October that's left at this point), I have NO doubt that it will happen before the end of October of next year.