Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Not necessarily. The Civil War was certainly a culture war. What we should see is an increased intensity and hysteria making their way into the scene.

Yeah, and it happened during what should have been a 3T, but it accelerated too quickly and ended too quickly, making it a psuedo 4T.

Gee, I don't know. Their pay raise?

That happens in every single congress since the beginning of the existance of Congress.

No I was being quite serious. Do you really think I'm retarded?

No, but you're acting like it by not stating a clear point in response to what I said.

Once again, you are viewing this through a political lens. And frankly, I don't see how pursuing wars in the middle east isn't progressive.

Politics is a huge portion of how people behave, especially in 4Ts when society itself is restructuring.

Pursuing a limited war in the middle east for revenge is not progressive, it's reactionary. If the country was going along with Bush's argument based on democracy in the middle east, or some other long-term solution, that would be 4Tish.

But that's not why we cared so much, otherwise Bush wouldn't have bothered with that entire story about Al Qaeda being connected to Saddam Hussein and whatnot.

Call it what you will. That's what I thought too, since I only became cognizant of the outside world since 9/11.

It's conservative because we held punches.

Once again, you're dead wrong. I claim that it was early 4T, and thus, destined to fail.

He proposed it four years into the 4T, we should have had a regeneracy by that point, but people still weren't on board with the problem. Wonder why.

People were ready for sweeping change by 1933. But they weren't in 2005. Hmm.

So?

So, every call for major sweeping change since 9/11 has been met with resistance, but all of a sudden now people want sweeping change.

It doesn't square with your idea of a 9/11 starting the 4T

Ugh. You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? I am saying 9/11 was the start of a 4T, crisis era mood.

Seems you don't know what you're talking about, because you've shown no evidence that 9/11 did in fact trigger a 4T mood.

I have all the evidence in the world pointing to a drastic change in the political mood right after Katrina.

What's liberal about it is that Katrina happened and the country began to realize that Bush really sucks, and then started pursuing more liberal policies. Thus, 4T-good policies, 3T-bad policies. That was what I meant by "yay."

"Liberal" policies are held to be good in a 4T when compared with conservative policies, because Liberal policies seek to expand the role of government.

I don't care what party you belong to, you are subscribing to this thought, even if you don't agree with its holder's political message.

More politics. Who would have guessed? Actually, the country was heading left before Katrina. Katrina simply accelerated the process (and brought up deeper into the 4T). Attitudes? I suppose there was a small increase in cynicism, but it fell into party lines.

Before Katrina it was heading left?

Oh yeah, that 2004 Bush Victory where Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate, of course it was becoming more liberal before Katrina.

...

Not true, even looking through your lens. Come on, reread what you wrote.

What drastic change was there after 9/11?

Republicans basically held even in 2002, they barely lost the Senate, they regained in 2004, it was essentially a stagnant political scene until 2006.

*Sigh* You said you want to be a politician right? I should have known better.

Are you denying that politics reflects what turning we're in?

I don't care what S&H said, political alignments are the most important aspects for telling what turning we're in, especially when we're talking about 4Ts when the entire political system is supposed to restructure itself.

If politics stay the same after an event, it can't be a 4T catalyst. Name one time when a 4T began and it wasn't immediately reflected with a sudden shift in Congress or the Presidency.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Yeah, and it happened during what should have been a 3T, but it accelerated too quickly and ended too quickly, making it a psuedo 4T.

Yeah... since it occurred 79 years after Yorktown (but that's for another day). Irrelevant and refuted by history.

Pursuing a limited war in the middle east for revenge is not progressive, it's reactionary. If the country was going along with Bush's argument based on democracy in the middle east, or some other long-term solution, that would be 4Tish.

No it wouldn't. Please reread TFT.

It's conservative because we held punches.

Irrelevant. Holding back punches is always to be expected, even in a crisis war, which the ME adventure is not (ATM).

He proposed it four years into the 4T, we should have had a regeneracy by that point, but people still weren't on board with the problem. Wonder why.

People were ready for sweeping change by 1933. But they weren't in 2005. Hmm.

??
Gee, I don't know. A Depression?

So, every call for major sweeping change since 9/11 has been met with resistance, but all of a sudden now people want sweeping change.

It doesn't square with your idea of a 9/11 starting the 4T

Sure it does. What are you talking about?

Seems you don't know what you're talking about, because you've shown no evidence that 9/11 did in fact trigger a 4T mood.

That's not what this conversation is about. I'm merely stating that Katrina didn't trigger a 4T mood.

I have all the evidence in the world pointing to a drastic change in the political mood right after Katrina.

Good for you, but it wasn't all that drastic when compared to events during the mid-cycle period.

Before Katrina it was heading left?

Oh yeah, that 2004 Bush Victory where Republicans picked up seats in the House and Senate, of course it was becoming more liberal before Katrina.

...

Umm. Yes. "Heading" implies motion... before Katrina.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...line_graph.png

What drastic change was there after 9/11?

Are you serious?????

Republicans basically held even in 2002, they barely lost the Senate, they regained in 2004, it was essentially a stagnant political scene until 2006.

Are you denying that politics reflects what turning we're in?

Comparatively, it's a shitty indicator.

I don't care what S&H said, political alignments are the most important aspects for telling what turning we're in, especially when we're talking about 4Ts when the entire political system is supposed to restructure itself.

If politics stay the same after an event, it can't be a 4T catalyst. Name one time when a 4T began and it wasn't immediately reflected with a sudden shift in Congress or the Presidency.

Considering we only have two to work with, none. That's a great indicator. Two elections? Wow!

(I have no doubt that there is usually a major political shift after the catalyst. Not always.)

It all falls into place now.. the progressivism, political realignment, desire for reform (don't worry, you aren't alone on this). As such, I have no desire to continue this conversation, which clearly is going nowhere. Carry on if you wish, but don't expect me to respond.

I should have my Seljuk Empire/Ottoman Empire/Turkey narrative done by the end of the month. Sorry that it has taken so long. It wasn't particularly easy.

1064-1084: Byzantine-Seljuk War (Crisis)

The Seljuks were a branch of Turks, who, after originally settling north of the Caspian Sea, migrated to Persia in the 10th century A.D. Around the year 1000 A.D., their leader, Seljuk, established the Seljuk dynasty. This narrative begins with the first identifiable crisis -- the beginning of the Byzantine-Seljuk War.

In 1064, Alp Arslan, great-grandson of Seljuk, rose to the role of Sultan; which functioned as head of the dynasty, carrying both moral, religious, and political authority. Shortly after the somewhat contentious ascension, Alp Arslan drove into central Anatolia, plundering a church, and then headed east to capture sections of Georgia and Armenia. In 1068, he invaded the Byzantine Empire, launching the Byzantine-Seljuk wars, which lasted for centuries. After initial successes, the Seljuks were pushed back. In 1071, the Battle of Manzikert was fought, which resulted in a decisive Seljuk victory and the gain of a fair amount of Anatolian land. This was especially distressing to the Byzantines, who regarded Anatolia as the heart of their empire. As such, the Byzantine Empire fell into decline. However, they were by no means defeated. Fighting continued throughout the decade, with the Seljuks gaining ground in both Anatolia and Syria. In 1084, the city of Antioch was captured, ending over a century of Byzantine rule in the surrounding area. With the exception of a few strips of territory around the coast and the land neighboring Constantinople, the Byzantines had been virtually pushed out of modern-day Turkey.

1085-1174: Stagnation (Mid-Cycle)

Alp Arslan’s successor, Malik Shah I, presided over the newly conquered territories. However, following his death in 1092, a quarrel forced a split in the empire, with Kilij Arslan I re-founding the Sultanate of Rum, located in Anatolia (it was founded in 1077 by Kilij Arslan’s father, Suleiman, and then was disbanded after his murder). An invasion by Crusaders forced the Seljuks back to south-central Anatolia. Over the next few decades, cities in Anatolia bounced between the Sultanate and rebels. However, by 1174, they had recaptured nearly all lost territories in Anatolia.

1174-1176: Battle of Myriokephalon (Crisis)

The Crusades might have saved the Byzantines from an early exit, as it forced the Seljuks to concentrate on new problems; but by 1175, fighting resumed. A fragile peace had taken hold in earlier decades, but the refusal of the Seljuks to turn over newly captured territories (including Danishmend provinces, much of which were captured in 1174) forced Byzantine leader Manuel I to form a huge army which crossed into Seljuk lands. This climaxed at the Battle of Myriokephalon, which resulted in a major defeat for the Byzantines. While the battle was tactically indecisive, both sides suffered heavy losses, with the result being that the Byzantines were no longer able to mount a major attack on the Seljuks while the Sultanate was able to expand into its apogee.

1177-1238: Apogee (Mid-Cycle)

The fighting continued sporadically over the next couple of years as the Byzantines were pushed out of western Anatolia. The Crusades, for the third time, presented a challenge, and shortly after the battle, the Seljuk capital of Konya was occupied by the Christian invaders. However, this appears to be a mostly inconsequential event in Seljuk history; and the city was recaptured in 1205. In 1194, the Sultanate of Rum became the last ruling representatives of the Great Seljuk dynasty, and during the next few decades, reached its acme. However, this era was short-lived, as a far greater threat than the Byzantines or the Crusaders presented itself. Mongol invaders, led by Genghis Khan, set out westward, conquering everything that came across their path.

1239-1243: Mongol Invasion (Crisis)

In 1239, a revolt under preacher Baba Ishak spiraled out of control and threw the country into turmoil. It took a full three years to pacify the situation, but it came at a considerable expense to Sultan Keyhusrev’s army and resulted in the loss of territory in Crimea. Over the next two years, the Mongols, under the leadership of Baiju, crossed into Anatolia, capturing Seljuk territory, including the large city of Erzurum. In 1243, the climactic Battle of Kose Dag was fought, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Sultanate. Following the battle, the Sultanate became a mere vassal of the Mongol Empire.

1244-1296: Decline (Mid-Cycle)

Keyhusrev fled to the city of Antalya soon after running away from the enemy at Kose Dag. He died in 1246, and the Empire entered a tripartite system ruled by his sons, which was followed by dual rule until 1260, when the eldest was executed by the Mongols for continuing to battle Baiju. The middle was executed in 1265, and thereafter, the youngest, Kayqubad II, took sole control of the struggling state. However, the majority of power lay in the hands of the Mongols. In 1277, the Egyptian Mameluks replaced the Mongols as rulers of Anatolia, but the change was only temporary, as the Mongols returned with a vengeance. By 1282, only the area surrounding Konya remained in the hands of the Seljuks. The situation worsened when Kayqubad was executed, as it resulted in a serious blow to Seljuk stability. The conditions continued to worsen until the fall of the Seljuk regime.

It is here that we shift the focus from the Seljuk timeline to Ottoman Empire timeline. Please take note that the establishment of the Ottoman Empire coincides with the virtual collapse of the Seljuk regime, thus smoothing out any discrepancies between those living in Anatolia and their future Ottoman rulers.

~1297-1300: Founding of Ottoman Empire (Crisis?)

Legend has it that a band of warriors from Central Asia led by a man named Ertughrul and his son Osman appeared at the scene of a battle between the Mongols and the Seljuks. Seeing that the Mongols were winning, Ertughrul joined the Seljuks in battle, thus enabling them to win the battle. The empire was saved, and Seljuk Sultan Kaihusrev II rewarded Ertughrul by giving him a piece of land around the battlefield.

In 1299, 18 years after Ertughrul’s death, Osman declared his land separate from the collapsing Seljuk Empire, which was in a constant state of rebellion and turmoil. This marked the establishment of the Ottoman Emirate, or the House of Osman, a Sunni political organization.

1301-1388: Rise (Mid-Cycle)

Over the next few decades, the Ottoman territory expanded throughout Anatolia. The Byzantine Empire saw its foothold along the shores of Anatolia collapsing, and was forced to withdraw substantially when faced with The Ottomans continually laying siege to their forts. The near-dead Seljuk Empire was quickly incorporated into the Ottoman Emirate over the years, as the Ottomans marched into Europe fighting the Byzantines, Serbs, and Bulgarians. The advance into Europe continued as Murad I declared himself Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. In 1389, he was killed in the victorious Battle of Kosovo against the Serbs, leaving the newly formed and greatly expanding Empire to his son Beyazid I.

1389-1402: Beyazid I/Timur Invasion (Crisis)

Beyazid flew into a rage upon hearing the news of his father’s death. He ordered all Serbian prisoners taken from the Battle of Kosovo to be executed. However, his attitude toward the Serbs reversed when in a change of events, Hungary briefly became the primary threat, and the Serbs eventually became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire. Beyazid then focused on Wallachia (located in modern-day Romania), but was defeated in numerous battles despite his greater amount of forces. Later that year, Beyazid laid siege to Constantinople, prompting a Christian crusade to save the city. The Christian allies were defeated, and Constantinople remained under siege until 1401. In 1400, a grave threat was imposed by Timur, a Central Asian warlord. Timur had convinced many Turkic Janissaries (also known as Beyliks) to attack Beyazid. The fateful Battle of Ankara was fought in 1402, and the Ottomans were soundly defeated. Days later, Timur captured the fleeing sultan, holding him prisoner until his death. With the Sultanate’s power broken, the empire fell into chaos.

1403-1450: Rise (Mid-Cycle)

What happened next was remarkable. In 51 years, the Ottoman Empire rebounded from the brink of destruction to being in possession of the last great vestige of the Roman Empire. The years following the Battle of Ankara are known as the Ottoman Interregnum. The children of Beyazid fought against each other for territory, and the result was chaos in an era where stability was so badly desired. By 1413, Mehmed I stood as the victor. He relocated the capital from Bursa to Adrianople and drove the Mongols back out of Anatolia and brought once-seceded territories back under Ottoman control. Mehmed died in 1421 and his son, Murad II, immediately laid siege on Constantinople, forcing the Byzantines to pay tribute. Weakening control of Byzantine-held Greek city-states led the Empire of Venice to take control of Thessaloniki. The Ottomans laid siege to the city, completely unaware of the transfer of power, which led to a new war with Venice. This prompted an alliance between Serbia, Hungary, Austria, and Venice against the Ottomans. The Ottoman army had to be split, and after some setbacks, began to win battle after battle, forcing a treaty with Venice in 1432. Thessaloniki was now under Ottoman control. The war against Serbia and Hungary continued at a snail’s pace until the Holy Roman Empire intervened on the Christians’ behalf. Due to this powerful alliance, in 1444, Murad was forced to abdicate in favor of his son and give up eastern territory through a peace treaty. However, the Christians soon violated this treaty and attacked. Murad responded swiftly and defeated the alliance. He was reinstated as Sultan in 1446. Mehmed I replaced his father upon his death in 1451.

1451-1453: Fall of Constantinople (Crisis)

The Anatolian Karaminid Empire was quickly annexed upon Mehmed’s taking power. When the Byzantines asked for more tribute for supporting Mehmed, he used it as a pretext for launching the greatest and final siege of Constantinople. After repeated failures in bringing down the huge stone walls with catapults, and disaster in the underground tunnels they had dug to sap them, Mehmed ordered his army to overpower the city, despite warnings that this tactic would end in disaster. With few defenders (the Ottomans may have had an attacking army 20 times the size of the Byzantines) but great defensive fortifications and arms, the Byzantines could inflict casualties on the Ottomans and hold nearly the invaders off. The first two Ottoman waves were repulsed, and so was the third, composed of elite Janissaries. However, a victory against Byzantine-allied Christian land troops proved hopeful as to the course of the war. Bizarrely, in the retreat, a gate was left unlocked; and upon realizing this, the Ottomans took advantage of the mistake and rushed in. While civilian casualties were high upon the invasion, Mehmed realized the great opportunity that had been afforded to him, and issued a decree that all civilians in hiding would be free to go about their business.

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of the fall of Constantinople. The final remains of the Roman Empire were gone, and this ushered in a new era for the Ottoman Empire, instantly catapulting them from a simple regional power to the universally recognized leaders of the Muslim world. Constantinople was made the imperial capital, and Mehmed considered himself the legitimate successor to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire. However, they were not the only ones who claimed to be the inheritors of the (Greek Orthodox) Byzantine Empire, setting up a fault between them and the Russians.

1454-1508: Growth (Mid-Cycle)

The capture of Constantinople ushered in a new period of rapid advancement and expansion. Confident in his ability to wage war, Mehmed and his armies conquered the small remaining offshoots of the Roman Empire and assisted his ally in the takeover of Wallachia. The Ottoman Empire then came into conflict with the eastern European Moldavian Empire; and although after losing a great battle, the Ottomans successfully sacked their capital, but were forced to retreat soon after. Perhaps hubris caught hold of Mehmed, who attempted an invasion of Italy in 1480 with the intent of capturing Rome and reunite the Roman Empire. After early successes, rebellion in recently captured regions took its toll on the invasion. Mehmed died in 1481, and after a brief and inconsequential succession conflict, his son Beyazid II came to the throne and removed the armies from the Italian peninsula. Beyazid’s reign was marred by rebellion, especially in eastern territories -- which were certainly helped along by Ismail of the newly- formed Safavid Empire. In 1492, Beyazid sent his navy North to Spain to rescue Jews and Arabs fleeing the Spanish Inquisition, thus bringing new culture and ideas to the growing empire, not to mention the printing press!

1509-1521?: Selim I Conquests (Crisis)

In 1509, Constantinople was rocked by a powerful earthquake that nearly devastated the city. Shortly thereafter, in Beyazid’s old age, a succession crisis between his two sons, Selim and Ahmed developed. The elder Ahmed, eager after winning a battle, marched towards Constantinople with dubious intentions. Selim then staged a revolt, but was forced to flee to Crimea by Beyazid, who also refused to allow Ahmed into the city. Selim returned with an army of Janissaries, and killed Ahmed outside the gates. Beyazid then abdicated the throne and died shortly thereafter. Selim I, noting his grandfather Mehmed’s successful policy of killing all possible threats to the throne as well (as the troubles with both his and his father’s ascension), murdered all his nephews and brothers. When the dirty business was finished, Selim focused on the external problems that faced the Ottoman Empire, thus bringing out the greatest period of expansion in Ottoman history. The Shi’a Safavid’s were first on the list of threats. Next came the powerful Mameluk Empire in Egypt, followed by the holy sites of Islam and the Abbasid Empire. By the time of his death in 1520, Algiers, Alexandria, Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, Damascus, Baghdad, and Cairo had been incorporated into the empire. In 1521 under his son, a revolt was brutally put down; and later that year, the Serbian city of Belgrade was captured. This incredible period of conquest ushered in a new era, one where they were arguably the most powerful and culturally advanced empire in the world.

1522-1540: Suleiman the Magnificent (Recovery)

It’s difficult to determine the crisis climax for the crisis under Selim I’s rule, as his son, Suleiman I, continued with this policy of conquest, albeit at a slower rate. In 1526, the battle of Mohacs took place, which led to the capture of Buda. In 1529, he laid siege to Vienna, but was forced to turn back. The rest of the North African coast was conquered in the 1530s as well as parts of central Asia.

Suleiman is generally considered to be the greatest Ottoman ruler. Regarded as a benevolent yet just ruler, he presided over the apogee of the empire, and is known throughout the western world as “The Magnificent.” In the Islamic world, he is known as “The Lawgiver,” as he decreed more laws than any Ottoman leader before or since and reformed the judicial system, removing double standards and issuing a single legal code based on Islamic Shari’ah. Under his rule, architecture and society thrived.

1540-1559: Suleiman the Lawgiver (Awakening)


The administrative reforms that were instituted around 1540 were somewhat marred by internal and external problems. Over the course of Suleiman’s rule, the Ottoman population had jumped from 12 million to 22 million, and many newly conquered provinces returned to the old laws of taxation due to economic problems. Revolts in the 1550s only exacerbated the pressing economic issues. With such a huge empire, these problems could not be properly controlled. Increased taxation was met with greater resistance, and the Janissary corps became rowdy and undisciplined. Furthermore, political strife in the capital occupied much of the time of the Sultan. A Mediterranean campaign was launched in 1543, and after a few missteps, it was decided that a truce was in order. Later, a campaign to defeat the Safavid Shah failed. In 1559, civil war broke out between two of Suleiman’s sons (prior to this, the popular heir apparent had put to death, which sparked protest throughout Anatolia), to whom he had given territory. These disappointments caused the Sultan to mostly withdraw from public life.

1560-1580: Selim the Sot (Unraveling)

Selim had won the brief civil war, and the Ottomans, led by the aging Suleiman, laid siege to Malta in 1565; but the easy victory was deterred by reinforcement by Spain, resulting in a disastrous loss. Suleiman died the next year, and was replaced by Selim II. Unlike his father, Selim II had no political interest. He was more concerned with reaping the benefits that being Sultan afforded him. As such, he was referred to by dissidents as “Selim the Drunkard.” Selim II ordered the siege of the Russian cities, but was driven back. In 1570, a peace treaty between the two empires was signed at Constantinople. The following year, the Ottoman Navy was nearly destroyed by a joint Spanish and Italian force, thus signaling the end of the era of expansion. Selim died in 1574 and was replaced by Murad III, who was no better a leader than Selim.

Undermined at every turn and plagued by institutional decay and their own personal habits, Selim and Murad are often blamed for the decline of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, an important precedent was set during this time undoubtedly had a major effect on the fate of the empire. The old habit of (literally) strangling all threats the throne was replaced by locking them in jail, leading to some nutcases advancing the title of Sultan.

1581-1592: Towards War (Post-Unraveling Era)

The relative piece that followed Suleiman’s death began to show strains throughout the final years of Murad’s reign. Problems with the Hapsburg Empire began to assert itself more seriously than any time since the Battle of Mohacs in 1526. A desperate peace treaty was signed in 1586. In the late 1580s, a tax increase was instituted to repair the collapsing economy, which led to revolt in the early 1590s in some areas; which in turn led to small wars, especially in Croatia. Another peace treaty was signed with the Hapsburgs in 1590. A series of confrontational acts surrounding the problems in Croatia and territory disputes led the Ottomans to declare war in 1593.

1593-1606: The Long War (Crisis)

Mehmed III rose to the throne upon Murad’s death in 1595. He deposed his military commander, Sinan Pasha, shortly after his ascension (who continually rose and fell from power) and personally led the campaign himself. Casualties were very heavy throughout the Long War on both sides throughout the 1590s, and no end could be seen until the rise of Stephen Bocksay. Bocksay was a Hungarian nobleman from Transylvania; and to save his homeland, he led an anti-Hapsburg uprising and assisted the Ottoman Turks, thus tipping the scale toward the allies, forcing a truce, and finally ending the costly and exhaustive Long War. The Peace of Zsitvatorok was signed and the Hapsburgs were forced to increase their tribute to the Ottomans, although no territory changes were made. The Ottomans, led by Ahmed I, now viewed their Hapsburg rivals as equals.

Part two should be completed sometime soon.

I'm going to have to put this on hiatus until Thanksgiving break. I worked all summer on the world crisis list and I kind of burned myself out. I'm beginning to feel that this is more of a responsibility than something I elected to do, and the last thing I wanted this to be was a chore.

See you in Thanksgiving!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I'm going to have to put this on hiatus until Thanksgiving break. I worked all summer on the world crisis list and I kind of burned myself out. I'm beginning to feel that this is more of a responsibility than something I elected to do, and the last thing I wanted this to be was a chore.

See you in Thanksgiving!

Doing this kind of work always takes a lot out of you. But your effort is much appreciated.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

I've decided to post what I've completed so far, which is everything this side of the Atlantic. The rest is coming.

Internal Crisis War (ethnic) -- Major war among ethnic groups.
Internal Crisis War (political) -- Major war along political lines in a country.
External Crisis War -- Pretty Straightforward. Nations fighting other nations.
Rebellion -- Perhaps a war, but not a Crisis War. Just a major rebellion.
High Instability -- Not really a full rebellion, nor just a coup. But lots of crap.
Coup -- Perhaps riots and some violence, but its a coup first.
Reform -- A major period of reform without much of the above.
Miscellaneous -- Stuff that doesn't fit. Economics, government killing its own people.

The order is intentional (although External Crisis War could be moved to the number 1 spot) and one should go down the list for evaluation. For example, if there is a Civil War between two different political parties (option 2), but the parties are exclusively made up of two different ethnic groups, then it would be option 1. Or if there is a full-blown rebellion that is capped off by a coup, then it fits under a rebellion, since rebellion indicates a higher level of Crisis energy.

Some countries may have to have two categories such as China's most recent Crisis and the American Revolution, which involved both an internal and external war.

There is an disproportionate amount of 'High Instability' in this list.

Here goes:

Internal Crisis War (ethnic)

Internal Crisis War (political)

USA -- Revolutionary War -- 1773-1783
USA -- Civil War -- 1856-1865
Mexico -- Mexican Revolution -- 1910-1921
Cuba -- Cuban Revolution -- 1956-1959
Guatemala -- Civil War -- 1966-1983
El Salvador -- Salvadoran Civil War -- 1980-1992
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru Bolivia -- Bolivar’s War -- 1811-1825
Colombia -- War of a Thousand Days -- 1886-1902
Colombia -- La Violencia -- 1948-1958

External Crisis War

USA -- Revolutionary War -- 1773-1783
USA, Western Europe (minus Spain) -- World War Two -- 1929-1945
Mexico -- War of Independence -- 1810-1821
Cuba -- Ten Years War -- 1868-1878
Haiti -- Haitian Revolution -- 1791-1804
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru Bolivia -- Bolivar’s War -- 1811-1825
Brazil -- Brazilian War of Independence -- 1821-1825 (could be placed in ‘Rebellion’)
Peru -- Peruvian War of Independence -- 1812-1824
Peru, Bolivia, Chile -- War of the Pacific -- 1878-1884
Paraguay, Argentina -- War of the Triple Alliance -- 1864-1870
Paraguay -- Chaco War -- 1932-1935
Uruguay -- Uruguayan War of Independence -- 1811-1825
Chile -- Chilean War of Independence -- 1810-1825
Argentina -- Argentinean War of Independence -- 1810-1817

Rebellion

Haiti -- 1915 Coup + Rebellion -- 1911-1934
Ecuador -- Liberal Takeover + Civil War -- 1895-1911 (possibly aborted civil war)

High Instability

Honduras -- Football War + Coups etc. -- 1963-1983
Brazil -- Establishment of Old Republic -- 1889-1898
Brazil -- Military Takeover -- 1964-1974
Ecuador -- Instability and Military Dominance -- 1960-1972
Peru -- Instability and Military Dominance -- 1968-1985
Bolivia -- Revolutionary Nationalist Movement -- 1952-1980
Suriname -- 1980 Coups plus Rebellion -- 1980-1992
Uruguay -- Military Government -- 1959-1980

Coup


Reform

Uruguay -- José Batlle y Ordóñez -- 1903-1915

Miscellaneous

Chile -- Pinochet Rule -- 1973-1978
Argentina -- Dirty War -- 1973-1983

---------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. Let me know if I made a mistake!

Matt

Internal Crisis War (Political) can be further subdivided.

1. American Civil War-attempted secession.

2. War of the Roses-which faction will rule?


Under the category of Reform one could includes Britain's 19th Century Reform Crisis.

Canada's 19th Century Confederation Crisis, I suppose, could go under Miscellaneous.

This hemisphere has been spared Ethnic Internal Crisis Wars - so far they seem to be confined to either those parts of Africa where the colonial powers meddled with the old tribal boundaries, to the former Yugoslavia, where one could lay the same charge at the door of the Communist regime; and post-Independence India. (All Old World, of course.)

Have I missed any?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

This hemisphere has been spared Ethnic Internal Crisis Wars - so far they seem to be confined to either those parts of Africa where the colonial powers meddled with the old tribal boundaries, to the former Yugoslavia, where one could lay the same charge at the door of the Communist regime; and post-Independence India. (All Old World, of course.)

So far, so good, on that one. Still, I would be willing to bet that there are some idiot or idiots out there who would be prefectly willing to try to spark off said insanity, right here in the USA.

David Duke or Al Sharpton are six of one or a half dozen of the other, to name two, as far as I'm concerned.

LOL @ me and Silifi from one year.5 ago.

Updated Map:



Hopefully Sudan (which is on multiple timelines) and Sri Lanka will be blue by the next update.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

LOL @ me and Silifi from one year.5 ago.

Updated Map:



Hopefully Sudan (which is on multiple timelines) and Sri Lanka will be blue by the next update.

Congo being in a High sort of scares me...

Originally Posted by Matt1989

LOL @ me and Silifi from one year.5 ago.

Updated Map:



Hopefully Sudan (which is on multiple timelines) and Sri Lanka will be blue by the next update.

So you've finally come around to Russia being 1T. Our maps are starting to look really similar, other than me having virtually the whole former Soviet bloc in 1T blue. Also, I have Burma 4T and you have it 3T (remind me -- if not WWII, what do you think was Burma's last Crisis era?).

And Afghanistan kind of fascinates me. For whatever reason, I have it red. But you've switched it to 2T green...are you viewing the Soviet occupation/civil war of the 1970s-80s as the last 4T? I could see that. The funny thing, though, is this: if Afghanistan is 2T (as Iraq fairly clearly is), then why is the violence escalating in Afghanistan while it subsides in Iraq? I'm not looking for political answers ("the troop surge did it"), but generational ones ("Iraq is further along in its 2T", for example). I feel like the out-of-control violence in Iraq circa 2006 resembles the U.S. around 1968, while Iraq today is seeming more a calmer, yet vaguely fragmented, society like us in the wistful, moody early 1970s.

I wish I had a better handle on what's actually going on in Afghanistan. All the woeful American media reports is A) that Afghanistan is worse than Iraq right now, B) that its economy is heavily reliant on illegal drugs, and C) Obama wants to send in reinforcements.

EDIT: I've been away from TFT...has anyone been tracking the recession? Wikipedia has a map of countries officially in recession, and it's positively uncanny...they correlate strongly with the major players of WWII (Canada, the U.S., almost the entirety of Europe west of the old Iron Curtain, and Japan are all in recession now).

Originally Posted by 1990

So you've finally come around to Russia being 1T.

I'm still not quite sure, but I'm on that side of the fence. It is a bit of an oddity for a financial crisis to act as a climax, but Russia has not been acting consistently with what I would expect from a 5T country in a severe financial crisis.

Also, I have Burma 4T and you have it 3T (remind me -- if not WWII, what do you think was Burma's last Crisis era?).

Their civil war from 1948-1958. They had a major Awakening in the 80s.

And Afghanistan kind of fascinates me. For whatever reason, I have it red. But you've switched it to 2T green...are you viewing the Soviet occupation/civil war of the 1970s-80s as the last 4T? I could see that. The funny thing, though, is this: if Afghanistan is 2T (as Iraq fairly clearly is), then why is the violence escalating in Afghanistan while it subsides in Iraq? I'm not looking for political answers ("the troop surge did it"), but generational ones ("Iraq is further along in its 2T", for example). I feel like the out-of-control violence in Iraq circa 2006 resembles the U.S. around 1968, while Iraq today is seeming more a calmer, yet vaguely fragmented, society like us in the wistful, moody early 1970s.

I wish I had a better handle on what's actually going on in Afghanistan. All the woeful American media reports is A) that Afghanistan is worse than Iraq right now, B) that its economy is heavily reliant on illegal drugs, and C) Obama wants to send in reinforcements.

I'm not sure I ever had Afghanistan in a 4T. I wrote a brief history here.

The best explanation is that, after 16-17+ years of a Recovery, Afghanistan is transitioning into an Awakening -- which Iraq has been in for some time.

EDIT: I've been away from TFT...has anyone been tracking the recession? Wikipedia has a map of countries officially in recession, and it's positively uncanny...they correlate strongly with the major players of WWII (Canada, the U.S., almost the entirety of Europe west of the old Iron Curtain, and Japan are all in recession now).

Here's the link. That is striking. Look at the Balkans! Naturally, other non-4T countries are going to be inevitably sucked into the financial crisis, but they will probably respond more carefully (and will probably turn out better for it).

Japan is experiencing a depression, and the numbers will reflect that. (GDP dropped 12.7% annually 4Q 2008). China reportedly lost 20,000,000 jobs in the 4Q also. Mexico is going to hell and probably beats Pakistan for the prestigious "government most likely to collapse in 2009" award.

Bumped so I and other's can find it again. Good recovery HTea!

Originally Posted by Tone70

Bumped so I and other's can find it again. Good recovery HTea!

Thank you.
I wish tht I could remember which specific post the 93% chance of a 4T war is on.
I will add that given the nuclear technology that we have the 7% exception, as Deb noted above is going to have to become th new rule or else there AMy not be a 1T to follow the nuclear 4T.

As a newbie to the forum, I'm about 2 laps behind. I've been trying to get a look at David McGuinness' list of turnings as a base of references, but the links to it are no longer valid. Could someone point me to the correct link?

Doesn't seem to be a category for this.... What if this 4T should play out as a prolonged Depression?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Doesn't seem to be a category for this.... What if this 4T should play out as a prolonged Depression?

IMNSHO, if our policy makers worship at the shrine of austerity for too long that is exactly what will happen.

Perhaps there could be a generic Economic category. Japan's Rebuilding Crisis (in the aftermath of WWII) would qualify.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Part two should be completed sometime soon.

Great stuff. I would suspect Austria would be on roughly the same cycle, too. After all, their huge wars were with each other. And you are "on the pace" to have another crisis climaxing with the siege of Vienna (1683.)

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Part two should be completed sometime soon.

Remarkable! The significance of the Ottoman Empire is vastly underestimated in the West. It was quite possibly the Greatest Power in European history between the Byzantine Empire at its peak and the British Empire even if it was on the fringe and was often seen as an outlaw. It had its faults, but it wasn't the worst of all empires. Most peoples in the southeastern Europe would have considered the Ottoman Empire genuine defenders or liberators in the mid-1940s.

Taking the New Deal into consideration, Depression and Reform may occur in the same 4T.