The invasions of manchuria and later china seem to be late 3T actions; even their primary aims, to gain resources to exploit were 3T. The pacific war seems to have been an early 4T event, with the 4T continuing until about 1960.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Huntington definitely does separate Japan from Sinic civilization, agreed. But I believe he has Japan moving closer to China in his analysis. Furthermore, he and his ilk seem big on the (Chinese) bandwagon phenomenon and have been predicting Japan would move in that direction.

Right now I think it is too early to tell. Japan does seem to have an inherent inferiority complex that has them vacillate between obsequious bandwagoning and aggressive nationalism (whether isolationist or externalized).

Japan showed signs of breaking out of it's post-WWII deference to America in the 1980's and early 90's as a Nippocentric attitude began to resurface. But their bubble-burst and America's seeming reassertion of political and economic strength has put them back in deference mode to the alpha power.

With the rise of China, Japan has three futures within the above context.

1. Stay deferential to America and side with Washington in any Sino-American polarity.

2. Become deferential to China and side with Beijing in any hot or cold
conflict.

3. Return to Nippocentrism and either withdraw from both, or, more likely, aggressively assert itself into the dynamic as an equal.

Number one is more likely than number two, but I don't know by how much. I think America is in a lot of trouble structurally with the coming Dollar Crash and insolvency. But China will also be gravely affected when it's own bubble bursts.

Future Three is highly unlikely, but who knows? Most Saecularists here on the board think Japan is in an early-to-mid 3T right now, about where Japan was in the last cycle when it took a detour into Manchuria.

Japan, China, and Korea are not in cyclical lockstep with the United States. Japan's Crisis era ended with the establishment of an independent Japanese government; decide for yourself when that happened. For China the Crisis era began in earnest with the Sino-Japanese war in 1937 and ended with the consolidation of Communist rule in China (1950, when the Communists took over Xinjiang and Hainan). For Korea the Crisis ended only with the ceasefire.

Going further afield -- Indonesia 1945 (independence, end of the war), Thailand and Malaysia 1945 (end of the war) , Vietnam 1951 (Vietminh consolidation in the north), Burma 1948 (independence), India and Pakistan 1947 (independence), Philippines 1946 (independence). Russia's Crisis era definitively ended in 1945. Crises usually end in some discrete event, a formality in which much starts anew.

It's hard to see any country in phase with a middle 3T except for Korea or Vietnam.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Japan, China, and Korea are not in cyclical lockstep with the United States. Japan's Crisis era ended with the establishment of an independent Japanese government; decide for yourself when that happened.

Establishing a government is automatically a crisis? Japan's energy and will to fight was sapped when the bombs dropped. The establishment of their government was part of a "Recovery Era" concession/solution. The mood of the people is what determines the crisis. The crisis mood was lost by that time.

Going further afield -- Indonesia 1945 (independence, end of the war), Thailand and Malaysia 1945 (end of the war) , Vietnam 1951 (Vietminh consolidation in the north),

The Vietnam War wasn't a crisis for Vietnam?

Burma 1948 (independence), India and Pakistan 1947 (independence), Philippines 1946 (independence). Russia's Crisis era definitively ended in 1945. Crises usually end in some discrete event, a formality in which much starts anew.

It's hard to see any country in phase with a middle 3T except for Korea or Vietnam.

What do you make of the Russian Civil War?

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Establishing a government is automatically a crisis? Japan's energy and will to fight was sapped when the bombs dropped. The establishment of their government was part of a "Recovery Era" concession/solution. The mood of the people is what determines the crisis. The crisis mood was lost by that time.

The Crisis can continue after people have been sapped of the will to fight.

The Vietnam War wasn't a crisis for Vietnam?

I was thinking of the Vietminh driving out the French and the people of the rest of Indochina replacing French colonial rule with local government... however shaky that local government was.

What do you make of the Russian Civil War?

I have discussed that at length elsewhere.

The first of three crises almost rammed together... first, a Crisis that like the American Civil War came too fast and too hard, one that began when Russian intellectual elites had polarized into inimical camps. But it was far worse than the American Civil War because the opposing sides were devoid of any gentlemanly characteristics. White Terror versus Red Terror ensured that whoever won was going to impose something dreadful. That's the first Crisis of a horrible triptych .

After about 1925 when things quieted a little Russia got a little breathing space (NEP might have worked) except that Josef Stalin took power and imposed another Crisis upon the USSR in the form of the forced collectivization of agriculture that resulted in mass death on a scale with no precedent since (take your pick) the Atlantic slave trade, the mass slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, or the Mongol advances, followed by the Great Purge. The forced collectivization followed by the Great Purge constitutes the second installment of the horrible triptych.

There was a short breathing space followed by the catastrophic Russo-Finnish War and in turn the Great Patriotic War into which Stalin blundered. That's the final installment. Stalin's regime remained horrible, but it couldn't kill on a scale anything like what it had.

In short, a triple crisis with two short breathing spaces, beginning in 1917 and ending in 1945. Russia's Crisis of 1940 began in 1917 and ended in 1945, with the beginning of a weak high of comparative peace and quiet. 28 years is not an unusual length of time for a Crisis, but the severity of Russia's triple Crisis has few parallels.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Crisis can continue after people have been sapped of the will to fight.

I can't agree with that. The crisis (and other turnings) is determined by the will of the people. To consider governmental change/turnover to be a crisis misses this fundamental point. Now, a violent coup and subsequent war for power can certainly qualify as a crisis, but since coups (and independence from imperialist powers) happen all the time, often regardless of turning, assuming that a governmental change must be 4T can often bring about incorrect results.

What makes a crisis so special is that all the people who lived through it were so profoundly affected that it continues to dominate all aspects of life for the next 60 years, when the lessons learned are suddenly forgotten. Japan's government-level structural change was a reaction to World War Two (and not just from Japan).

So I view the end of the war as Japan's first application of the lessons learned and the government reforms to be the second.

I have discussed that at length elsewhere.

The first of three crises almost rammed together... first, a Crisis that like the American Civil War came too fast and too hard, one that began when Russian intellectual elites had polarized into inimical camps. But it was far worse than the American Civil War because the opposing sides were devoid of any gentlemanly characteristics. White Terror versus Red Terror ensured that whoever won was going to impose something dreadful. That's the first Crisis of a horrible triptych.

Too hard and too fast generationally speaking? The Crimean War ended in 1856, and the Russian Civil War began in 1917. Mid-cycle periods can be under 50 years without any hitch, so 61 years is certainly within the realm of reason and certainly not too fast.

The fact that it came "too hard" wouldn't have any effect.

After about 1925 when things quieted a little Russia got a little breathing space (NEP might have worked) except that Josef Stalin took power and imposed another Crisis upon the USSR in the form of the forced collectivization of agriculture that resulted in mass death on a scale with no precedent since (take your pick) the Atlantic slave trade, the mass slaughter of native peoples in the Americas, or the Mongol advances, followed by the Great Purge. The forced collectivization followed by the Great Purge constitutes the second installment of the horrible triptych.

It's impossible to have long breaks in the middle of a crisis war. What is possible is that Russia's cycle could have been reset multiple times.

There was a short breathing space followed by the catastrophic Russo-Finnish War and in turn the Great Patriotic War into which Stalin blundered. That's the final installment. Stalin's regime remained horrible, but it couldn't kill on a scale anything like what it had.

In short, a triple crisis with two short breathing spaces, beginning in 1917 and ending in 1945. Russia's Crisis of 1940 began in 1917 and ended in 1945, with the beginning of a weak high of comparative peace and quiet. 28 years is not an unusual length of time for a Crisis, but the severity of Russia's triple Crisis has few parallels.

28 years is abnormal, but not too abnormal. At least you're not joining the chorus that the collapse of the USSR was a crisis. I think it is hard for people to rationalize the fact Russia had so many people die in WWII, yet that it wasn't a crisis. Even I sometimes have a problem with that. Dig a little deeper, and there is plenty of evidence for the other side of the argument.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I can't agree with that. The crisis (and other turnings) is determined by the will of the people. To consider governmental change/turnover to be a crisis misses this fundamental point. Now, a violent coup and subsequent war for power can certainly qualify as a crisis, but since coups (and independence from imperialist powers) happen all the time, often regardless of turning, assuming that a governmental change must be 4T can often bring about incorrect results.

What makes a crisis so special is that all the people who lived through it were so profoundly affected that it continues to dominate all aspects of life for the next 60 years, when the lessons learned are suddenly forgotten. Japan's government-level structural change was a reaction to World War Two (and not just from Japan).

So I view the end of the war as Japan's first application of the lessons learned and the government reforms to be the second.



Too hard and too fast generationally speaking? The Crimean War ended in 1856, and the Russian Civil War began in 1917. Mid-cycle periods can be under 50 years without any hitch, so 61 years is certainly within the realm of reason and certainly not too fast.

The fact that it came "too hard" wouldn't have any effect.



It's impossible to have long breaks in the middle of a crisis war. What is possible is that Russia's cycle could have been reset multiple times.



28 years is abnormal, but not too abnormal. At least you're not joining the chorus that the collapse of the USSR was a crisis. I think it is hard for people to rationalize the fact Russia had so many people die in WWII, yet that it wasn't a crisis. Even I sometimes have a problem with that. Dig a little deeper, and there is plenty of evidence for the other side of the argument.

Before I decided to put Russia as 1T I seriously toyed with the idea of a crisis from about 1917-1945, but then I wondered (and still do): How is it possible for the intensely traumatic mood of the 4T to last that long? 28 years? And possibly longer, since the Revolution probably came several years after a 4T mood came over the country.

It just seemed impossible for that mood to last so long.

UPDATE: Also, it just seemed intuitive that the collapse of the USSR was way too "big" to be an Unraveling. Unravelings are supposed to be about overreaching, greed, flab, decadence, self-indulgent judgmental moralism...if anything the military and financial overextension of the Soviet Empire during the 1970s screams 3T to me. The collapse of such a great power would seem intuitively 4T. Only if WWII severely upset the saeculum by extending the Crisis would a currently-4T Russia make sense. That is of course possible, but how on earth could the Soviet collapse be a 3T?

I am still only maybe 70% sure about my decision on Eastern Europe. WWII as a 1T has always troubled me. If Russia is not 1T though, there are only two real possibilities: 4T and 5T, and both have deep flaws. If Russia is 4T, then that means its last Crisis lasted about 30 years, which seems unlikely. If Russia is 5T, then WWII was still a 1T. None of these options seem to fit right.

The best solution, it seems, would be to figure out when the last Awakening was. I saw a decent case for an Awakening during the Khruschev era and a little before, which is what solidified the idea of a currently-1T Russia in my mind. But if you have a good case for an Awakening in Russia during Brezhnev, I would love to hear it, because Eastern Europe has to one degree or another bothered me this whole time.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I can't agree with that. The crisis (and other turnings) is determined by the will of the people. To consider governmental change/turnover to be a crisis misses this fundamental point. Now, a violent coup and subsequent war for power can certainly qualify as a crisis, but since coups (and independence from imperialist powers) happen all the time, often regardless of turning, assuming that a governmental change must be 4T can often bring about incorrect results.

A sharp governmental change in the supposed aftermath of a Crisis era indicates that the Crisis was extended. The decolonization of a country can be very peaceful (Philippines) or very violent (Vietnam). To state that the Crisis ended in 1946 in the Philippines could be a convention; to say that it ended in 1947 in India reflects that the end of British rule was not without violence worse than any that India had experienced in the WWII crisis. Mao's overthrow of the Kuomindang and regions that tried to exert independence took until 1949 in China proper but 1950 in some remote areas. It's safely said that the Korean War is very much a Crisis in Korea if nowhere else.

What makes a crisis so special is that all the people who lived through it were so profoundly affected that it continues to dominate all aspects of life for the next 60 years, when the lessons learned are suddenly forgotten. Japan's government-level structural change was a reaction to World War Two (and not just from Japan).

But Japan was defeated from the outside. There was no popular uprising against the militarist government. The Japanese political system changed very quickly. One good definition of when an occupation becomes an alliance is that when the first free election establishes a government with genuine authority.

So I view the end of the war as Japan's first application of the lessons learned and the government reforms to be the second.

The transformation of Japan from a nominally-absolute monarchy under command of a military clique to a liberal democracy was swift... swifter than the case in western Germany.

Too hard and too fast generationally speaking? The Crimean War ended in 1856, and the Russian Civil War began in 1917. Mid-cycle periods can be under 50 years without any hitch, so 61 years is certainly within the realm of reason and certainly not too fast.

Possible, but the Crisis era that began with the February Revolution came when Russia was ill-prepared for momentous change. The February Revolution that toppled Tsar Nicholas II was a liberal revolution during a military catastrophe and we know what happened in November 1917.

My characterization of the Red and White sides in the Russian Civil War seems conventional enough. Think of the Union and Confederate sides and add the pathology of ruthlessness to the point of desiring the annihilation of the other side... Russia was a mess in 1917 because of the debacle of WWI -- but it was also a mess in 1913. Opposing sides were led by Idealists in camps of diametric ideology -- semi-feudal reactionaries versus extreme reactionaries.

The fact that it came "too hard" wouldn't have any effect.

Or did it? The pathologies of Russian society as of 1910 played their role. The ruling elite was unusually selfish, rapacious, and illiberal. The repression within Russia ensured that those who sought to change Russia would have to resort to the most secretive and violent tendencies to have a chance to effect change. Think of the usual worst characteristics of Idealists and the danger that those pathologies imply. Does anyone think of either Nicholas II or Vladimir Lenin as models of visionary, principled leadership? Can one see either as exponents of elder stewardship through dangerous times?

The Crisis came too hard in part because it came early. Elder Adaptives had largely left the scene. Young Reactives were looking out only for themselves. Mid-life idealists had split into armed camps set on annihilating each other.

It's impossible to have long breaks in the middle of a crisis war. What is possible is that Russia's cycle could have been reset multiple times.

Possible interpretation... but I wouldn't consider the time between the death of Lenin and the rise of Stalin (late 1920s) a 'long' break. That itself was a time of political chaos. The time between the Great Purges and the Finno-Soviet War was a couple of years. I see no reset; just other storms.

28 years is abnormal, but not too abnormal. At least you're not joining the chorus that the collapse of the USSR was a crisis. I think it is hard for people to rationalize the fact Russia had so many people die in WWII, yet that it wasn't a crisis. Even I sometimes have a problem with that. Dig a little deeper, and there is plenty of evidence for the other side of the argument.

It is a matter of interpretation... and the generational cycle encourages interpretations. So if I see the time between the Crimean War and the Russian Civil War as very similar to the Constitutional Crisis and the American Civil War... I'm probably not that far off. Even at that the time between Crises in Russia is shorter.

I see the Russian Civil War as a partial analogue of the American Civil War due to its social polarization when no Idealist faction had established itself as the predominant coalition. I see the bloodletting, and no wholesome ending. Like many I see the rise of Stalin analogous to the rise of Hitler in Germany -- but with earlier ferocity. Then came WWII.

I can't say that my analogy explains everything. Events in Russia in 1989 to 1991, I believe, don't resemble a Crisis. It wasn't bloody by Russian or Soviet standards, and Adaptives were in charge at the beginning (Gorbachev) and at the end (Yeltsin). Even the plotters of the 1991 coup were largely Adaptives. There was no huge disappearance of wealth. It was a 3T upheaval similar to those in central and southeastern Europe immediately after WWI.

Since World War II, I think that Russia 'enjoyed' a muted High (big rebuilding, large projects, prominence of technology and science, stale culture) that Soviet leaders tried to extend indefinitely by suppressing any semblance of an Awakening. There was a little of an Awakening underground in the form of samizdat... but it was there.

Originally Posted by 1990

Before I decided to put Russia as 1T I seriously toyed with the idea of a crisis from about 1917-1945, but then I wondered (and still do): How is it possible for the intensely traumatic mood of the 4T to last that long? 28 years? And possibly longer, since the Revolution probably came several years after a 4T mood came over the country.

It just seemed impossible for that mood to last so long.

Intuitively speaking, the most likely way that 28 years could happen would be an awfully slow buildup to the climax. This is the complete opposite of what happened in the USSR.

Originally Posted by 1990

The best solution, it seems, would be to figure out when the last Awakening was. I saw a decent case for an Awakening during the Khruschev era and a little before, which is what solidified the idea of a currently-1T Russia in my mind. But if you have a good case for an Awakening in Russia during Brezhnev, I would love to hear it, because Eastern Europe has to one degree or another bothered me this whole time.

Believe it or not, I set out on this exact same path over a year ago, but didn't follow through with it.

There are certainly signs of an awakening during the 1940's and 1950's, but it appears to be very different from the awakening of the 1960's and 1970's for America.

My gut says that Russia's cycle remained intact following the Second World War.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...

Interesting stuff, but I'd disagree. It's clear we share different paradigms. I don't have anything to add.

Originally Posted by 1990

UPDATE: Also, it just seemed intuitive that the collapse of the USSR was way too "big" to be an Unraveling. Unravelings are supposed to be about overreaching, greed, flab, decadence, self-indulgent judgmental moralism...if anything the military and financial overextension of the Soviet Empire during the 1970s screams 3T to me. The collapse of such a great power would seem intuitively 4T. Only if WWII severely upset the saeculum by extending the Crisis would a currently-4T Russia make sense. That is of course possible, but how on earth could the Soviet collapse be a 3T?

I am still only maybe 70% sure about my decision on Eastern Europe. WWII as a 1T has always troubled me. If Russia is not 1T though, there are only two real possibilities: 4T and 5T, and both have deep flaws. If Russia is 4T, then that means its last Crisis lasted about 30 years, which seems unlikely. If Russia is 5T, then WWII was still a 1T. None of these options seem to fit right.

The best solution, it seems, would be to figure out when the last Awakening was. I saw a decent case for an Awakening during the Khruschev era and a little before, which is what solidified the idea of a currently-1T Russia in my mind. But if you have a good case for an Awakening in Russia during Brezhnev, I would love to hear it, because Eastern Europe has to one degree or another bothered me this whole time.

Interesting map.... but I have my own interpretations. I'll go with the big and prominent players and those countries being played upon.

China.... Crisis ended 1950 with the Communist consolidation of power. Its generational cycle looks retarded, with the failure of the democracy movement as the end of an Awakening Era. Clearly 3T, middle-to-late... but if North Korea does something stupid, the Crisis begins for its neighbor.

India... Crisis ended with formal independence in 1947 (likewise Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and arguably Bangladesh.

USA... Brink of a Crisis. Last Crisis ended in 1945. Leadership seems to have bungled 9/11 badly and gotten very ruthless. Clearly a winter of discontent is underway, and it is sure to result in major re-alignments in political life.

Japan... Late 3T. Last Crisis ended in 1946. One year doesn't make a great difference. Political decadence not as severe as that in the USA. But watch for North Korea to have the potential of pushing a Crisis.

Thailand... brink of crisis due to military coup late in a 3T. Last Crisis ended in 1945.

Vietnam. hard to distinguish from China.

Burma. Vicious dictatorship, economic collapse, ethnic separatism. 4T underway.

North Korea... clearly in Crisis. Political system most in danger of obliteration from any of its neighbors. North Korea could push any of its neighbors into a Crisis. Its last Crisis ended in 1952.

South Korea. Early 3T because it has developed economically and culturally about seven years behind most of the rest of the world. Last Crisis ended in 1952.

Indonesia. 4T -- tsunami, Islamic fundamentalism, terrorism.

Australia. Brink of a 4T. See USA -- the Bali bombing killed lots of Australians, and Islamic fundamentalists have plans for the northern half of Australia to be come part of their empire.

Afghanistan. 4T underway.

Iraq. 4T underway. Likewise.

Iran. Brink of a 4T. Last Crisis ended 1945, and a new one starts if the Iranian leadership does something stupid, which looks like its proclivity.

Sudan. 4T underway -- bloody, vicious civil war that could spread into neighboring countries.

South Africa. Brink of a 4T. Demographic hazards.

Nigeria. Brink of a 4T. Classic powderkeg.

Egypt. Brink of a 4T. Classic powderkeg situation.

Israel. Brink of a 4T. Any fanatical regime could attack Israel as a diversion from domestic distress and rising dissent. Last Crisis ended 1948. Terrorism and demographic problems. West Bank settlers are big trouble.

Palestinian territories. 4T.

Russia (also Belarus) . Brink of a 4T. Consolidation of a dictatorship, domestic terrorism, economic distress. Weak awakening at most (1985-1991)

Central Asia (former USSR).... Brink of a 4T. Classic powderkeg of suppressed fundamentalism against dictatorial secularists. Uzbekistan is 4T.

"Old Europe"... late 3T. Political and economic homogenization is nearly complete. That Spain's last crisis ended in 1939, Germany's Crisis ended in 1948 (Berlin Airlift), Greece's in 1948 (Greek Civil War) and both Switzerland and Sweden both missed WWII matters little. Governments are arguably the most stable in the world. The former DDR is a weak memory.

Turkey... late 3T. Trying to become a part of Europe.

Central Europe (former socialist states from Hungary to Estonia)....late 3T. Most missed the Awakening era or had it extremely muted...rapid incorporation into "Old Europe" desired and likely. Mid 3T because of the delayed Awakening.

Southeast Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine).. trying to join Old Europe. Mid 3T because of delayed Awakening.

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay. Mid 3T due to delayed Awakening; Awakening delayed until the demise of repressive dictatorships around 1990.

Mexico. Considering its huge neighbor... when the USA gets a little flu, Mexico gets pneumonia. Brink of a 4T, like the USA.

Canada. Can't avoid what happens in America. Brink of a 4T.

Cuba. 4T once Fidel Castro dies.

Colombia. 4T underway because of the drug war.

Venezuela. 4T if the USA so decides.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Russia (also Belarus) . Brink of a 4T. Consolidation of a dictatorship, domestic terrorism, economic distress.

to the first:
to the second:
to the third:

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Believe it or not, I set out on this exact same path over a year ago, but didn't follow through with it.

There are certainly signs of an awakening during the 1940's and 1950's, but it appears to be very different from the awakening of the 1960's and 1970's for America.

My gut says that Russia's cycle remained intact following the Second World War.

Well, of course the Awakening looked different. It was the Soviet Union, for God's sake! The Communist oligarchy did everything they could to prevent reform, including pushing Khruschev out.

So you say Russia did have an extended 4T ending in 1945? Interesting. Certainly an attractive theory, but it has holes. Every theory about Russia seems to have holes. It's the borscht or something.

Vietnam is on a different timeline than China. Their Crisis was during our Awakening. Ask one of the boat people.

I don't think Russia had a 28-year Crisis, but I've just been reading up on an ancient nation that had an extremely nasty, prolonged megacrisis with incessant rising action from the end of the last Crisis to the Crisis that ended their Republic. I'm talking about my hobbyhorse, Rome's Dying Republic Saeculum, in which a halfway decent textbook (dry as dust, or why I didn't read it till now) actually showed me where I'd been totally wrong until yesterday.

Sulla's dictatorship was 1T. Imagine a McCarthy Presidency in 1952.
Cataline's Conspiracy and Cicero's overreaction (Silent-on-Silent action) was 2T. As was Spartacus' rebellion. (No duh!) And contrary to the impression I got from too many Julius Caesar-centered books, the entire Caesar-Pompey mess was actually a very, very nasty 3T. It was the asassination that kicked off the 4T, at the end of which (The establishment of Octavian's Principiate) Rome was totally transformed.

So, yes, you can have what looks like a 30-year Crisis but is actually an extremely turbulent Saeculum.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Vietnam is on a different timeline than China. Their Crisis was during our Awakening. Ask one of the boat people.

I don't think Russia had a 28-year Crisis, but I've just been reading up on an ancient nation that had an extremely nasty, prolonged megacrisis with incessant rising action from the end of the last Crisis to the Crisis that ended their Republic. I'm talking about my hobbyhorse, Rome's Dying Republic Saeculum, in which a halfway decent textbook (dry as dust, or why I didn't read it till now) actually showed me where I'd been totally wrong until yesterday.

Sulla's dictatorship was 1T. Imagine a McCarthy Presidency in 1952.
Cataline's Conspiracy and Cicero's overreaction (Silent-on-Silent action) was 2T. As was Spartacus' rebellion. (No duh!) And contrary to the impression I got from too many Julius Caesar-centered books, the entire Caesar-Pompey mess was actually a very, very nasty 3T. It was the asassination that kicked off the 4T, at the end of which (The establishment of Octavian's Principiate) Rome was totally transformed.

So, yes, you can have what looks like a 30-year Crisis but is actually an extremely turbulent Saeculum.

That's badass stuff. Very cool. But how did you count back all those millennia in history?!

Originally Posted by 1990

That's badass stuff. Very cool. But how did you count back all those millennia in history?!

"A History of Rome to A.D. 565, Sixth Edition", by William G. Sinnegen & Arthur E.R. Boak. Frex, check up the chapter "A Period of Factional Strife, 133-78 B.C. Takes us from the first inkling of the Gracchi Awakening (and Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi, is so G.I. Gen it makes my teeth hurt just reading about her) through the end of Sulla's dictatorship.

P.S. for all the inaccuracies of the HBO series "Rome" (especially portraying Cleopatra as an outtake from Desperate Housewives!) it had a truly great final scene that showed up the nomad Atia as a flaming anachronism in the pastel-and-white hero-gen court of her son Octavian. Like seeing a 50 year old Sally Bowles from Cabaret still around and unchanged in 1950.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Like seeing a 50 year old Sally Bowles from Cabaret still around and unchanged in 1950.

Ha. Interesting analogy. I just saw Cabaret again the other day. What a 3T story.

Originally Posted by 1990

Ha. Interesting analogy. I just saw Cabaret again the other day. What a 3T story.

More specifically, a 3T about to end and a 4T about to begin.

I watched Cabaret on Halloween after searching for the perfect horror movie. What could be more of a horror than the rise of you-know-who? The only wholesome characters are the Jews, and you know what will happen to them should they not leave fast enough for a safe haven. I think that even scarier than Psycho.

"Sally Bowles" at fifty? If still living she's an insufferable hag bereft of any attraction. Her type doesn't age gracefully because it doesn't learn anything or establish any loyalties... See also "Roxie Hart" and "Velma Kelly" in Chicago.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Sally Bowles" at fifty? If still living she's an insufferable hag bereft of any attraction. Her type doesn't age gracefully because it doesn't learn anything or establish any loyalties... See also "Roxie Hart" and "Velma Kelly" in Chicago.

Not a Bob Fosse fan?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

More specifically, a 3T about to end and a 4T about to begin.

I watched Cabaret on Halloween after searching for the perfect horror movie. What could be more of a horror than the rise of you-know-who? The only wholesome characters are the Jews, and you know what will happen to them should they not leave fast enough for a safe haven. I think that even scarier than Psycho.

"Sally Bowles" at fifty? If still living she's an insufferable hag bereft of any attraction. Her type doesn't age gracefully because it doesn't learn anything or establish any loyalties... See also "Roxie Hart" and "Velma Kelly" in Chicago.

You got it. Now catch the last scene of Rome's 2nd season finale.

Originally Posted by 1990

Not a Bob Fosse fan?

I love Bob Fosse's choreography. In both Cabaret and Chicago, the music is great, the witty irony is effective, story lines are developed, and characters are well-defined even if loathsome. Clear 3T stories, of course. As drama and pop culture, 3T stories are more appreciable from a distance than are 2T stories. I enjoy the two movies. Would I want my kids to grow up to be a Sally Bowles, Roxie Hart, or Velma Kelly? Absolutely not! I'm no puritan, but I'd like to see people find more wholesome and sustainable means of having fun.

But those are tales of doomed 3Ts, as are all 3Ts.

"Sally Bowles", "Roxie Hart", and "Velma Kelly" illustrate what sort of woman can have fun in a 3T but must make major changes to find any meaning in life. The paradox of hedonism (that is, that although the most obvious delights -- sex, sweets, speeding, impulse shopping, liquor -- get very old very fast -- and usually end up wrecking the person who over-indulges) applies to such characters as they lose their superficial attractiveness and the money runs out. There comes a time in which a culture of hedonism falls apart -- typically as the 3T comes to an end.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I love Bob Fosse's choreography. In both Cabaret and Chicago, the music is great, the witty irony is effective, story lines are developed, and characters are well-defined even if loathsome. Clear 3T stories, of course. As drama and pop culture, 3T stories are more appreciable from a distance than are 2T stories. I enjoy the two movies. Would I want my kids to grow up to be a Sally Bowles, Roxie Hart, or Velma Kelly? Absolutely not! I'm no puritan, but I'd like to see people find more wholesome and sustainable means of having fun.

But those are tales of doomed 3Ts, as are all 3Ts.

"Sally Bowles", "Roxie Hart", and "Velma Kelly" illustrate what sort of woman can have fun in a 3T but must make major changes to find any meaning in life. The paradox of hedonism (that is, that although the most obvious delights -- sex, sweets, speeding, impulse shopping, liquor -- get very old very fast -- and usually end up wrecking the person who over-indulges) applies to such characters as they lose their superficial attractiveness and the money runs out. There comes a time in which a culture of hedonism falls apart -- typically as the 3T comes to an end.

All very observant, and very true.

BTW, I miss the 3T already.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I love Bob Fosse's choreography. In both Cabaret and Chicago, the music is great, the witty irony is effective, story lines are developed, and characters are well-defined even if loathsome. Clear 3T stories, of course. As drama and pop culture, 3T stories are more appreciable from a distance than are 2T stories. I enjoy the two movies. Would I want my kids to grow up to be a Sally Bowles, Roxie Hart, or Velma Kelly? Absolutely not! I'm no puritan, but I'd like to see people find more wholesome and sustainable means of having fun.

But those are tales of doomed 3Ts, as are all 3Ts.

"Sally Bowles", "Roxie Hart", and "Velma Kelly" illustrate what sort of woman can have fun in a 3T but must make major changes to find any meaning in life. The paradox of hedonism (that is, that although the most obvious delights -- sex, sweets, speeding, impulse shopping, liquor -- get very old very fast -- and usually end up wrecking the person who over-indulges) applies to such characters as they lose their superficial attractiveness and the money runs out. There comes a time in which a culture of hedonism falls apart -- typically as the 3T comes to an end.

To quote another tale about the last 3T, "Men grow cold as girls grow old, and we all lose our charms in the end ... but square-shaped or pear-shaped, these rocks don't lose their shape ...

Diamonds are a girl's best friend!

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

To quote another tale about the last 3T, "Men grow cold as girls grow old, and we all lose our charms in the end ... but square-shaped or pear-shaped, these rocks don't lose their shape ...

Diamonds are a girl's best friend!

In fact there's better.

I was concerned for a time that by bashing a certain sort of woman, the sort that exploits feminism entirely for the opportunity to be more self-indulgent, I might seem anti-feminist.

The biological clock exists for women as it does not for men, but value as a person does not end when one's reproductive life comes to an end. With intelligence, creativity, compassion, and credibility a woman can do as much for society at 55 as at 25 except bear a baby. If a 55-year-old man can be a father or a grandfather of an infant, a 55-year-old woman can only be a grandmother to an infant. But being a mother or a potential mother of an infant is the one role that a woman can no longer have in her fifties.

That others give a d@mn for one matters even more than do little rocks of ultra-hard carbon.