There's also the issue of non-aligned countries. Certainly, the disintegration of the Soviet threat allowed Sweden and Finland enough breathing room to join the EU in 1995.Originally Posted by Justin '77
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Posts
- 2,254
There's also the issue of non-aligned countries. Certainly, the disintegration of the Soviet threat allowed Sweden and Finland enough breathing room to join the EU in 1995.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.
"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.
1979 - Generation Perdu
Partial List of Roman Wars
Here is a partial list of Roman Wars that covers about 600 years. Can you find the crisis wars?
Roman Wars
First Samnite War - 343 BC to 341 BC
Second Samnite War - 327 BC to 321 BC and 316 BC to 304 BC
Third Samnite War - 298 BC to 290 BC
First Punic War - 264 BC to 241 BC
Second Punic War - 218 BC to 202 BC
Third Punic War - 149 BC to 146 BC
First Macedonian War - 215 BC to 205 BC
Second Macedonian War - 200 BC to 196 BC
Third Macedonian War - 171 BC to 168 BC
Fourth Macedonian War - 150 BC to 148 BC
Lusitanian War - 147 BC to 139 BC
First Servile War - 135 BC to 132 BC
Jugurthine War - 122 BC to 105 BC
Invasion by the Cimbri and Teutoni - 113 BC to 102 BC
Second Servile War - 104 BC to 103 BC
Social War - 91 BC to 88 BC
Sulla's first civil war - 88 BC to 87 BC
First Mithridatic War - 88 BC to 84 BC
Sertorius' Spanish revolt - 83 BC to 72 BC
Second Mithridatic War - 83 BC to 81 BC
Sulla's second civil war - 82 BC to 81 BC
Spartacus slave rebellion - 79 BC
Third Mithridatic War - 75 BC to 65 BC
Third Servile War - 73 BC to 71 BC
Catiline Conspiracy - 63 BC to 62 BC
Gallic Wars - 58 BC to 51 BC
Caesar's civil war - 49 BC to 45 BC
The Liberators' civil war - 44 BC to 42 BC
Sicilian revolt - 44 BC to 36 BC
Fulvia's civil war - 41 BC to 40 BC
Cantabrian Wars - 36 BC to 19 BC
Antony's civil war - 32 BC to 30 BC
Augustus' German Wars - to 9
Roman invasion of Britain and Scotland - 43 to 80
Icenii Rebelion - 61
Great Jewish_Revolt - 66 to 70
Year of the four emperors - 69
Batavian rebellion - 69 to 70
Trajan's Dacian Campaigns - 101 to 102 and 105 to 106
Trajan's Parthian Campaign - 113 to 117
Simon bar Kokhba - 132 to 135
War in Britain 142
Parthian War 162-66
Marcomanni War- 166 to 180
Civil War 193-94
First Mesopotamian War 195
Albinan War 195-197
Second Mesopotamian War 197-98
Caracalla's Masscre 211
German War 213
Parthian War 214-215
Alexandrian Massacre 215-216
Parthian War 217
Dacian War 217
Rebellion against Macrinus 218
Persian War 229?-233
German War 234-235
Dacian War 236-238
Gordian Revolt 218
Persian War 214-244
Carpian War 245-248
Gothic War 250-1
Carpian War 251
Persian War. 251-264
War against the Franks and Alamenni 257-260
Rebellion in Gaul (Gallic Empire founded) 259-260
Revolt of Eqypt (unsuccessful) 260
Sarmatian War 260
War agianst Gallic Empire 265
War against the Goths and Alamenni 268-69
War against the Vandals and Sarmatians 271?
Gothic War (Dacia lost) 272
Palmyran War - 272-273
Gallic Empire Conquered (Civil War) 274
War against Goths 275-277
War against the Franks, Longiones and Alamanni 278-9
War in Eqypt 280
Persian War 283-285?
War against the Picts 305-306
Civil War 312-313
Persian War 313-314
Civil War 316-17
Sarmatian War 318
Civil War 324
Persian Wars 337-50
German Wars 357-59
Persian War 363
War with the Alemanni 365-68
War in Britain & Northern Gaul 367-69
North African Revolt 372
War with the Quadi 373
Those Romans sure look busy.
Mike, I know what you are trying to get at, but you have to understand something. Certain wars are mentioned in the history books. Certain wars are not. I'm assuming most of those wars are easily dismissable, (like our first Gulf War) a few you have to look in to, and a few where you have to really dig deep to make a decision on whether it is a crisis war or not. My knowledge of Roman society is feeble, so I can't really answer your "objection," but certain wars stand out. Others do not. So I wouldn't think it necessary to rigorously study and apply the algorithm for every single war.
I agree. Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War will never go down in the history books as "big wars". Vietnam had a big political effect, but it was clearly a 2T one and not a 4T one. Even WWI is not remembered with the same kind of grandeur as the Revolution, the Civil War, or WWII, because it was a 3T conflict without the popular fury and passion of a 4T war.
If you know enough about a civilization's history, you can easily differentiate between the "A" wars and the "B" wars. The current Iraq War is probably not a true 4T war, though it may well lead to one.
As for wars standing out, well that's the problem. The ancients generally didn't fight continuous wars over discrete periods. After the Pax Romana, the Roman emperor could spend every summer campaigning against someone, if he had to (or wanted to). So the "wars" I list are usually periods when an emperor was fighting that particular enemy every year or almost every year. A one year "war" will refer to a campaign. A longer "war" often means a period when most years the emperor is campaigning against that particular target.
For example, after 267 war with the Goths was pretty much endemic, but this doesn't mean that the emperor campaigned against the Goths in every single year. Histories mention particular campaings in this "forever war" so I tried to list them rather than just as War with the Goths 267-476. I imagine the situation with Native Americans is similar. Some tribes probably had enemic conflicts that would flare up and subside.
Romans faced dozens of tribes and so there was always some tribe acting up at any given time and so there was always an opportunity for campaigning (at least after the Pax Romana). Some emperors would buy off the tribes others would fight them. Since those who bought off tribes sometimes were assassinated by their troops for being a wuss--most emperors fought. Also since victory in war created glory (which often conferred resistance against coups) many emperors would pick fights to gain some victories for domestic political purposes.
The result was lots and lots of wars. A similar situation exists in 16th century Europe when wars were fought largely on the rulers whim. It is only since the later 17th century that discrete wars, were fought by nations for national purposes. Only since then has a European war cycle been observed with regularly spaced big wars: 30 years war, WSS, seven years war, Napoleonic War, FP war, WW I, WWII. All but two of these are considered crisis wars according to GD. Rules needed to be developed only to separate the seven yrs war and WW I from the others, but even that is hard because it is hard to see how the FP war has more genocidal fury for the Germans than WW I had for the French.
It gets much more difficult to apply GD when the wars aren't prearranged in a regular pattern and there are a great many of them.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-01-2006 at 10:20 AM.
It's all in how you look at it. From this side, the Georgians took the wholly inappropriate step of elevating what should have been -- and always has been, historically, among states with at least normal diplomatic relations -- a matter resolved privately, and blown it into a huge public thing. Who benefits from trying to rub Russia's face in the dirt? Why the sudden departure from the norms of civilized nations in this one instance? It shouldn't come as terribly surprising that the Russian government reacted somewhat more strongly to the provocation (over-reacted, of course, because this is Russia, and such things are pretty much a given...). But cui bono? A question that Russians find being answered more and more in one particular direction since the fall of the Soviet Union...
Tell that to Toyota, Ford, General Motors, Nissan, Phillip-Morris, Caterpillar, General Electric, Scania, Renault, Iveco, Navistar, and so forth -- all of whom are putting in (or have recently put in) fairly respectable chunks of change towards local manufacture inside a fairly small distance from where I'm standing. Stability is one thing that Putin has absolutely brought to the country (hate him though the people I work with do, they won't deny him that).Though Putin's managed democracy has given the country some quotient of stability, I think most investors see Russia as a land of great opportunity that is closed to their investment in big capital (energy) projects and wholly unpredictable.
And all this time I thought it was because the US government would then continue to lavish money on the politically-connected in those countries so long as they continued to move towards the US orbit. Silly me...That's why countries like Ukraine and Georgia toy with the idea of NATO membership. Because Russia isn't making them any safer or richer, they think being a member of a club that involves what basically constitutes the "West" these days - the EU, the US, and Canada - will tell foreign investors that it's safe to pour money into T'bilisi and Kiev.
Saakashivili, for one, benefits from showing his people that he can engage in merciless ego war with Putin and get away with it. Did you hear him? He wants Russia pyschologically to "let Georgia go." Have you seen the Regnum.Ru website? This is how they order the world in Russia:
News by Region
* Russia
* Abkhazia
* Azerbaijan
* Armenia
* Byelorussia
* Georgia
* Israel
* Iran
* Kazakhstan
* Karabakh
* Kyrgyzstan
* Latvia
* Lithuania
* Moldavia
* Mongolia
* Transdnestr
* Tajikistan
* Turkey
* Uzbekistan
* Ukraine
* Estonia
* South Ossetia
* World
Russia has other big neighbors too. It shares a 1,268 kilometer border with Finland. But Finland is part of the "world" and Georgia is just a "region" - like Transdnestr or Abkhazia. And the sad thing is that to most of the world, Georgia is just that. A "region" in "Moscow's near abroad." Saakashviki wants to change that. So there's more at play here than just US monetary influence. One should be reminded that Saakashvili himself was educated in Washington, DC and his wife is Dutch. He's also only 39-years-old. Therefore, you might expect his actions to be a bit rough around the edges for a president.
Besides, I think the reluctance on the part of most NATO members towards adding Georgia to the organization showcases that a NATO-aligned Georgia - while sounding nice - isn't exactly in the alliance's benefit.
It's hard for me to gauge the situation because Russia put on similar fanfare when the country I am most familiar with - Estonia - joined NATO in 2004. There were threats and accusations of spying throughout the early 00s. But then they joined and nothing happened. Russia accepted that the NATO security blanket gave its neighbor a sense of psychological security.
The Caucasus is another whole can of worms. It's over there on the otherside of the Black Sea in the neighborhood of Chechnya, Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. I can see why the US would want an ally there. But the US doesn't make the final call. When Estonia joined it had a lot of support from its fellow northern nations Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. Georgia can't count on that.
I have never been to Russia, so I am not going to question your observations. But I do notice that every time the EU meets with Russia, the talk usually focuses on human rights and democracy in Russia and opportunities for EU investments in the energy sector. And in most cases Russia says "we don't have a human rights problem," "your countries are also corrupt," and "no you cannot invest in our energy sector - Russian capital only."
See, Putin has brought relative stability. But there is no guarantee that his hand-picked successor will continue that trend. And that's where the big mystery lies. How will Lavrov, or Ivanov - or whomever is chosen by "United Russia" to follow Putin - run the country? And how long can the clique of ex-Communists stay in control before they are subsumed by younger non-Communist generations?
If they didn't have managed democracy, we could say something like, "oh well, the Russian people will elect another president and since things are relatively ok, they'll probably choose some guy like Putin and all will be well. Anyway, he'll have to face some competition and we'll get to see who is made of what."
But because there most likely won't be any real election, we are going to have to deal with whatever comes down the pipe. It could be Putin Redux, Zhiranovsky, Lavrento Beria, or Mikhail Barishnikov. Nobody knows. And that element of "surprise" makes the business people I know uneasy. Since I am a member of the media, you can imagine that the assasination of journalists bugs me. I mean, I grew up thinking that my work could get me killed by a misplaced mortar shell, but little else. It's obvious that the written word now qualifies you for assassination if you offend the right people.
What are we talking about here? Where is this "ring of evil" surrounding Russia? The Balts joined NATO because they were invaded 65 years ago by a nation that, in some cases, erased 15 percent of their population through deportation and mass murder. They want a guarantee that they won't be picked on so easily again. Add to that that many of their closest allies - Iceland was the first country to recognize Estonia in 1991 - are in the alliance, and it's not hard to see why they gravitated "towards the US orbit."
The Central Europeans didn't have it so hot either. Poland, the Czechs, the Hungarians (especially in light of the recent anniversary) also have their own personal and historical reasons to fear Russian military power.
When you get over to Ukraine and Georgia though, you are dealing very much with de novo states. Unlike these other new NATO members, they aren't protestant or catholics, they don't use the Roman alphabet, and - other than a few months of independence around 1920 - they had been part of the Russian empire for a very long time (the Georgians since 1800, the Ukrainians since the mid 18th century). In other words, they are foreign.
I think that as of late the Ukrainians have been taking a more "moderate" position - they've postponed any referendum on NATO accession until at least 2008 (hmm, why 2008?) and the Georgians are still trying to figure out what do in the wake of the spying scandal. As much as they'd hate to admit it, Ossetia and Abkhazia are real problems for them in terms of normalizing relations with the US and EU and Russia. I think they'll have to work their way through that mess before they move on with repositioning their country.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.
"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.
1979 - Generation Perdu
Who the hell is regnum.ru? If you look at ITAR-TASS, you see the exact same setup as you would on CNN (recalibrated for location): WORLD; CIS & BALTICS; RUSSIA. So? In fact, CNN has special tabs for China, Iraq, and Iran -- and yet nothing at all about Canada...[quote]But Finland is part of the "world" and Georgia is just a "region" - like Transdnestr or Abkhazia.[quote]No, Georgia is a place where a lot of news has been coming from lately. You wouldn't say that CNN places Iran as a US territory just because it falls in the same list as Iraq? Nothing particularly interesting to Russians has happened in Finland lately anyway (not actually true, there was a little blurb about something there a couple weeks ago on the radio, but I didn't catch it all). News sites organize based on where the news s; you know that...
Oh, believe me. People need no reminding. Like Iraqis need no reminding that Ahmed Chalabi spent a long time in the US. There's quite a bit that that little factoid helps explain...One should be reminded that Saakashvili himself was educated in Washington, DC...
Except that an explicitly anti-Russian alliance gained yet another foothold within walking distance of one of Russia's capital cities...It's hard for me to gauge the situation because Russia put on similar fanfare when the country I am most familiar with - Estonia - joined NATO in 2004. There were threats and accusations of spying throughout the early 00s. But then they joined and nothing happened.
Don't get me wrong; my family fled Lithuania as an alternative to getting their nine grams in the head back when the Red Army came in. I've got as little sympathy for Imperialist Russia as the next guy. But from what's happened these past decades, one could hardly say that Russia is the imperialist here.
Actually, the response is usually more of a very polite, but firm "fuck you".I have never been to Russia, so I am not going to question your observations. But I do notice that every time the EU meets with Russia, the talk usually focuses on human rights and democracy in Russia and opportunities for EU investments in the energy sector. And in most cases Russia says "we don't have a human rights problem," "your countries are also corrupt,"
That I haven't heard. But considering the number of German and Norwegian outfits plunking holes out in Sakhalin, I doubt the veracity of your source... And China is making major investments into Russia -- with the added bonus, from the perspective of the politicos here, that they aren't assholes about it.and "no you cannot invest in our energy sector - Russian capital only."
Fair enough. For what it's worth, the guys I work with are all hard-core Yabloko, but they all figure that Putin isn't going anywhere come '08.See, Putin has brought relative stability. But there is no guarantee that his hand-picked successor will continue that trend. And that's where the big mystery lies. How will Lavrov, or Ivanov - or whomever is chosen by "United Russia" to follow Putin - run the country? And how long can the clique of ex-Communists stay in control before they are subsumed by younger non-Communist generations?
If they didn't have managed democracy, we could say something like, "oh well, the Russian people will elect another president and since things are relatively ok, they'll probably choose some guy like Putin and all will be well. Anyway, he'll have to face some competition and we'll get to see who is made of what."
But because there most likely won't be any real election, we are going to have to deal with whatever comes down the pipe. It could be Putin Redux, Zhiranovsky, Lavrento Beria, or Mikhail Barishnikov. Nobody knows. And that element of "surprise" makes the business people I know uneasy.
Now?!? Allow me to refer you to my main guy at The eXile, and point out thatSince I am a member of the media, you can imagine that the assasination of journalists bugs me. I mean, I grew up thinking that my work could get me killed by a misplaced mortar shell, but little else. It's obvious that the written word now qualifies you for assassination if you offend the right people.Russia has been a dangerous place to be a journalist for much longer than Putin has been around...
Last edited by Justin '77; 11-01-2006 at 02:08 PM.
That similarly explains my point. The Baltics have no political connection to Russia. They are members of the EU and NATO. But they are not fortunate enough to be the "world" like the rest of the EU - yet.
They wanted to join. Would you blame them? I'll remind you that they were neutral, unaligned nations during the interwar period. Look how well that move paid off.
NATO really is a an anachronism of an organization. I mean we've got NATO over there fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's a pretty wide interpretation of the security blanket that NATO is supposed to provide. Danish soldiers are getting killed because "an attack on one is an attack on all."
But does NATO adequately represent Europe? I think that the EU should have its own coordinated defense force - separate from NATO. There are steps being taken in that direction, because there is a very real European interest that is exclusive of US interest.
I believe that, for example, if the EU had a defense league in place, the Poles, Czechs, Estonians and others wouldn't have needed to join the alliance. But until that day comes, NATO is the "next best thing."
Well, it's good to see that Putin was willing to share the "fuck you" with Italy and Spain during his recent dinner in Lahti. I think it's actually beneficial for EU development when the Eurocrats see that, "Hey Putin isn't just a dick to the Latvians, he's a dick to everybody." A big moment.
Pssh - I'm hardcore Yabloko too. Who couldn't resist a party named after a fruit?!
As for blaming Putin for Politkovskaya (I'm really bad with Russian names, apologies) I never inferred that this was something new or his fault. I did, point out in my blog - www.palun.blogspot.com - that the country that "defeated fascism" is looking more and more like Italy circa 1930. But I didn't hop on the "Putin killed Anna" bandwagon.
You can read what I wrote here:
http://palun.blogspot.com/2006/10/an...1958-2006.html
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.
"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.
1979 - Generation Perdu
Actually, the Russian site says "другие", which means "other". The Baltics, standing as they do between Russia and another part of Russia, do hold a special place relative the rest of the world. It's not anyone's fult, and you'd hardly find a Russian who considers them to be anything less than their own countries. In fact, they're even less of a 'near-abroad' in that respect than is Uzbekistan (which, by the way, doesn't share a border with Russia).
See, what the Russian on the street has perhaps not realized yet is that 1991 was as important for Russia as 1721. In the Treaty of Nystad, Sweden relinquished control over what became known as the Baltics to Russia. Sweden had ruled in the Baltic since the mid-16th century.
Russia picked up Finland during the Napoleonic era in 1809, but lost them all in 1918. In 1940, Stalin retook the Baltic states, and the end of the war with Finland left Finland as a sort of 16th republic, a "grand duchy" where one man (Urho Kekkonen) ruled from 1956 to 1982, and the Finns (who successfully kept their independence in the war) had to pay Russia $600 million in reparations for all the damage they had done defending themselves.
In 1991, the Baltics and Finland became free to reorient themselves. Estonia's greatest trading partner went from Russia in 1991 to Sweden and Finland by the late 1990s. Finland and Sweden joined the EU in 1995, and Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were added in 2004.
If you follow the money, Estonia stopped "belonging" to Russia a long time ago. It now "belongs" to Sweden and Finland. In otherwords, 1991 is a reversal of the Treaty of Nystad.
Because the Baltics are closed to Russians - you have to get a visa to visit - I can see why their mindset might be stuck in 1991. But its clear that when most of Estonia's economy (including its media!) are owned by Sweden, Finland, and Norway, that Estonia doesn't belong to the Russians anymore.
I wonder how long it took the Brits to realize that Ireland was its own country. Anybody know anything about that?
Now, the "Baltics" as entity is a misnomer to begin with. Lithuania's history differs greatly from Latvia's and Latvia's differs from Estonia's. All of these countries were supposed to be incoporated into the Reich when Hitler invaded in 1941. They were to be resettled with Germans, their languages and cultures erased. Stalin had similar plans. He resettled Russians in the Baltics. In fact, the Kaliningrad issue only exists because the German population of Konigsberg was deported and replaced by Russians. So the exclave is a failed Baltic colony, if you think in 18th century terms.
There were similar plans for Estonia and Latvia too. The population of Latvia went from being 75 percent ethnic Latvian in 1934 to 52 percent Latvian in 1989. One can imagine that once Latvians became a minority they would be incorporated into Russia like Karelia was under similar circumstance in the mid-1950s.
Latvia is usually the Baltic country that Russians think of when they think of the "Baltics."
And as you can see, they don't think highly of Latvia. It's their number one least favorite country.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20050621/40562651.html
"The results of the poll of 1,600 Russian adults were given wide coverage in Russian media, but it will take some time to analyze them because the new list of enemies is a bombshell. Respondents named Latvia (49%), Lithuania (42%), Georgia (38%) and Estonia (32%) as Russia's greatest enemies, while the list of friends includes Belarus (46%), Germany (23%), Kazakhstan (20%), India (16%), and France (13%)."
I have a hunch that Georgia is at the top of the pile these days, however.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.
"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.
1979 - Generation Perdu
Mike, I honestly don't know enough about Ancient Rome to make any judgement on that matter, but as for your pre-'30 Years War' cycle, I'm inclined to believe that all of Germany was not on the same timeline. Timelines tend to converge and can occassionally diverge, and I'm sure that many regions of the world had not yet converged. Now, it seems, that all of Western Europe has converged into one timeline, and I don't think that's going to change anytime soon. On the other hand, there must be a few countries out there on different timelines. India maybe?
You're right about the Native Americans. The Iroquois fought a war nearly every day from 1610-1714. They would fight wars to replenish the men that they lost, and since they lost men in those wars, they fought new wars. Something about beaver furs too.
When I first looked at these extremely violent wars, I thought I was over my head. The Iroquois were warlike, and were pursuing wars at every opportunity. There were wars with the French in the 1610's, wars with the Mahican's in the 1620's, wars with the Huron in the 1630's and 40's, Susquehanook in the 1650's and 1660's, Illinois soon after, and then wars with everybody in the 1690's, which nearly killed them off.
So, I thought it may be difficult to identify a cycle. But the climaxes were clear: 1649, with the massive Iroquoian charge into the heart of Huronia and 1696-97, a thrashing of all their attackers.
Isn't 48 years a bit short for a saeculum--12 year generations?
Yes--No. I'm sure the generations weren't much shorter. They just had an early winter, with atypical alignments. It's rare and it "shouldn't" have happened. I can only speculate why something that happened so early turned into a crisis war.
There are a few other examples of small mid-cycle periods. Maybe John has more of how they can be so short.
It's possible that the 48 year spacing reflects one-half saeculum. 24-year turnings are not out of line with the ~26 year turnings of the pre-industrial saeculum. I should think Native Americans turnings should reflect pre-industrial rather than post-industrial timing.
Here is the plot of the frequency of barbarian (mostly Viking) incursions into Western Europe. There is a wave-like pattern of violence with peaks spaced about 52 years apart on average. 52 years is one-half of a saeculum with 26-year generations/turnings.
Last edited by Mikebert; 11-03-2006 at 08:19 PM.
Dear Justin,
OK, so let me understand this. None of the wars I've been talking
about are going to happen because nobody wants a war -- except for
that one fount of all wars and evil in the world, America and the
George Bush administration. And you read on some left-wing radical
blog that America and Iran are "on the verge of a major war with each
other," and you conclude not only that there's going to be a war, but
also that I know there's going to be a war -- even though you believe
that I'm wrong about everything else.
It's always a lot of good clean fun to take pot shots at America and
Bush, especially since it brings you kudos from Mr. Saari, but the
problem is that it destroys your credibility, and leads one to
believe that everything you say is tainted by ideological
considerations.
In discussing Australia, for example, I asked you about the Bali
bombings, and you dismissed them, saying, "Those happened in? 2002?
... You've obviously been walking different streets than I, my
friend."
Well obviously I have.
In October 2005, near-simultaneous blasts struck two seafood cafes in
the tourist center in Bali, Indonesia, killing 22 people and injuring
more than 100 others. In 2004, a bomb blast targeted the Australian
embassy in Jakarta, killing 8 people, injuring 168 others. In 2003, A
car bomb in front of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta killed 12
people. The most deadly blast occurred on October 12, 2002, when the
bombing of a Bali nightclub killed 202 people, including 88
Australians.
All four attacks are blamed on Jemaah Islamiyah, an increasingly
powerful Islamist terrorist group, with the avowed intention of
establishing an Islamic state from Indonesia to southern Thailand.
Jemaah Islamiyah is linked to al-Qaeda, and participated in the
initial planning for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.
The four attacks were all directed at Australian tourists. An
Australian doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to consider the
possibility that Jemaah Islamiyah may well be planning attacks on the
Australian mainland.
I also asked you about increasing xenophobia in Russia, something
that you ought to know about, since you live there. But you simply
denied that it was increasing, when I know that it's taken a recent
jump with the Georgia situation. (But of course you blame that on
America too. Nothing is anyone's fault but America's.)
And this is especially important at this time, when Abkhazia and
South Ossetia are talking about separating from Georgia, something
that I assume would be as unacceptable to Georgian President Mikhail
Saakhashvili as the separation of Oregon from the U.S. would be to
George Bush. Even Putin says that the region may be headed for a
bloodbath.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds...fx3108733.html
So here you are spouting all this anti-American stuff, and then you
blow off multiple terrorist attacks in Indonesia, and you blow off the
situation in Georgia. When something like that happens, and along
comes someone like me, who am generally suspicious of everyone
anyway, and the assumption is that everything you say is simply
ideological, with no credibility.
Basically your choice is that you can talk polemics or you can talk
sense, but you can't do both.
No, that's not true. I assume you're referring to the "Glorious
Revolution crisis," which S&H say runs from 1675-1704, begins with
King Philip's War, which is the bloodiest war in New England history,
and ends in the middle of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is
the bloodiest and most violent European war of the 1700s. So even if
you insist that the "glorious revolution" is a crisis, it would have
to be the bloodiest crisis of all, since it contains two crisis wars,
not one.
I consider the Caucasus region to be an extremely dangerous and
explosive. I used to think it was the most dangerous region in the
world, until Gaza started descending so far into chaos, pushing the
Caucasus into second place.
One final comment.
You keep referring to business relationships like plane schedules and
the Shanghai Cooperative Organization as reasons why there won't be
wars. If that were true there'd never be wars.
Business relationships are important to non-crisis wars, but they're
IRRELEVANT to crisis wars, because they're on different layers.
International treaties made on the élite layer, business
relationships occur at the bourgeoisie level, but crisis wars are
decided at the mob level.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Mike,
I really don't believe that there's any difference between the
ancients and the "moderns" in this regard. As long as you have a lot
of small regions on different timelines, you're going to have a lot
of wars. So you have the Hundred Years war, the religious wars, the
30 years war, until the regions of Europe got merged. In the 1800s
you had England at war continuously for decades. Since we've been
"policemen of the world" since 1945, we've been at war a lot, at many
times, though not continuously.
When you talk about things like "some tribe acting up," you're
talking about non-crisis wars. There will still be major wars,
crisis wars, that are different from the non-crisis wars.
What's your theoretical explanation for this graph? Is this> Here is the plot of the frequency of barbarian (mostly Viking)
> incursions into Western Europe. There is a wave-like pattern of
> violence with peaks spaced about 52 years apart on average. 52
> years is one-half of a saeculum with 26-year
> generations/turnings.
>
K-cycles? (By the way, 52 years is considerably longer than half a
saeculum.)
By the way, you recent posted something saying that you're undecided
about what to do for your next book. My suggestion is this: Write a
manuscript and be prepared to be first book out after the stock
market crash. Call it, "The Stock Market Crash -- Here's how to
protect yourself from further damage." You could be the first one
out, and you'd make a mint.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Dear Matt,
For what it's worth, here's my list of the Roman empire crisis wars.
I prepared this list somewhat hastily a couple of years ago, so it
may contain an error or two.
Code:---Length in years--- Crisis War, Beginning, Climax War Mid-cycle Total Period ------------------------------ --- --------- ----- Ancient Rome Second Punic War -218 -201 17 52 69 Third Punic War -149 -146 3 55 58 Social/Civil War -91 -82 9 46 55 War with Egypt -36 -30 6 92 98 War with Christians 63 71 8 42 50 Parthian War 113 117 4 76 80 Severan Wars 193 211 18 113 131 Empire reunited 324 337 13 69 82 Rome sacked 406 410 4 117 121 Byzantine War 527 Byzantine Empire First Persian War 527 531 4 91 95 Defeat of Persians 622 630 8 65 73 Revolt/Anarchy 695 715 20 63 83 Expel Muslims 778 779 1 81 82 Constantinople att 860 863 3 57 60 Russian Armada 920 941 21 55 76 Annihilate Bulgaria 996 1014 18 57 75 Revolt v throne 1071 1081 10 108 118 Crusades/Constantin 1189 1204 15 55 70 Reconquest 1259 1261 2 80 82 Civil War 1341 1347 6 75 81 Ottoman conquest 1422 1453 31There's no real problem here. A 47-year inter-cycle period is not
common, but it's not completely rare either.
A 47 year inter-crisis period means that the second crisis war beganCode:LENGTH OF INTER-CRISIS PERIOD Fraction # years of total ------- -------- 0- 40 0% 41- 49 11% 50- 59 33% 60- 69 25% 70- 79 16% 80- 89 4% 90- 99 6% 100-117 5%
some 7 years into the unraveling era, which is unusual, but not
impossible.
Sincerely,
John
John J. Xenakis
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
John,
On your site, about your book Generational Dynamics for Historians,
You mention a possible fifth generation type and that it could possibly be related to suicide bombers?
Is there anything you can tell me about that?
chrono117
So you're saying the Caucasus has basically been in Crisis since circa 1990. Sounds about right. But I'm curious, what's going to cause the "explosion" that hasn't already happened? There have already been too many massacres to count.
Hmm, sounds like an intriguing idea, but I can't quite follow -- the graphic doesn't seem to make any sense. The Prophets are the elite(?!) Can you clarify please?
Yes we did!
I have been recently looking over my work, and my crisis period starts in 1689. I will have to continue looking at this, but if that number is right (1692 is another date I considered), the mid-cycle period is 40 years.
I can only speculate why this period would turn into a crisis war. The Iroquois had been fighting constant wars for the past 70-80 years, and after several offensives, had found themselves vastly outnumbered and surrounded by hostile enemies on three sides. Furthermore, a smallpox epidemic broke out in the 1690's, while their villages were being attacked by both Indians and Louis Frontenac from Quebec.
I think it's possible that these terrible conditions and unexpected invasions launched them into an early crisis war.
I have found this to be untrue. The vast majority had 50-70 year mid-cycle periods.
Quick question: What would make pre-industrial saeculums be longer, in your opinion?
Huh? left-wing radical blog? you know there's going to be a war? where does any of this follow from what I've been saying?
Hardy har har. Yes, actually being somewhere and reporting first-hand observations is an excellent way to damage one's credibility. I've always thought so myself..It's always a lot of good clean fun to take pot shots at America and Bush, especially since it brings you kudos from Mr. Saari, but the problem is that it destroys your credibility, and leads one to believe that everything you say is tainted by ideological
considerations.
My point exactly. You follow-up by reacpping the fact of what happened, and then proceed to pile ontop of it a whole host of feelings and conclusions that 'non-rocket-scientist' Australians are sure to be taking from them. And all I have to say back to it is that the Aussies with whom I've had dinner at their homes and with whom I am in regular phone and email contact, and who I've had over to my own house, and whose wives I've talked with and kids I've played with all have a different take on things than what you assume they must have.In discussing Australia, for example, I asked you about the Bali bombings, and you dismissed them, saying, "Those happened in? 2002? ... You've obviously been walking different streets than I, my friend."
Well obviously I have.
Maybe they're all rocket scientists...
(and by the way, I was in Brisbane when the Jakarta embassy bombing went down. The take on the event, both on the news and in the way people I actually saw reacted to the news, was emblematic 3T-isolated-ill-fortune-doesn't-have-any-greater-meaning. The same sort of reactions I saw in the US to the Waco massacre, the OKC bombing, and WTC bombing #1. But most emphatically not the one I saw to 9/11. Not even close.
See, I know for some people, watching TeeVee is more credible than first sources. I really don't know how to argue against such an individual. Suffice to say, thatI also asked you about increasing xenophobia in Russia, something that you ought to know about, since you live there. But you simply denied that it was increasing, when I know that it's taken a recent jump with the Georgia situation.
- A study done in Moscow a couple years ago, demonstrating that Caucasian-looking people were almost ten times more likely to be stopped by the cops for a shakedown in the metro was met around here with a bunch of 'so what else is new?'s. Russians have been racist for as long as they've been Russians (though quite a benign racist, as far as those things go..)
- The whole Georgia affair is and was mainly a show put on between the two corrupt ruling parties -- Russia's and Georgia's. The 'mob' which is so important to 4T swings has no investment in it at all -- except for the small number who get agitated when they can't find kindsmaurauli at any of the wine shops in town...
- While not an immigrant society like America is, Russians by in large are very welcoming to foreigners.
In fact, if you wanted an example of violent racism, better than the 'Georgia' affair (of which nothing particularly significant has resulted), you could look back a couple of months to the town of Kandapoga in Karelia; a mob of Russians took after a smaller mob of Chechens who had beaten up a Russian bartender. And ended up beating them to death, of course. But then again, you could find those kind of incidents stretching back to as long as Chechens and Russians have been living in proximity. Your claim of an increasing xenophobia is absolutely unfounded in fact.
You really haven't read anything I've ever written, have you? I don't in any meaningful sense believe in 'America' as a moral actor -- or any other nation-state, for that matter.(But of course you blame that on America too. Nothing is anyone's fault but America's.)
Who are you arguing against? The top of your post strongly implied you thought it was me.
Well, since the only possible pro-war elements as this point are on the upper two levels, I've been arguing on those two levels. I defy you to find a single meaningful point of evidence to indicate that the mobs of the various places are preparing to swing violently against someone. The mood of the mob is, in fact, the best thing to judge by on-the-ground experience, and the worst captured by the second- or third-hand. You make my point for me even more strongly.You keep referring to business relationships like plane schedules and
the Shanghai Cooperative Organization as reasons why there won't be
wars. If that were true there'd never be wars.
Business relationships are important to non-crisis wars, but they're
IRRELEVANT to crisis wars, because they're on different layers.
[-snip diagram-]
International treaties made on the élite layer, business
relationships occur at the bourgeoisie level, but crisis wars are
decided at the mob level.
Might I interject here to guess that the reason that the English-language media sees an "increase" in xenophobic attacks in Russia is because English-language media coverage is itself "increasing" there?
Take the Kandapoga incident. How many incidents in Karelia generated news worthy of international coverage over the past 60 years, since Russia took the area from Finland and the 480,000 Karelians were evacuated to Finland proper?
But there are English-speaking eyes now watching and reporting. And so we hear for the first time about things that may have been going on for quite sometime.
Also, because of EU expansion and rising living standards in East Europe, Europeans have to point farther east to measure their own success. In the Cold War era, Western Europeans felt confident about their lifestyle because they could use the boogeyman of depressed East Europe to reinforce their superiority. Now that the Brits and the Hungarians are equals in Brussels, Europeans have to look farther east for a similar boogeyman. They find it (naturally) in Russia and Belarus.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.
"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.
1979 - Generation Perdu
I suspect they reflect K-cycles but have no economic data from this period to confirm. Actually 52 years is right on track for one half-saeculum, Here are the S&H dates:
1435-1487 52 years
1487-1542 55 years
1542-1594 52 years
1594-1649 55 years
1649-1704 55 years
1704-1746 42 years
1746-1794 48 years
1794-1844 50 years
average 51 years
I plan to write one before the crash, predicting it--like I did in 2000. Getting the timing right helps salesBy the way, you recent posted something saying that you're undecided about what to do for your next book. My suggestion is this: Write a manuscript and be prepared to be first book out after the stock
market crash.
