Originally Posted by Chas'88

Low Mimetic would be about the Bourgeoisie, Odin. People who live in their parlors, drawing rooms, or living rooms. Families who have a business that they own or manage. Anyone lower starts getting into the area of the era of Irony.

Low Mimetic Comedy would be more Jane Austen (Pride & Prejudice) & the classical example would be Menander (Dyskolos aka The Grouch). Very often Cinderella-type stories live here.

Low Mimetic Tragedy would be more often found in Henrik Ibsen (Ghosts, A Doll's House). Frequently the theme about the disintegration of a family or a family falling apart is what this stage is often about. Modern films about divorce would live here if they made more of the tragedy of the situation and Silent & Xer sarcasm didn't make them so chock full of satire with that sardonic look on life,.

You'll see Of Mice and Men mentioned in the other thread, under the world of Satire & Irony.



Take your time. I just thought you might be interested.

~Chas'88

DOH, take back everything I said about not liking Satire and Irony, then!

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I propose a series of "Mega-Awakenings", cultural transformations paced about three centuries (saeculae) apart, that created our modern world. Four of the first five comprise the beginnings of most of the great religions and the rise of philosophy. The ones in the 4th and 10th centuries involve major developments in the Christian and Western branch of the church that put Christianity at an institutional level on par with Islam, which, being more centrally organized from the start and growing in more technologically advanced regions, had achieved this level by the 10th century under the Abbasid Caliphate.

The inherent disorganization of Christianity relative to Islam led to a breakdown in the unity achieved by the 12th century that was manifested in the next two mega-awakenings. The decentralized nature of Western Christianity created the conditions by which the massive transformation of the most recent mega-awakening that we call the Industrial Revolution took place. Seven of the nine mega-awakennings are centered* on S&H-type Awakening turnings. (*center = the average of the dates of the events falling into the mega-awakening)

The mega Awakenings are listed below:

Axial age (6^th cent BC)Center falls in the mid-500's BC, during a McGuinness Unraveling turning over 569-539 BC:

Siddhartha Guatama, (c583- c503 BC) - Buddhism

I need to nitpick, here. Many historians now think that the traditional dates for The Buddha's birth and death are a century too early and that he died around 400 BC

In this and the next post I illustrate the use of the economic story to assess two turning schemes for the three to four centuries before 1435. One scheme is David McGuinness's scheme, which I have previously presented. The other is a scheme I copied from an old post, which I simply cannot find again. I cannot recall the poster. Here it is, it is for generations not turnings:

Late Medieval:
A 1461-1482
H 1433-1460 (these two are of course from T4T)
N 1407-1432 The Kingmaker; Henry VI
P 1382-1406 Henry V

A 1355-1381 Richard II; Henry IV
H 1330-1354 The Black Prince; John of Gaunt
N 1304-1329 Edward III
P 1280-1303 Edward II

A 1256-1279
H No Hero Gen
N 1232-1255 Edward I; Simon de Montfort's kids; Davydd Prince of Wales (L. Last's brother)
P 1208-1231 Simon de Montfort; Nell Plantagenet (Simon's wife & Henry III's sister); Llewelyn the Last of Wales

A 1183-1207 Henry III
H 1158-1182 John Lackland; Richard I; Llewelyn the Great of Wales
N 1133-1157 Henry II
P 1108-1132 Eleanor of Aquitaine

A 1083-1107 Empress Maud; Stephen
H 1058-1082 Henry I
N 1033-1057 William II (Rufus)
P 1008-1032 William I (the Conqueror)

I converted these gens into the corresponding turnings by adding 3 years and used it for analysis. First I will present the analysis using McGuinness's turnings because I already have this done.

This table summarizes three measures of economic or social distress as applied to McGuiness turnings. Values in bold are for social moment turnings (Crisis and Awakening turnings). Upwaves refer to the rising portion of the K-wave, which is a time of falling real wages, implying declining living standards for wage earners (presumably rising popular discontent).

Turning	Type	Upwaves	Food stress	Bldg	Adj avg
1022-1049	U	--	--	3	--
1049-1071	C	--	--	4.5	8.3
1071-1095	H	--	--	13.5	4.8
1095-1122	A	--	--	5	13.8
1122-1147	U	--	--	14	6.0
1147-1176	C	--	0.44	7	9.0
1176-1204	H	--	0.24	4	4.5
1204-1231	A	--	0.46	2	5.0
1231-1258	U	--	0.33	6	2.8
1258-1282	C	--	0.34	3.5	5.3
1282-1305	H	--	0.27	4.5	1.8
1305-1328	A	--	0.45	0	3.8
1328-1348	U	--	0.19	3	0.5
1348-1378	C	1340-1370	0.47	1	1.5
1378-1406	H	--	0.29		2.5
1406-1435	A	1392-1435	0.35	4	1.5
1436-1459	U	--	0.33	3	2.5
1459-1487	C	1464-1490	0.36	1	2.5
1487-1517	H	--	0.34	2	1.0

Food stress is the average price level relative to the long-term trend. High values (in bold) mean food is in short supply and large numbers of people are hungry or even starving. You can clearly see alternating high and low periods with the high (stressful) periods corresponding to the Crisis and Awakening turnings up until the Plague crisis. The population decline after the Plague reduced the population relative to the amount of land, eliminating food stress as a problem. During the time when it was operative, the average value during the Crisis and Awakening turnings was 0.43 compared to 0.26 for the High and Unraveling turnings. This difference is >99.7% statistically significant.

The final measure shows the number of great religious buildings (cathedrals, abbeys, chapels etc.) that were started in each turning. Construction starts that occur on boundary years were split between the turnings, which is why you see half-buildings in some turnings. To the right is the average number of buildings started in the adjacent turnings, which are of course of the opposite social moment type. Looking at these columns you can see that construction during social moment turnings tends to be less than construction during the adjacent nonsocial moment turnings. Likewise construction during non-social moments is greater than during the adjacent social moment turnings. Thus pattern is seen for 15 of the 18 comparisons. If there were no effect of turning on construction you would expect this to be true half the time. So this is like flipping 18 coins and having 15 of them come up the same, an outcome that is >99.2% statistically significant.

What this says is periods identified by Dave McGuiness as social moment turnings show significantly higher physical or economic distress amongst the populace and show less large-scale building activity. It makes sense that when times are hard and people are starving the church isn’t going to be able to get much work accomplished on construction projects. By using all these measures I am able to show a consistent pattern of high stress during social moments for four centuries before the beginning of the S&H saeculum, which can be used to justify turning assignments.

In this post, I apply the same analysis to the other turning scheme.

Period	Type	Bldg	Adj	Pattern?	Stress
1035-1060	A	5	--		--
1060-1085	U	11	6	Y	--
1085-1110	C	7	11	Y	--
1110-1135	H	11	7.5	Y	--
1135-1160	A	10.5	7.5	N	--
1160-1185	U	3.5	5.5	N	0.38
1185-1210	C	3	3	N	0.27
1210-1234	H	2	4.5	N	0.46
1234-1258	A	6	3	N	0.32
Hero gen missing
1258-1282	C	3.5	5.5	Y	0.36
1282-1306	H	4.5	2	Y	0.27
1306-1332	A	0	4	Y	0.45
1332-1357	U	3	0.5	Y	0.24
1357-1384	C	1	1.5	Y	0.46
1384-1409	H		2.5	N	0.29
1409-1435	A	4	1.5	N	--
1435-1459	U	3	2.5	Y	--
1459-1487	C	1	2.5	Y	--
1487-1517	H	2	1	Y	--

For the period after the mid-13th century, this scheme hits the stress cycle pretty much on the mark. Average stress during social moment turnings (bold) was 0.42 compared to 0.27 for non-social moments a difference that is statistically significant at >98.7%. The building data fits the pattern 8 of ten times, which is significant at the 89% level.

In the mid-13th century a Hero generation gets skipped. Before this, average stress during social moments (0.30) is lower than average stress (0.42) during non-social moments. That is, the pattern suddenly shifts. For buildings, three of eight fit the pattern, a result not significantly different from the four of eight expected from random chance. Based on this analysis, the dropped hero generation and the saeculum before it is probably wrong.

On the other hand, suppose after the dropped hero generation, the pattern again lined up with the stress cycle? Both schemes would show similar turning dates, with social moments lined up with stress periods But the labeling would be different, where one scheme has an Awakening, the other has a Crisis, and vice versa. In this case there would be two equally-valid saeculum schemes as far as the economic story is concerned. How to choose between them? To go further one has to look at another story, that deals with things that the economic story does not. Hence the need for the mega-awakening story, which I presented earlier.

This situation arose when I was considering the Roman saeculum. I did not agree with McGuiness's turnings because I did not see them aligning with what I perceived to be the stressful periods, so I came up with my own that did match up better. When Kurt Horner posted his Roman saeculum, I found my turnings and his lined up pretty well, except we had opposite assignments, where he had an Awakening I had a Crisis and vice versa. Hence a need for a mega-awakening story to resolve the differences.

This same thing happened when I began the saeculum before 1435 thread. Chas saw social moments where I saw social moments. His lined up with the stress periods without ever knowing about it. This happened because the stress can sometimes be perceived from the behavior of the elites whose doings the chronicles record. When a period is fairly “clean” you can see the pattern, as Chas noted with the “oscillatory baronial struggles” with Matilda’s son Henry forcing Stephen of Blois to make him heir in the mid-12^th century social moment turning, his son John’s troubles with the barons (1^st Baron’s war) in the next social moment and then more of the same (2^nd Baron’s war) in the social moment after that.

It turns out that Chas and I had the same Awakening-Crisis switcheroo. He saw the early 13th century social moment as a Crisis, I saw it as an Awakening. I responded by pointing out the very awakening-like character of this turning, in which I compared the rise and spread of the Mendicant movement to the rise and spread of the Protestant moment three centuries later.

It then occurred to me that the Mendicant movement, although deeply spiritual in nature, also has the potential for raising political awareness about fairness, that could have informed the rather class-struggle kinds of movements that arose in the next century that I had read about in Barbara Tuchman’s book about the 14^th century. So I researched the idea that the Mendicant movement might have “seeded” the Reformation, and wrote up my story beginning with Peter of Waldo and ending with the Hussites. And from that comes the mega-awakening as a way to frame similar stories that could be used for finding turnings farther back, particularly for periods without any economic data.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This same thing happened when I began the saeculum before 1435 thread. Chas saw social moments where I saw social moments. His lined up with the stress periods without ever knowing about it. This happened because the stress can sometimes be perceived from the behavior of the elites whose doings the chronicles record.

That's the problem I see with these alleged saecula. The elites are the "doings the chronicles record" because they are the only ones doing anything, except to do what their fathers did. Who cares about these elites, and their fights over who will lord over the peasants?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's the problem I see with these alleged saecula. The elites are the "doings the chronicles record" because they are the only ones doing anything, except to do what their fathers did. Who cares about these elites, and their fights over who will lord over the peasants?

Given the peasants were the fodder in said fights, probably the peasants.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Given the peasants were the fodder in said fights, probably the peasants.

Precisely. The taxes levied on Baron's were typically passed on to their vassals, who didn't like this anymore that they did. Although large scale popular revolts were rare before 1300, local risings were not uncommon and were an issue the nobles would prefer not to have to deal with. So part of Baronial oppostion might reflect pushback from some of the smaller people. It is true that the behavor of the broad masses was not typically recorded in the chronicles, Is this really all that different today, doesn't our media do a lot of documentation of the doings of celebrities? But we can infer something of the mood of the people using the economic story, for example the stress indicator. No monarch or baron ever went hungry in a time of famine; they did not directly experience food stress, yet the correlation of social moments with stress indicates that the common people were having an impact on the history being made.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Precisely. The taxes levied on Barons were typically passed on to their vassals, who didn't like this anymore than they did. Although large scale popular revolts were rare before 1300, local risings were not uncommon and were an issue the nobles would prefer not to have to deal with. So part of Baronial opposition might reflect pushback from some of the smaller people. It is true that the behavior of the broad masses was not typically recorded in the chronicles. Is this really all that different today, doesn't our media do a lot of documentation of the doings of celebrities? But we can infer something of the mood of the people using the economic story, for example the stress indicator. No monarch or baron ever went hungry in a time of famine; they did not directly experience food stress, yet the correlation of social moments with stress indicates that the common people were having an impact on the history being made.

No, a war that involves the people is a modern phenomenon, since the French Revolution. The wars were fought by the barons and their knights. The people had no voice in what was going on. I see your point that local riots from economic stress might effect contemporary crises in rulership. I don't see much connection though. The crises in rulership seem to me isolated fights among rulers over who would rule. The wars of the roses of course is exhibit A, and the fight between Stephen and Matilda or the troubles of Henry III with Montfort are other examples. Or the constant contests among the Anglo-Saxon kings. These stresses seem ongoing and there's not much pattern to them.

Since the peasants have no means of impacting their way of life other than periodic hunger riots, I don't see any basis for claiming that these stresses produce differences in generations. The ways of life remain the same, and economic troubles or riots would not have created a new generation archetype. There were no national economies producing booms and busts, but only droughts, floods and famines that could happen at any time. Generations assumes that different archetypes shift their values in response to the other generations. But if all generations are the same, and never change their way of life, but just do what their parents did on a local level, then there are no shifts, and there is no cycle. Nor can there be contests between civics and prophets, because they never live at the same time. People died too early for that, and the generations were too long for that. You'd also have to conceive of many generations that included both fathers and their sons.

We can see some indications of economic, artistic or political cycles, but they are not necessarily turnings and saecula, and remember that the ancient and medieval cycles can't be compared to modern ones. Renaissance-era generation cycles are somewhat more plausible, but some of the problems I mention above remain with them. They can't consist of 4 living generational archetypes who occupy 4 different stages of life, because the turnings are longer and life-spans shorter. And if we do slow down in our modern industrial way of life, the cycle may be slowing down again too.

No, the peasants fought, they just weren't party to determining if they fought. The vassals conscripted the peasantry into the military, that's how people could, concievably, advance in rank and society. The vassals and lords and all the people with titles were more or less folks who fought in petty conflicts.

Originally Posted by Kepi

No, the peasants fought, they just weren't party to determining if they fought. The vassals conscripted the peasantry into the military, that's how people could, conceivably, advance in rank and society. The vassals and lords and all the people with titles were more or less folks who fought in petty conflicts.

Still a small minority of the population. The vast majority remained peasants or craftsmen from generation to generation. There were no advances in rank and society, and careers were not open to talent. That only happened in modern times. In renaissance era times the merchant class expanded, but that was the only pre-modern shift.

If you go earlier, to the dark ages and barbarism, then more people were fighting. But at that time, society consisted only of fighting, and farming when safe enough.

A concept that peasants "weren't party to determining if they fought" is no different from modern conditions in that respect.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Still a small minority of the population. The vast majority remained peasants or craftsmen from generation to generation. There were no advances in rank and society, and careers were not open to talent. That only happened in modern times. In renaissance era times the merchant class expanded, but that was the only pre-modern shift.

If you go earlier, to the dark ages and barbarism, then more people were fighting. But at that time, society consisted only of fighting, and farming when safe enough.

A concept that peasants "weren't party to determining if they fought" is no different from modern conditions in that respect.

Actually, craftsmen were in short supply. Most people farmed. Conscripted men, craftsmen, vassals, these weren't the majority any more than they're the majority today. Also fighting and farming weren't the only things going on. Craftsmen, like you mentioned had a pretty decent lot in life (you don't conscript the blacksmith) and involved, frequently, with a political framework (guild). There was a lot of building, there was a lot of minor technical advances here and there, there was a lot of law and order and all the stuff that makes the day to day world run. There was also monastics and the priesthood and the beginnings of science and a whole lot of philosophy and theology.

However, fighting was how your family got it's shot to start in on that. And it got that shot by being a conscripted guy, going out and doing really well in battle and winning. And the peasantry did care about that stuff, because if the local vassal got sacked in the latest battle either he or his replacement is going to go conscript a bunch more men in order to fight some more.

Originally Posted by Eric
the Green;466323

No, a war that involves the people is a modern phenomenon,
since the French Revolution.

Conscription and mass armies is a post-French Revolution thing. But even medieval armies had plenty of non-noblemen on the field of battle. The center of a medieval army was the heavy cavalry provided by knights, but they were also infantry and archers who usually came from the peasantry. Towns also fielded troops, mostly infantry.

The wars were fought by the barons and their knights. The people had no voice in what was going on.

Nobody had a voice. Influence was achieved through violence and threat of violence. Since the nobility had the most resources they had the most influence on the King. But their power depended on the cooperation of those under them, and so these people had influence too. Even serfs were not slaves. Example, a 1224 court case in which a noble sued a serf who refused to perform serf duties (he
claimed he was not a serf). The noble won the court case (they usually did) but he did have to take him to court. On occasions uppity commoners got the better of the nobles.

The crises in ruler ship seem to me isolated fights among rulers over who would rule. The wars of the roses of course is exhibit A, and the fight between Stephen and Matilda or the troubles of Henry III with Montfort are other examples. Or the constant contests among the Anglo-Saxon kings.[/quote]
Precisely. But there is the pattern. They tend to happen during the stressful periods. Example: Magna Carta and First Barons war in 1215-16:

1199 John becomes King, will impose scuttage 11 times during his reign
1202 Period of high stress begins. War between Phillip II and John (1202-14)
1207 John imposes income tax
1212 John extorts money from barons, barons plot against King
1214 Phillip's victory at Bouvines ends John's attempt to recapture Normandy
1215-16 Magna Carta & 1st Baron's war
1216 John dies and war with France ends

Then there is relative peace and another spiral of violence (to use Bob Butler's term):

1242 Monfort questions Henry's finances, start of buildup to Civil War
1254 Parliament summoned to discussion of finances
1258 Period of High stress begins. Oxford Parliament, Henry agrees to committee to oversee state finance
1260 Committee disbands after failing to reach agreement
1261 Henry attempts to re-assert absolute power
1263 Fighting breaks out
1263-65 Second Baron's war
1265 War end with death of Montfort, Ordinary People's Parliament called to discuss finance

There are other spirals that do not lead to civil war or revolt:

1286 Scottish King Alexander III dies, Edward I arranges marriage between Alexander's granddaughter & his son, girl dies before wedding
1292 Edward chooses John Bailol to be King of Scots
1296 Edward invades Scotland, defeats John
1297 William Wallace revolts against English rule
1297 Maltolt opposition, pressure by merchants to increase wool tax, forces Edward to rescind new tax,
1300-02 Edward campaigns in Scotland, Scots practice scorched earth tactics, treaty signed
1303 Wallace renews revolt
1305 Wallace captured and executed

Edward experiences opposition to his tax policies just like his father and John before him, but it doesn't reach the level of outright rebellion. Note that this spiral occurred in a period of low stress. His son, who inherits this Scottish situation during a time of high stress will be deposed and tortured to death.

[quote]Since the peasants have no means of impacting their way of life other than periodic hunger riots,[/quote]
Now you are denying them agency. A villein is not a slave, he is not "owned" by his lord. He is a free man with certain obligations to his
lord, just as a modern citizen is a free person who nevertheless has bligations to the mortgage company and his employer. Like a modern working class stiff, the English peasant could chose to leave his Lord, if he could find another job. Until the Black Plague, agricultural labor (what a serf knew) was in excess supply, particularly during the stressful periods, and so they couldn't run off and find an employer willing to hire what we today would all undocumented workers. An enterprising peasant could change jobs and head for a town. Towns were not very healthy places and they generally had little natural population increase. Growth in the size of towns reflected in-migration from the countryside. Beginning in the late 12th century we see a steady increase in the rate of new town formation until agricultural resource limitation brought about the Crisis of the 14th century:

Year	Turning	New Towns/decade
1176	C->H	18
1204	H->A	36
1231	A->U	85
1258	U->C	100
1282	C->H	135
1305	H->A	72

The new towns and growing existing towns mean people leaving their lords and moving on. So this is one means of affecting their lives. And when serfs were directly affected by government policy they did rise up and the policy changed. During the 12th and 13th centuries serfs and the non-properties working class were exempt from taxation. In 1380, the government levied a head tax on all adult persons, regardless of social class (the rate was progressive). The result was the English Peasants Rebellion of 1381. The poll tax was withdrawn, and new versions did not tax the poor.

I don't see any basis for claiming that these stresses produce differences in generations. The ways of life remain the same, and economic troubles or riots would not have created a new generation archetype.

And has the reality of life for the modern laboring class really changed in 200 years? Hasn’t it always consisted of “working for the man”. What has changed is our material standard of living, because of technology. Folks at the bottom are way better off today than their medieval counterpart were, but then so are modern elites.

Yes during the Plague the highest social orders died at perhaps a third the rate of the lower orders. Don’t the different classes today experience different rates of death from diseases?

There were no national economies producing booms and busts, but only droughts, floods and famines that could happen at any time.

Of course there were. Government policies had effects on the money economy, which affected townspeople, not the peasantry in the countryside. Part of the opposition to King John was the inflation that came from the stress period. But the mechanics of his tax policies, in which money was collected and stored for several months before it was spent imposed what we would call austerity, deflationary economic downturns that angered people who made their living in the money economy. Some of the people were nobles who sold wool to urban merchants for export to Flanders.

Generations assumes that different archetypes shift their values in response to the other generations.

They hypothesize that. What they observe is turnings and different kinds of generation. They claim that the generations do not exist before the late 15^th century. I am saying that there is just as much evidence for turnings for the 250 years before 1435 as there is for the 250 years after. Most people at this site pretty much ignore saecula before 1773, even though half of the S&H saecula fall into this period. If you actually pay attention to those saecula, you will see that they and the medieval saecula fall into a common pattern. My view is it is better to study the 6 or 7 “long saecula” to learn more, than to spend your time looking at just two (and more often just one) recent saeculum. The only reason to do the latter is if you believe that we today are special, different or “more evolved” from those of the past, which IMO is just a conceit of the present.

But if all generations are the same, and never change their way of life, but just do what their parents did on a local level, then there are no shifts, and there is no cycle.

There was change, it was much slower because technology did not change rapidly But this was true for the first three S&H saecula too, which we all seem to buy.

…remember that the ancient and medieval cycles can't be compared to modern ones.

I maintain that medieval cycles can be compared to early modern ones. That is, cycles in the 17^th century have more in common with cycles in the 13^th century than they do with cycles in the 19^th century.

… some of the problems I mention above remain with them. They can't consist of 4 living generational archetypes who occupy 4 different stages of life, because the turnings are longer and life-spans shorter.

That’s true, but that is also true of the 1435-1746 saecula that we buy.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Actually, craftsmen were in short supply. Most people farmed. Conscripted men, craftsmen, vassals, these weren't the majority any more than they're the majority today. Also fighting and farming weren't the only things going on. Craftsmen, like you mentioned had a pretty decent lot in life (you don't conscript the blacksmith) and involved, frequently, with a political framework (guild). There was a lot of building, there was a lot of minor technical advances here and there, there was a lot of law and order and all the stuff that makes the day to day world run. There was also monastics and the priesthood and the beginnings of science and a whole lot of philosophy and theology.

However, fighting was how your family got it's shot to start in on that. And it got that shot by being a conscripted guy, going out and doing really well in battle and winning. And the peasantry did care about that stuff, because if the local vassal got sacked in the latest battle either he or his replacement is going to go conscript a bunch more men in order to fight some more.

Exactly. There was plenty going on with which to build a saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

And has the reality of life for the modern laboring class really changed in 200 years? Hasn’t it always consisted of “working for the man”? What has changed is our material standard of living, because of technology. Folks at the bottom are way better off today than their medieval counterpart were, but then so are modern elites.

Yes during the Plague the highest social orders died at perhaps a third the rate of the lower orders. Don’t the different classes today experience different rates of death from diseases?

Yes the reality has changed. People leave the homes of their parents and pursue different interests and careers, which are much more varied than farming. They make and spend money in a modern economy. They vote, are educated, can read, and have opinions on society. They participate in mass culture, which didn't exist pre-revolution. Events consist of more than fights among the elites over who is to rule them.

Of course there were. Government policies had effects on the money economy, which affected townspeople, not the peasantry in the countryside. Part of the opposition to King John was the inflation that came from the stress period. But the mechanics of his tax policies, in which money was collected and stored for several months before it was spent imposed what we would call austerity, deflationary economic downturns that angered people who made their living in the money economy. Some of the people were nobles who sold wool to urban merchants for export to Flanders.

Townspeople were a small minority. Nobles were elites. The "influence" you describe in your post seems very small and limited compared to today when the "House of Commons" rules and people have rights. Magna Carta did not give the people any rights; only nobles.

They hypothesize that. What they observe is turnings and different kinds of generation. They claim that the generations do not exist before the late 15^th century. I am saying that there is just as much evidence for turnings for the 250 years before 1435 as there is for the 250 years after. Most people at this site pretty much ignore saecula before 1773, even though half of the S&H saecula fall into this period. If you actually pay attention to those saecula, you will see that they and the medieval saecula fall into a common pattern. My view is it is better to study the 6 or 7 “long saecula” to learn more, than to spend your time looking at just two (and more often just one) recent saeculum. The only reason to do the latter is if you believe that we today are special, different or “more evolved” from those of the past, which IMO is just a conceit of the present.

But true. Modern times are different. The people are involved in what happens, not just slaves to what happens. There is increasing democracy, mass culture and modern industrial economies. The "stress periods" seem harder to pick out before the Revolution. King William's War makes sense, but the Armada Crisis seems a stretch. I doubt there are periods of greater and lesser economic stress, when there were famines all the time and at any time, and there were no boom and bust cycles. Maybe patterns can be detected, but they seem vague and a bit arbitrary. Henry III had a long reign and it was stressful throughout, and that followed King John and preceded the reigns of Edward I, II and III and Richard II, which had stress throughout. And Henry IV never had any peace, and then his son went to war; and then his son suffered the war of the roses.

Evolution definitely is happening, and the Revolution has made our society different than any before it. I know there was building, and there were priests, and some peasants went to war in medieval and renaissance times. I don't think that makes a saeculum, although it makes for some change.

There was change, it was much slower because technology did not change rapidly But this was true for the first three S&H saecula too, which we all seem to buy.

They only added those in The Fourth Turning, and I am questioning those too, as I said. I question how there can be generations that drive turnings then, when half of them are not even alive at any time. We need to look at the longer, elite-only "turnings" differently.

I maintain that medieval cycles can be compared to early modern ones. That is, cycles in the 17^th century have more in common with cycles in the 13^th century than they do with cycles in the 19^th century.

Yes, I agree with that.

That’s true, but that is also true of the 1435-1746 saecula that we buy.

I don't buy them, for all the same reasons; except possibly as economic, political and artistic cycles. Post-Revolution saecula, except maybe the first pre-revolutionary one, are different. If pre-revolution saecula involve living generations, then there are only two of them, and they are interacting with the results of generations who have mostly died.

Originally Posted by Eric

Yes the reality has changed. People leave the homes of their parents and pursue different interests and careers, which are much more varied than farming. They make and spend money in a modern economy. They vote, are educated, can read, and have opinions on society. They participate in mass culture, which didn't exist pre-revolution. Events consist of more than fights among the elites over who is to rule them.

Point number one has only really existed since the 1940s. Prior to then, children stay in the home after having grown until they're of marriageable age, and if you're of greater wealth you might be so lucky to "choose" your occupation, but generally, you do what dear old Dad did if you're the eldest and if you're younger you scramble to find something to do. But even so, you find examples of persons leaving the homes of their parents in earlier saeculum and in their stories--the situation being considered a tragedy when it does occur in those earlier saeculums. What's changed simply is the opinion of the circumstance--we've gone from seeing it as a tragedy to seeing it as a necessity.

Voting, is something only available in post-New World Saeculum in England, and in America post-Revolutionary Saeculum. Education and reading are not necessary to have an opinion on society. Shakespeare only had an eighth grade education before he was pulled out of school, and look what he accomplished. He surpassed all the educated writers of his time in popular renown in the centuries since his death.

Anyone who lives in a society can have an opinion of it, and as for participating in a common culture. Come on Eric, did you not read The Canterbury Tales (late 1300s)? The entire point is that ALL people from ALL walks of life are participating in a common culture to go on a pilgrimage together as pilgrims to see the skull of the saint Sir Thomas Beckett. And each person has a thought about how they live in their society--some are more elevated than others--but even so the point is that the upper and lower classes are more alike than unalike.

We who work didn't suddenly transform into "normal human beings" thanks to education and democracy Eric. Thinking that today is special cuts off a sense of what's larger in history. I agree with Mikebert, there's a lot to learn from prior Saeculums--even the Medieval ones.

~Chas'88

Chas, you might be interested in looking at some of the old posts from the Material Cause thread. A rump of that thread exists on the current site, but the best stuff was at the old site. You can see some of the old site here. Click on "Beyond America" and then on the "Material Cause" thread. The posts go backwards so the oldest ones are at the end, so read backwards.

This thread discussed the mythopoeic nature of the nature/culture interface. Most of it went clean over my head, not my field. Dave in his first post talked of his two mentors who influenced his thought on these topics. One was a "myth guy" the other was anthropologist Marvin Harris, who was the "science guy". My Ph. D. is in chemical engineering, so I'm even more of a science guy than Harris. I think Dave's background was in Ancient History (David Krein once mentioned that Dave M read Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Sumerian cuneiform).

Also, just want to point out there had to be some common level of information that people had and passed around. Maybe not reading, but some basic math and measures. In order for the system to work, serfs had to have a clue what they were making vs what they were handing over to the landlord. Craftsmen had to have some idea of expendatures and overhead vs. income. The Reeve system divided each portion of a Noble's lands into shires (that's where we get the term Sheriff... Shire Reeve), and the constable system divided up the citizenry into 100 people blocks that each constable was responsible for, both these required systems of measures and accounting... Also, the nobles were measuring fools (well, the were "commissioning the measuring of" fools, other fools did the actual labor). Check out early land titles, the legal descriptions were nuts, and cartography was a huge deal. None of this stuff was likely taught or created behind university walls.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes the reality has changed. People leave the homes of their parents and pursue different interests and careers, which are much more varied than farming. They make and spend money in a modern economy. They vote, are educated, can read, and have opinions on society.

These things are true. Advances in technology mean a more complex economy, more occupations, more effort expended on production of things not needed for subsistence. People read today because reading is a useful skill in a technologically advanced society and because they can afford books. People do vote today but this is actually an improved version of the old periodic rebellion approach. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that periodic revolution is a good thing for a healthy government. What we have instead are periodic "ballot box revolutions" (the critical realignment elections) as a replacement for Jeffersonian revolutions or peasant rebellions. A great improvement, but it’s still about how the little people can influence how our overlords rule us.

Just as medieval Kings and lords were constrained by tradition and the law, so too are our current lords. Although a Republican-controlled government, as we had over 2003-2006, has the constitutional authorization to cut current Medicare/Social Security benefits and doing this is consistent with their small-government views, they didn't do it. Why? Probably because they feared a popular uprising (at the ballot box) which would result in gains for their political opponents. It was for similar "blowback" reasons that Edward I laid off the maltolt after 1297 and Richard II's regents didn't try another universal poll tax after the rebellion of 1381. If someone can hurt you, you have to carefully consider whether you want to really piss him off.

They participate in mass culture, which didn't exist pre-revolution.

I disagree, what about Christianity? It was the mass culture of the day. Many of the arguments people had about religious doctrine and theology sound strange to me, but then so do the discussions of sports fans, music aficionados, and of course we here T4T fans probably seem strange to outsiders. Technology gives us a much broader array of cultural things to get into, but people at all times have their mass culture.

Events consist of more than fights among the elites over who is to rule them.

Hmm, have you been watching Congress lately?

They only added those in The Fourth Turning…

The saeculum that started with the Puritan awakening was included in Generations and it was 97-106 years long, definitely one of the long-turning sort. And the one after it (which included the Revolution) was 95-98 years long, not much shorter. Compare to the one after that, which ran 64 years long. It’s pretty clear than the 18^th century saeculum still falls into the old-style longer saeculum.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Also, just want to point out there had to be some common level of information that people had and passed around. Maybe not reading, but some basic math and measures. In order for the system to work, serfs had to have a clue what they were making vs what they were handing over to the landlord. Craftsmen had to have some idea of expendatures and overhead vs. income. The Reeve system divided each portion of a Noble's lands into shires (that's where we get the term Sheriff... Shire Reeve), and the constable system divided up the citizenry into 100 people blocks that each constable was responsible for, both these required systems of measures and accounting... Also, the nobles were measuring fools (well, the were "commissioning the measuring of" fools, other fools did the actual labor). Check out early land titles, the legal descriptions were nuts, and cartography was a huge deal. None of this stuff was likely taught or created behind university walls.

I agree. You want complicated, think of making change in medieval times. There was no standardized currency, just a huge variety of coins struck at different times and with different degress of soundness. Anyone who sold anything for money was entering into a realm of great complexity with plenty of arbitrage opportunities for sophisticated operators. Just because a person was uneducated didn't mean he was stupid.

Not every peasant was doomed to a life on the soil. Those new towns that were popping all over were occupied with people from somewhere. The peasants/serfs with more get up and go, got up and went to the new towns. In some areas they joined a mercenary group. Intellectually talented young people from the lower orders did sometimes receive an education at church expense as a member of one of the religious orders. Peter Lombard is an example.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I agree. You want complicated, think of making change in medieval times. There was no standardized currency, just a huge variety of coins struck at different times and with different degress of soundness. Anyone who sold anything for money was entering into a realm of great complexity with plenty of arbitrage opportunities for sophisticated operators. Just because a person was uneducated didn't mean he was stupid. No every peasant was doomed to a life on the soil. Those new towns that were popping all over were occupied with people from somewhere. The peasants/serfs with more get up and go, got up and went to the new towns, or perhaps joined a mercenary group. And some of their descendents got up and came to America.

And that's if you got minted coins. Frequently you were issued a note owing someone a certain amount of currency, which was traded to be "good as gold". It was the prototype for modern cash, and that was rather dicey, too (because if the issuing noble dies or gets sacked or runs out of cash, you just have a piece of paper). I agree, if you were going to slog it through the middle ages, being clever and being quick witted are what does it, frankly even more than now.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

These things are true. Advances in technology mean a more complex economy, more occupations, more effort expended on production of things not needed for subsistence. People read today because reading is a useful skill in a technologically advanced society and because they can afford books. People do vote today but this is actually an improved version of the old periodic rebellion approach. Thomas Jefferson once remarked that periodic revolution is a good thing for a healthy government. What we have instead are periodic "ballot box revolutions" (the critical realignment elections) as a replacement for Jeffersonian revolutions or peasant rebellions. A great improvement, but it’s still about how the little people can influence how our overlords rule us.

Thanks for considering these questions. I think what Jefferson referred to was more of a modern concept. The peasant rebellions didn't consist of much except expressions of upset. They were not attempts to create a new form of government or even to topple the authorities. Voting allows us to choose our leaders and even to pass laws.

Just as medieval Kings and lords were constrained by tradition and the law, so too are our current lords. Although a Republican-controlled government, as we had over 2003-2006, has the constitutional authorization to cut current Medicare/Social Security benefits and doing this is consistent with their small-government views, they didn't do it. Why? Probably because they feared a popular uprising (at the ballot box) which would result in gains for their political opponents. It was for similar "blowback" reasons that Edward I laid off the maltolt after 1297 and Richard II's regents didn't try another universal poll tax after the rebellion of 1381. If someone can hurt you, you have to carefully consider whether you want to really piss him off.

Possibly, but the rebellion could not have replaced him as king. I don't think our current lords are comparable. We the people are responsible for whom we elect, and the main reason we have poor governments is because the people still don't know how to vote for the right person or party. But they have the opportunity to do so. There's only so much our lords can do with their money.

I disagree, what about Christianity? It was the mass culture of the day. Many of the arguments people had about religious doctrine and theology sound strange to me, but then so do the discussions of sports fans, music aficionados, and of course we here T4T fans probably seem strange to outsiders. Technology gives us a much broader array of cultural things to get into, but people at all times have their mass culture.

I thought of that too. The main difference is that, like the rest of society, it never changed much, and it was traditional culture. There was a big cult of the virgin, various pilgrimages, and interest in relics; and building cathedrals was a big deal for towns. But basically, this "mass culture" was always the same culture, and it was traditional. It's nothing like today where strange new fads come and go quickly. Not that the quality of mass culture is better than traditional culture was; it's probably much worse. But today the people decide a lot of what this culture is by virtue of their market choices based on their depraved tastes (as we see frequently demonstrated here, and not by me either!). The people did NOT decide which Church or Religion was going to dominate their culture, and they did NOT decide which artists were going to get commissions.

Re: Events consist of more than fights among the elites over who is to rule them.

Hmm, have you been watching Congress lately?

I don't think those things are comparable at all. Congressmen are not elites, they are our representatives; and we can't avoid our responsibility for whom we put there (as in Nov.2010) by just saying they are politicians who are fighting over who's going to win. The fights exist because we the people are divided over the policies we want for our country. These are ideological battles, not battles over which king or family dynasty will inherit the realm. This is the heritage of the Revolution, in which the terms "left" and "right" originated.

The saeculum that started with the Puritan awakening was included in Generations and it was 97-106 years long, definitely one of the long-turning sort. And the one after it (which included the Revolution) was 95-98 years long, not much shorter. Compare to the one after that, which ran 64 years long. It’s pretty clear than the 18^th century saeculum still falls into the old-style longer saeculum.

Yes, although I would include one and maybe both of the colonial saecula that occured mainly in America among the more modern ones, and the dates can be adjusted for the Revolution saeculum and the Civil War saeculum to make them more alike. The crises were just about 80-plus years apart, so the modern cycle is at work from King William's War onward, if not before. But the colonial saecula are also somewhat doubtful as demonstrating the 4-generational dynamic, for the same reason as the earlier ones: all 4 generations as they defined them were not actually alive at the same time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Thanks for considering these questions. I think what Jefferson referred to was more of a modern concept. The peasant rebellions didn't consist of much except expressions of upset. They were not attempts to create a new form of government or even to topple the authorities. Voting allows us to choose our leaders and even to pass laws.

This is true, see below.

I thought of that too. The main difference is that, like the rest of society, it never changed much, and it was traditional culture. ... It's nothing like today where strange new fads come and go quickly. Not that the quality of mass culture is better than traditional culture was; it's probably much worse. But today the people decide a lot of what this culture is by virtue of their market choices based on their depraved tastes (as we see frequently demonstrated here, and not by me either!).

Very true. As I said before improved technology offers more choices. The modern world is very different in this way.

The people did NOT decide which Church or Religion was going to dominate their culture, and they did NOT decide which artists were going to get commissions.

People with money decide which artists get commissions back then and today too. An artist needs money and he has to get it from those who have it. Technology makes it easier to aggregate small sums, hence an artist can get support from a large group of small payers instead of one large client.

I don't think those things are comparable at all. Congressmen are not elites, they are our representatives

Congressmen are elites. By "elite" I mean someone who has the power to affect government policy because ignoring them can have consequences. Over time the number of the people whose support is needed by the government has grown (see below). A lot of support still comes from powerful (and usually wealthy) persons who make their wishes known personally or through a personal representative. Smaller people can band together, select a leader, and this leader would then a fairly powerful elite who can influence policy in the same way as individually powerful elites. Representative governments are often used nowadays, because this kind of government has a built-in capacity to aggregate smaller people into a single elite (representative).

In 12th century England, the King obtained about 40% of his revenue from his income from his own personal estates. About 25% came from feudal obligations--cash payments made by his vassals (i.e. the barons) in lieu of personal service. According to the Feudal contract, the vassal was required to report to the King's court once per year, and to provide personal (usually military) service when needed for a limited period of time. Since the Court was far away for most nobles, it was impractical to come to court every year and nobles paid a fee instead. Henry I introduced the scuttage in the early 12th century, which was a new payment that allowed a noble to get out of the personal service.

About 20% of his income came from profits from the provision of judicial services. The King maintained royal courts where cases could be brought by those who did not wish to use a local court (usually controlled by the local lord). Obviously if you were suing a lord you would not use his court (who would surely rule in his favor). And finally 15% came from taxes on people with property. Landless peasants and common laborers paid no taxes.

Since the bulk of the King's outside financial support came from the nobility, and they also had military assets, the King needed the support of these people to rule. The Magna Carta established the idea of no taxation without representation. That is, you have to consult those who make your plans possible. Ordinary people had no voice, but they also provided no support.

As time when on the fraction of revenue that came from taxes (mostly on trade) grew. And the merchant class became more and more important to the King. In the first half of the 13th century only nobles were consulted about taxes, when they were consulted at all. Lack of consultation was the primary reason for the second Baron's war (1264-65). Merchants gained influence as their taxes became more important to the king. In 1294 Edward I imposed a large excise tax on wool exports (maltolt) that led to a major protest in 1297 which forced Edward to rescind the tax. The wool merchant would try to pass this tax along to wool suppliers by simply reducing what they would pay for wool. This hurt English wool producers, some of who were amongst Edward's supporters in the nobility. Thus, commercial types had power and they too needed representation. Already in 1265 Parliaments containing commoners were being called occasionally, and in time there evolved both a House of Commons and a House of Lords.

As the 14th century unfolded the king became more dependent on commercial elites and had to consider their views. Still the bulk of the population were not being asked for any support, nor did they have representation. When a tax was passed in 1380 that called for contributions from the bottom, the result was the Peasants Revolt in 1381 and the tax was ended.

That was more or less the way things stayed until the late 18th century when the power of conscription was used to show just how much the common people could offer the government. The industrial revolution creating a rising middle class, and eventually a rising working class, which in aggregate could provide much of the government’s support. Application of the same Magna Carta principle meant if the government was going to get stuff from the people, the people would have to have a voice in order for them to give it up without rising in rebellion.

Of course none of this power was surrendered willingly. It usually required some sort of force, a rebellion or revolution.

These are ideological battles, not battles over which king or family dynasty will inherit the realm.

This is a key observation and quite valid. I note that ideological battles only become necessary when the support of the government requires contributions from a LOT of people who to be effective have to organize into groups united by some commonality. When the commonality is a belief, this is ideology.

But the colonial saecula are also somewhat doubtful as demonstrating the 4-generational dynamic, for the same reason as the earlier ones: all 4 generations as they defined them were not actually alive at the same time.

You are confusing the saeculum with the S&H mechanism for the saeculum. The S&H mechanism flatly does not work for the long saeculae for the reasons you note (see the mechanism thread on Beyond America).

However the saeculum can still exist even if the S&H mechanism is wrong; it simply has another cause than what S&H proposed. What we are discussing is evidence that a saeculum existed in medieval times that is not very different from the pre-1822 saecula that S&H identified.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

This is true, see below.


Very true. As I said before improved technology offers more choices. The modern world is very different in this way.

Good.

People with money decide which artists get commissions back then and today too. An artist needs money and he has to get it from those who have it. Technology makes it easier to aggregate small sums, hence an artist can get support from a large group of small payers instead of one large client.

No, everybody who spends money in the market decides.

Congressmen are elites. By "elite" I mean someone who has the power to affect government policy because ignoring them can have consequences. Over time the number of the people whose support is needed by the government has grown (see below). A lot of support still comes from powerful (and usually wealthy) persons who make their wishes known personally or through a personal representative. Smaller people can band together, select a leader, and this leader would then a fairly powerful elite who can influence policy in the same way as individually powerful elites. Representative governments are often used nowadays, because this kind of government has a built-in capacity to aggregate smaller people into a single elite (representative).

There is nothing elite about my congresspeople. My rep until last year Mike Honda was a schoolteacher. My current Rep has this bio:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Eshoo

Anna Eshoo was born in New Britain, Connecticut, of Assyrian and Armenian heritage.[2] Her father, Fred Georges, was a jeweler and watchmaker. She is a Chaldean Catholic and is the oldest of three children. She has a brother, Frederick Kenneth Georges, and a sister, Veronica May Georges.
She got an Associate of Arts degree in English from Cañada College in 1975. She worked for the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) between 1963 and 1966. She worked for Arcata National Corporation between 1966 and 1970.
[edit]Early political career

She was Chair of the San Mateo Democratic Party between 1978 and 1982. She was also a member of the Democratic National Committee in the 1980s. She was Chief-of-Staff to Speaker pro tempore Leo McCarthy of the California State Assembly between 1981 and 1982. She was elected to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors in 1982 and served until 1992. She was president of the board in 1986.

Nothing elite about it. She is no different than any of us, except that she decided to pursue a political career, and was elected by the people.

You are confusing the saeculum with the S&H mechanism for the saeculum. The S&H mechanism flatly does not work for the long saeculae for the reasons you note (see the mechanism thread on Beyond America).

However the saeculum can still exist even if the S&H mechanism is wrong; it simply has another cause than what S&H proposed. What we are discussing is evidence that a saeculum existed in medieval times that is not very different from the pre-1822 saecula that S&H identified.

Yes, I would be making that confusion! I assume that the "saeculum" is a cycle based on the mechanism S&H explain. But I would agree with your statement then. Except that I note that you speak of generations and the S&H generational archetypes in discussing these earlier cycles. Without the S&H dynamic, how can you do this?