Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

I have been reading David Kaiser's essay called
Neither Marxist nor Whig: The Great Atlantic Crises, 1774-1962 It talks a lot about Europe's turnings since the American revoultion and how it has affected European politics. I agree with him on a lot of points and disagree on others, however it is a must read.

I found it very good as well, although some of his turnings are plain wrong. France in no way went through a Fourth turning during the 1950's and 1960's. May 1968 was an awakening event for France, indeed for the whole of Europe,even places like Greece were affected by start of the awakening in 1967/8.

I am wondering Stanley, have you compared Britain's saeculum and generations with those in the rest of Western Europe. I have a feeling based on history that Western Europe has shared the same saeculum (with small variations) since the Reformation (which affected everywhere from Spain to Sweden, from Britain to Lithuania).

There have been a lot of awakenings and crisis?s, which have affected the whole of Western Europe. Like for example the wars of religion, the enlightenment, French revolution, wars of unification and World War 2.

Anyway, hi guys, for those who'll remember me.

I'm going to leave you guys with a couple of things. For those of you who might recall an old promise, I was going to see if I could find the generational set up for the English/British. For the most part I think I have, and here is it:

English Puritan (Prophet) - 1588-1617
English Cavaliers (Nomad) - 1618-1650
English Glorious (Hero) - 1651-1676
Hanoverians (Artist) - 1677-1701
Evangelicals (Prophet) - 1702-1727
Radicals (Nomad) - 1728-1754
Britons (Hero) - 1755-1780
Romantics (Artist) - 1781-1800
Victorians (Prophet) - 1801-1824
Imperials (Nomad/Hero) - 1825-1852
Edwardians (Artist) - 1853-1869
Ecumenicals (Prophet) - 1870-1886
Contemptibles (Nomad) - 1887-1905
Fews (Hero) - 1906-1926
Blitzs (Artist) - 1927-1943
Mods (Prophet) - 1944-1962
Hooligans (Nomad) - 1963-1981
Millenials (Hero) - 1982-????
New Artists (Artists) - ????-????

For anyone asking why I don't know where the present British Millenials end and the present New Artists start, it's very simple, I just do not know what is going on in Britain at the present time.

I know a little bit about Britain at the present era, I think the Millennial in Britain do not begin there until 1985 or 1986, which would put in line with other European nations. Strauss and Howe cited opinion polling of late 70's and early 80's cohorts in Britain around 2000/01 that showed that they were strongly Nomad in their outlook on the world and their lives. They cited it in the Millennials Rising book.

The current Unravelling in Britain started around Thatchers re-election in 1987. Nick Beeching an ocassional British poster on the group. Feels that the awakening in Britain started most likely in 1967.

Anyway throughout Europe (Britain included), I have observed that the last High started around 1950 and the last awakening started no later than 1968. That means that Europe and Britain are currently 3-4 years behind the United States. I also get the same kind of observations in Australia as well (which has had in all likelyhood had a strong saeculum link with Britain, until the 20th century).

Now, no. 2. the era and turnings, and how each generation fit inside each turning. Be warn, it's a long one. :

Imperial High - 1874-1890

The Imperial High does seem a little short at 16 years, if you are willing to cite good evidence for the Imperial High starting in 1874, instead of couple of years earlier, I am willing to agree with you.

Ecumenical generation, nice name. When did you get the name from Stanley.

Ecumenical Awakening - 1890-1910

Imperials entering elderhood
Edwardians entering midlife
Ecumenicals entering young adulthood
Contemptibles entering childhood

The same dates I have observed for the awakening occuring in Australia and mostly likely in Western Europe. Others on this group have observed that the German Missionary awakening ran from 1890-1910.

Great War Unraveling - 1910-1931

That more of less fits in with my observations of when the last unravelling occured in Australia and the Weimar Unravelling in Germany.

World War Crisis - 1931-1947

In both Germany and Australia the Great Depression and WW2 Crisis was started by the Wall Street Crash, maybe something else triggered off that Crisis in Britain.

The Crisis in Australia anyway did not end until late 1949 when the Prophet Generation's crusading (Like them Prime Minister Ben Chifley's campaign to nationalise the banks) was finally put a stop to and rationing on items like petrol ended.

From the reading I get from British history the WW2 Crisis ended around 1949, when the Labour party government under Atlee narrowly survived defeat. I think that was when the Ecumenical generation's crusading was put finally to a stop by the younger generations.

This is what I'd gotten after I would say over 5 years of research. I'm still doing research and some changes might need to be made, and I have a feeling Dr. Kaiser's article will help a lot either to keep things the way they are or make little changes. Anyway, hope you folks will enjoy.

Really good work Stanley,
Thank you very much for this posting.

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

That is just tenative on whether the Imperials are a Nomad or Hero generation. My guts feeling keep telling me Hero, but I planning to get
a little more indepth at the generation by individual members and in
history before I decide to leave that generation in its present place or
a Nomad or a Hero Generation.

I have to take that in mind in researching the generations which were the leaders of the federation movenment in the 1890's and 1900's. The younger leaders born the 1850's and 1860's were defenitly Artists, however the older leaders born in the 1830's and 1840's I am not sure of their archetypes, I am guessing Hero.

However I am not really sure, until I do further research. Judging by this generational chart Henry Parkes (b.1815 in England) was a member of the Victorian generation and he did very much act like a Prophert.

As for the Reform Crisis being a mild
one, that does make it so interesting if you think about. Reforms made
in Britain without it being involved in a major war (outside of the Indian Munity) and the only outside interference being the American Civil War (slavery) and maybe the Franco-Prussian War.

On the European continent, the Crisis was not a mild affair, particularly in France. It was a fairly normal 4T with some major wars like Italy's fight against Austria, various wars France waged with Austria and Savoy, Austria's war against Prussia and the Franco-Prussian war, which was the Crisis Climax.

As for the division of the present Hero/Artist generation in Britain, I know its to early to tell, but there is always some one who likes to find something to complain. I just felt like beating them to the punch. :P

That would not be decided until the next 4T climaxes or at the very least when the coming 4T starts on that side of the Atlantic.

Kurt '63 wrote:

"...I think that a Hero generation did emerge from the 1850-1870 Crisis, and that they can be seen in old movies and books. Often portrayed is a stuffy, old colonel or brigadier, who started his military career in India or Africa, and earned a chest full of medals in the Boer War. Wearing his favourite pith helmet, he raises the Union Jack over his home every morning, and shocks people by still using the old racist slang worlds to describe other races. The most famous representative being Colonel Blimp, a character created by David Low, who being born in 1891 was quite familiar with this then declining generation.

"...The idea of a peaceable Crisis fascinates me, though I fear I do not have the expertise necessary to account for what conditions allow it to arise. Britain in the 1850s, and Sweden in the 1880s were from from fear of discord with neighbouring countries, but so was the United States in the 1860s. It might be that in the first two instances there existed a still effective remnant of the previous Artist generation, or that the Nomad generation was not alienated enough to superintend an apocalypse."

From print out derived from paleo 4T site, Western Europe thread, July 28th '97 post.

I am thinking that "Hero" should be deemed a Crisis role rather than an archetype. It seems that this role may be assumed by either a Nomad or Civic generation. The Nomad-Hero is not quite the same as the Civic-Hero, however.

Tristan wrote:

I found it very good as well, although some of his turnings are plain wrong. France in no way went through a Fourth turning during the 1950's and 1960's. May 1968 was an awakening event for France, indeed for the whole of Europe,even places like Greece were affected by start of the awakening in 1967/8.

Well, I'm still looking into that period. There's a book that I hope to read that is titled The Sixties, that is suppose to talk about what happened in Western Europe and the United States during that decade.

I am wondering Stanley, have you compared Britain's saeculum and generations with those in the rest of Western Europe. I have a feeling based on history that Western Europe has shared the same saeculum (with small variations) since the Reformation (which affected everywhere from Spain to Sweden, from Britain to Lithuania).

There have been a lot of awakenings and crisis?s, which have affected the whole of Western Europe. Like for example the wars of religion, the enlightenment, French revolution, wars of unification and World War 2.

No, I haven't and for a very simple reason. I'm trying to make sure that I get the British Generations and Saeculum lined up correctly before I try to tackle any other country in Europe. Although I do have a degree in Early Modern European History, it was mainly Western European based (Britain, France, the German States, Holland.).

Quote:

Anyway, hi guys, for those who'll remember me.

I'm going to leave you guys with a couple of things. For those of you who might recall an old promise, I was going to see if I could find the generational set up for the English/British. For the most part I think I have, and here is it:

English Puritan (Prophet) - 1588-1617
English Cavaliers (Nomad) - 1618-1650
English Glorious (Hero) - 1651-1676
Hanoverians (Artist) - 1677-1701
Evangelicals (Prophet) - 1702-1727
Radicals (Nomad) - 1728-1754
Britons (Hero) - 1755-1780
Romantics (Artist) - 1781-1800
Victorians (Prophet) - 1801-1824
Imperials (Nomad/Hero) - 1825-1852
Edwardians (Artist) - 1853-1869
Ecumenicals (Prophet) - 1870-1886
Contemptibles (Nomad) - 1887-1905
Fews (Hero) - 1906-1926
Blitzs (Artist) - 1927-1943
Mods (Prophet) - 1944-1962
Hooligans (Nomad) - 1963-1981
Millenials (Hero) - 1982-????
New Artists (Artists) - ????-????

For anyone asking why I don't know where the present British Millenials end and the present New Artists start, it's very simple, I just do not know what is going on in Britain at the present time.

I know a little bit about Britain at the present era, I think the Millennial in Britain do not begin there until 1985 or 1986, which would put in line with other European nations. Strauss and Howe cited opinion polling of late 70's and early 80's cohorts in Britain around 2000/01 that showed that they were strongly Nomad in their outlook on the world and their lives. They cited it in the Millennials Rising book.

Do tell. Care to tell me which pages they were so that I can check in my copy of the book? Thank you.

The current Unravelling in Britain started around Thatchers re-election in 1987. Nick Beeching an ocassional British poster on the group. Feels that the awakening in Britain started most likely in 1967.

I will be the first to admit that I still have to check the data, although at the moment, my guts is telling me that the Awakening ended in '84 and not in '87, and that the Unraveling began in '64 and not '67.

Anyway throughout Europe (Britain included), I have observed that the last High started around 1950 and the last awakening started no later than 1968. That means that Europe and Britain are currently 3-4 years behind the United States. I also get the same kind of observations in Australia as well (which has had in all likelyhood had a strong saeculum link with Britain, until the 20th century).

Well, my searches seem to be pointing to '47 as the period that the High began.

Quote:

Now, no. 2. the era and turnings, and how each generation fit inside each turning. Be warn, it's a long one. :

Imperial High - 1874-1890

The Imperial High does seem a little short at 16 years, if you are willing to cite good evidence for the Imperial High starting in 1874, instead of couple of years earlier, I am willing to agree with you.

Simple. Things changed when the Conservative government of Disrael took over from the Liberal Government of Gladstone, thus ending a long period of reforms in Britain. Also, 1874 was the second year of the so-call first Great Depression of 1873-1890, which was of great concern, economically during those years.

Ecumenical generation, nice name. When did you get the name from Stanley.

Got the name from a book that was talking about the churches, both Protestant and Catholic, during the lifetime of this generation, trying to bring themselves together. Just seems to fit somehow.

Quote:

Ecumenical Awakening - 1890-1910

Imperials entering elderhood
Edwardians entering midlife
Ecumenicals entering young adulthood
Contemptibles entering childhood

The same dates I have observed for the awakening occuring in Australia and mostly likely in Western Europe. Others on this group have observed that the German Missionary awakening ran from 1890-1910.

Quote:

Great War Unraveling - 1910-1931

That more of less fits in with my observations of when the last unravelling occured in Australia and the Weimar Unravelling in Germany.

This was how things appeared through my initial researches, especially on the English Generation of 1914 (Contemptibles).

Quote:

World War Crisis - 1931-1947

In both Germany and Australia the Great Depression and WW2 Crisis was started by the Wall Street Crash, maybe something else triggered off that Crisis in Britain.

A combination economic/political crisis during the summer of 1931. Britain economically was finally affected by the American economic collapse and the European banks collapses of that year, while the 2nd Labour Government was slowly falling apart. The Political solution was the formation of a National Government that conbined the Labour and Conservative Parties under the leadership of Stanley Baldwin and Ramsey McDonald. At the moment I forget the economic solution, but I think it has something to do with the Gold Standard.

The Crisis in Australia anyway did not end until late 1949 when the Prophet Generation's crusading (Like them Prime Minister Ben Chifley's campaign to nationalise the banks) was finally put a stop to and rationing on items like petrol ended.

From the reading I get from British history the WW2 Crisis ended around 1949, when the Labour party government under Atlee narrowly survived defeat. I think that was when the Ecumenical generation's crusading was put finally to a stop by the younger generations.

I myself don't really see the election of 1949 as the end of Britain's crisis. I see it as the early part of the High, with the British Heros telling the old
Prophets to stop and the prophets simply had no choice but to listen.

Quote:

This is what I'd gotten after I would say over 5 years of research. I'm still doing research and some changes might need to be made, and I have a feeling Dr. Kaiser's article will help a lot either to keep things the way they are or make little changes. Anyway, hope you folks will enjoy.

Really good work Stanley,
Thank you very much for this posting.

Thank you. But I still have some work to do. A lot of work.

Stanley '61

I have to take that in mind in researching the generations which were the leaders of the federation movenment in the 1890's and 1900's. The younger leaders born the 1850's and 1860's were defenitly Artists, however the older leaders born in the 1830's and 1840's I am not sure of their archetypes, I am guessing Hero.

However I am not really sure, until I do further research. Judging by this generational chart Henry Parkes (b.1815 in England) was a member of the Victorian generation and he did very much act like a Prophert.

Well, as I'd already said, I need to check on those born in the 1830s/1840s to be sure of their generational archetype. My guts say Hero, but I would rather have my brain and research confirm it.

As for Henry Parkes, well, he was born before Queen Victoria. Care to explain what he's know for?

Quote:

As for the Reform Crisis being a mild
one, that does make it so interesting if you think about. Reforms made
in Britain without it being involved in a major war (outside of the Indian Munity) and the only outside interference being the American Civil War (slavery) and maybe the Franco-Prussian War.

On the European continent, the Crisis was not a mild affair, particularly in France. It was a fairly normal 4T with some major wars like Italy's fight against Austria, various wars France waged with Austria and Savoy, Austria's war against Prussia and the Franco-Prussian war, which was the Crisis Climax.

You seems to misunderstand. For Britain it was mild. For Europe, this was the Unification Crisis period. (Unification of Italy and Germany, The Italian War of 1859 between Savoy and France against Austria, Garibaldi running Austira out of Southern Italy, while the Kingdom of Savoy ran out Austria's influence in Northern Italy, The Danish War of 1864 between Prussia and Austria against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, The Seven Weeks War of 1866 between Austria and Prussia and her German allies over the same territory, the Franco-Prussia of 1870-71 and the new Italian state taking over all of Rome except for the Vatican City because of the removal of French Troops that were protecting the pope. Also, there was the formation of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and the attempt to liberalize Russia by Alexander II.)

Quote:

As for the division of the present Hero/Artist generation in Britain, I know its to early to tell, but there is always some one who likes to find something to complain. I just felt like beating them to the punch.

That would not be decided until the next 4T climaxes or at the very least when the coming 4T starts on that side of the Atlantic.

I know. But better to be safe than sorry, hmm?

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

Well, I'm still looking into that period. There's a book that I hope to read that is titled The Sixties, that is suppose to talk about what happened in Western Europe and the United States during that decade.

In page 292 of Millennials Rising Strauss and Howe observed that Europe's youth tumult didn't begin until 1968, when America's was well under away.

No, I haven't and for a very simple reason. I'm trying to make sure that I get the British Generations and Saeculum lined up correctly before I try to tackle any other country in Europe. Although I do have a degree in Early Modern European History, it was mainly Western European based (Britain, France, the German States, Holland.).

I might be thinking of doing a History course at a major university in Melbourne next year, I might be able to help you with your research.

Do tell. Care to tell me which pages they were so that I can check in my copy of the book? Thank you.

Pages 291-292, actually the opinion poll in question was done in 1998 or 16 to 21 year olds (77' to 84' cohorts), however these cohorts seem very Nomad. Strauss and Howe noted these opinion poll trends did not match up with similar opinion polls in the USA.

I will be the first to admit that I still have to check the data, although at the moment, my guts is telling me that the Awakening ended in '84 and not in '87, and that the Awakening began in '64 and not '67.

People on this discussion have difficulity in figuring out when exactly the USA's awakening ended. In Australia anyway the Unravelling started in 1987 or 1988, I guess we have diverted a bit from the Mother country since the late 19th century.

Well, my searches seem to be pointing to '47 as the period that the High began.

The last high did probably started earlier in Britain than in Australia.

Simple. Things changed when the Conservative government of Disrael took over from the Liberal Government of Gladstone, thus ending a long period of reforms in Britain. Also, 1874 was the second year of the so-call first Great Depression of 1873-1890, which was of great concern, economically during those years.

Good point, however aren't the starts of Highs have a reaction to radicalism of the Crisis before?

Got the name from a book that was talking about the churches, both Protestant and Catholic, during the lifetime of this generation, trying to bring themselves together. Just seems to fit somehow.

I noted that about British religious history of the period. I never heard the term before until you mentioned it.

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

As for Henry Parkes, well, he was born before Queen Victoria. Care to explain what he's know for?

He was premier of the colony of New South Wales for a long time and was the ?father? of the Federation movement. He was an ex-charist and had very headstrong political views.

http://www.waverley.nsw.gov.au/libra...ion/parkes.htm
http://www.cofq.qld.gov.au/henry_parkes.html
http://www.nnsw.com.au/tenterfield/hparkes.html

You seems to misunderstand. For Britain it was mild. For Europe, this was the Unification Crisis period. (Unification of Italy and Germany, The Italian War of 1859 between Savoy and France against Austria, Garibaldi running Austira out of Southern Italy, while the Kingdom of Savoy ran out Austria's influence in Northern Italy, The Danish War of 1864 between Prussia and Austria against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, The Seven Weeks War of 1866 between Austria and Prussia and her German allies over the same territory, the Franco-Prussia of 1870-71 and the new Italian state taking over all of Rome except for the Vatican City because of the removal of French Troops that were protecting the pope. Also, there was the formation of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and the attempt to liberalize Russia by Alexander II.)

Now I understand, sorry

Tristan wrote:

He was premier of the colony of New South Wales for a long time and was the ?father? of the Federation movement. He was an ex-charist and had very headstrong political views.

Ah, I see. Anyway, I'll check out the information on him as soon as I can.

Quote:

You seems to misunderstand. For Britain it was mild. For Europe, this was the Unification Crisis period. (Unification of Italy and Germany, The Italian War of 1859 between Savoy and France against Austria, Garibaldi running Austira out of Southern Italy, while the Kingdom of Savoy ran out Austria's influence in Northern Italy, The Danish War of 1864 between Prussia and Austria against Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, The Seven Weeks War of 1866 between Austria and Prussia and her German allies over the same territory, the Franco-Prussia of 1870-71 and the new Italian state taking over all of Rome except for the Vatican City because of the removal of French Troops that were protecting the pope. Also, there was the formation of the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and the attempt to liberalize Russia by Alexander II.)

Now I understand, sorry

No problem. Hee hee, I got a BA in General History, and still have the Palmer/Colton sixth edition of A History of the Modern World in my collection.

Tristan wrote:

In page 292 of Millennials Rising Strauss and Howe observed that Europe's youth tumult didn't begin until 1968, when America's was well under away.

Thanks. Looks it over. Still need to look at how Britain acted during the whole 60s. The tumult may have come in '68, but the youth culture was already there by 1965. This was the time of the permissive society and Swinging London.

Quote:

No, I haven't and for a very simple reason. I'm trying to make sure that I get the British Generations and Saeculum lined up correctly before I try to tackle any other country in Europe. Although I do have a degree in Early Modern European History, it was mainly Western European based (Britain, France, the German States, Holland.).

I might be thinking of doing a History course at a major university in Melbourne next year, I might be able to help you with your research.

Okay. But should warn you, some countries are harder to understand than others.

Quote:
Do tell. Care to tell me which pages they were so that I can check in my copy of the book? Thank you.

Pages 291-292, actually the opinion poll in question was done in 1998 or 16 to 21 year olds (77' to 84' cohorts), however these cohorts seem very Nomad. Strauss and Howe noted these opinion poll trends did not match up with similar opinion polls in the USA.

Read the information again. Would be helpful if I had a chance to see those polls first hand.

Quote:

I will be the first to admit that I still have to check the data, although at the moment, my guts is telling me that the Awakening ended in '84 and not in '87, and that the Awakening began in '64 and not '67.

People on this discussion have difficulity in figuring out when exactly the USA's awakening ended. In Australia anyway the Unravelling started in 1987 or 1988, I guess we have diverted a bit from the Mother country since the late 19th century.

Well, Strauss and Howe are saying it was the 1984 Election Year as when the last American Awakening ended. Since I don't know too much about Australian history, I can't say yes or no. And I'd relooked at my chart. I had a British Awakening starting in 1965, not 1964.

Quote:

Well, my searches seem to be pointing to '47 as the period that the High began.

The last high did probably started earlier in Britain than in Australia.

Nods. Especially since Britain did not suffer as badly as did the countries on the European continent, and the British heros were trying to make Postwar Britain a country fit for heros.

Quote:

Simple. Things changed when the Conservative government of Disrael took over from the Liberal Government of Gladstone, thus ending a long period of reforms in Britain. Also, 1874 was the second year of the so-call first Great Depression of 1873-1890, which was of great concern, economically during those years.

Good point, however aren't the starts of Highs have a reaction to radicalism of the Crisis before?

I would have to check, but I believe they are. Which would especially fit in this case.

Quote:

Got the name from a book that was talking about the churches, both Protestant and Catholic, during the lifetime of this generation, trying to bring themselves together. Just seems to fit somehow.

I noted that about British religious history of the period. I never heard the term before until you mentioned it.

I know. Which is interesting considering how the British, like us here in America, normally had a negative reaction to the Catholic Church.

Stanley '61

Stanley,

If you want to know if Britain either had a real Hero generation in the mid 19th century or skipped a Hero generation like the US did during the Civil War Saeculum. Brian Rush made some comments about how the Civil War analomy affected both the Progressive and Missionary Generations. See if these descriptions of the Progressive and Missionary generations fit in with descriptions of the Ecumenicals and Edwardians.

Here is Brian Rush?s comments I dug out of the Paelo-Archive
One thing that hasn't been discussed yet is that, in addition to its other weirdness, the Civil War resulted in two anomalous generations, the Progressives and the Missionaries. These were, respectively, Artists raised by Prophets and Prophets raised by Nomads, and it showed, because their behaviour was in many ways not typical of those two archetypes, although each was sufficiently true to form that it can be correctly categorized.

The Progressives produced two very decisive, liberal, and strong-willed presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. TR in particular was more like a Hero than an Artist. Compared to Transcendentals, Gilded, or Missionaries, the Progressives were certainly less decisive, more inclined to compromise, more humanitarian, and all those Artist characteristics. But that is not how they stack up when compared to the Compromisers, the Enlighteners, or the Silent. They were an Artist generation all right, but attenuated by comparison to Artists raised by Nomads. The times were right, but the generation that raised them was not -- Prophets don't really know how to raise anything but Heroes. And Heroes was, of course, exactly what they were raising prior to the Civil War, so the Progressives got a Hero's childhood.

And apparently Nomads have the same difficulty raising Prophets, because although the Missionaries were clearly Prophet Archetype, compared to either the Transcendentals or the Boomers they were a somewhat attenuated version. Either Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony (I think the latter) noted that the younger suffragists during the Missionary Awakening were more conservative and traditional, less open to radical ideas, than the reformers she remembered from her own youth. Stanton's movement to allow women to divorce their husbands was voted down and she herself was censured by a NWSA convention, over Anthony's objections, because the Missionary suffragists found it morally shocking. Moreover, the Missionaries were deficient in what ought to be, if anything is, the most telling impact of any Prophet generation: new religions. While the Transcendentals gave us Christian Science, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, Theosophy, Spiritism, and the mystical religion-like philosophy of Transcendentalism, and the Boomers have brought us an influx of Americanized Hindu and Buddhist mysticism, Neopaganism, and a large number of New Age currents, and are well on the way to transforming the nature of Christianity itself, making it both sexually egalitarian and nature-friendly, the Missionaries mostly advanced and revived old ideas, from the global missionary movement that gave the generation its name to the rehashing of spiritism that was the object of Houdini's investigations. Compare them to the Progressives or Lost or GIs and yes, they look like Prophets, but compare them to the Prophet generations of earlier or later times and they don't quite match.

This apparently did not carry over to the generations raised by the Progressives or Missionaries. The Lost were true-to-form Nomads, and the GIs were certainly Heroes. But the impact of the Civil War anomaly extended, I think, well beyond that one missing generation nonetheless.

Tristan wrote:

Stanley,

If you want to know if Britain either had a real Hero generation in the mid 19th century or skipped a Hero generation like the US did during the Civil War Saeculum. Brian Rush made some comments about how the Civil War analomy affected both the Progressive and Missionary Generations. See if these descriptions of the Progressive and Missionary generations fit in with descriptions of the Ecumenicals and Edwardians.

Here is Brian Rush?s comments I dug out of the Paelo-Archive
One thing that hasn't been discussed yet is that, in addition to its other weirdness, the Civil War resulted in two anomalous generations, the Progressives and the Missionaries. These were, respectively, Artists raised by Prophets and Prophets raised by Nomads, and it showed, because their behaviour was in many ways not typical of those two archetypes, although each was sufficiently true to form that it can be correctly categorized.

I'd just finished reading your post. I'll put it into consideration as I read some more biographies of members from both generations, although from what I have read on the Edwardian generation in combined biographies, the Edwardians appear to be an artist generation in appearance.

Stanley '61

I think that Brian's analysis, quoted by Tim, is spot on. One last thing to add to that analysis would be what S&H have already said and that's how awkwardly the Gilded took on a dominant generation's role (seeing that theirs is a recessive archetype).

Tristan and Stanley,

What specifically would make the British "Imperial Generation" become a Nomad/Hero hybrid; IOW, what would cause the "Reform Crisis" Anomaly that created such a hybrid??

Mike A. and I have both identified a saecular hiccup or jump that seems to occur in the ninteenth century. He sees it as the saeculum disconnecting from the War/Debt cycle and hitching a ride on the K-cycle. I see it as partly that and also as a modal shift from a three phase dynamic to a four phase dynamic [see "Multi-Modal Saeculum" thread]. Either way (or some other) it looks like this shift not only occurred in Britain as well, but at the same time.

Thoughts?

Neil made an observation about Europe's generations, this is an observation Neil Howe made on this thread back in 1997.

Posted by: Neil Howe
Date posted: Thu Apr 17 7:38:26 US/Pacific 1997
Subject: the Lag
Message:
Bill and I started hypothesizing several years about this post-war "lag" in the timing of generations in Europe versus America. And it has never really moved much beyond the hypothesis stage.

One argument in its favor is the later dating of the European resolution of WWII and, perhaps, the later dating of "the Sixties Movement": To most appearances, European youth really didn't show much radicalism before '68--and there the violence and tumult crested in the late '70s (just when it was subsiding here). Another empirical if unquantifiable argument, for me, is just my own impressions of Western European acquaintances. Those today around age 50 strike me as lifelong careerists--button-pushing, passage-prone process types who lack most of those familiar je n'sais quoi Boomer attributes that one does find in like-age Americans (or in Europeans who are five years younger). Anyone care to mention their own personal experiences?
But Kurt does make some excellent points--worth pondering, for Britain at least. One other thing that's always bothered me. Most of the Red Brigade and other assorted "youth" terrorists killed or captured in the '70s were (I believe) born around 1943-46.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Neil made an observation about Europe's generations, this is an observation Neil Howe made on this thread back in 1997.

But Kurt does make some excellent points--worth pondering, for Britain at least. One other thing that's always bothered me. Most of the Red Brigade and other assorted "youth" terrorists killed or captured in the '70s were (I believe) born around 1943-46.

That isn't surprising to me. Most of the leaders of the US Radical movement in its genesis were late wave Silents. It wouldn't surprise me one iota to see something similar in Europe.

William Jennings Bryan wrote:

What specifically would make the British "Imperial Generation" become a Nomad/Hero hybrid; IOW, what would cause the "Reform Crisis" Anomaly that created such a hybrid??

Mike A. and I have both identified a saecular hiccup or jump that seems to occur in the ninteenth century. He sees it as the saeculum disconnecting from the War/Debt cycle and hitching a ride on the K-cycle. I see it as partly that and also as a modal shift from a three phase dynamic to a four phase dynamic [see "Multi-Modal Saeculum" thread]. Either way (or some other) it looks like this shift not only occurred in Britain as well, but at the same time.

Thoughts?

I'm checking on this, but I think it's because of the fact that reforms occured in England/Britain more or less without bloodshed, while Europe had two Revolutions (1830 and 1848), Wars of Unification and other short-term wars. Remember, as Europe was embroiled in the Revolutions of 1848(/49), England had it Chartists who were put down by the government with very little trouble, in spite of the government's fear that they were the vanguard of Revolution in their country. If I remember England's economic history, except for some short periods, England was a very prosperious country, although a large number of the poor would think otherwise, which more or less undercut any support that the Chartists may have hope to build on. I will admit that change in England came slow, such as the removal of the Corn and Poor Laws and the increasing of the Franchise (Wait until you find out what the 1832 (Voting) Reform Act actually did and why the 1867 one is more important.). But, all of the reforms that were mentioned in Dr. Kaiser's article that were passed by Parliament in that anomaly helped to established the Mid-Victorian British Society which didn't fall until the First World War and the 1920s.
As for the Imperials being placed as a Nomad/Hero hybrid it is because I am still researching that generation and I don't want to call it one type or the other until I am sure, although my gut feeling, as I'd mentioned earlier, says Hero.

Stanley

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

William Jennings Bryan wrote:

What specifically would make the British "Imperial Generation" become a Nomad/Hero hybrid; IOW, what would cause the "Reform Crisis" Anomaly that created such a hybrid??

Mike A. and I have both identified a saecular hiccup or jump that seems to occur in the ninteenth century. He sees it as the saeculum disconnecting from the War/Debt cycle and hitching a ride on the K-cycle. I see it as partly that and also as a modal shift from a three phase dynamic to a four phase dynamic [see "Multi-Modal Saeculum" thread]. Either way (or some other) it looks like this shift not only occurred in Britain as well, but at the same time.

Thoughts?

I'm checking on this, but I think it's because of the fact that reforms occured in England/Britain more or less without bloodshed, while Europe had two Revolutions (1830 and 1848), Wars of Unification and other short-term wars. Remember, as Europe was embroiled in the Revolutions of 1848(/49), England had it Chartists who were put down by the government with very little trouble, in spite of the government's fear that they were the vanguard of Revolution in their country. If I remember England's economic history, except for some short periods, England was a very prosperious country, although a large number of the poor would think otherwise, which more or less undercut any support that the Chartists may have hope to build on. I will admit that change in England came slow, such as the removal of the Corn and Poor Laws and the increasing of the Franchise (Wait until you find out what the 1832 (Voting) Reform Act actually did and why the 1867 one is more important.). But, all of the reforms that were mentioned in Dr. Kaiser's article that were passed by Parliament in that anomaly helped to established the Mid-Victorian British Society which didn't fall until the First World War and the 1920s.
As for the Imperials being placed as a Nomad/Hero hybrid it is because I am still researching that generation and I don't want to call it one type or the other until I am sure, although my gut feeling, as I'd mentioned earlier, says Hero.

Stanley

Thanks Stanley. I am looking forward to what you have to say about the saeculum in 19th century Britain/Europe. What I find most interesting is the divergence of opinion between people who are all brilliant and well-informed. Some say a 4T ended in 1806 (like you). Some say the 4T ended in 1815 (my less-informed inclination). Yet another says a 2T started in 1815!!! Wow.

Like I said, I am really anxious to see more of this play out here on the boards. Besides curiosity for curiosity's sake, I am very interested in this concept of a saecular transition occurring in societies industrializing (or going post-agricultural, if one prefers). For the First World I feel this would've meant the 19th and very early 20th centuries (depending on the nation) and the 20th century proper for much of the rest of the world (and for many people right now!).

William Jennings Bryan:

Thanks Stanley. I am looking forward to what you have to say about the saeculum in 19th century Britain/Europe. What I find most interesting is the divergence of opinion between people who are all brilliant and well-informed. Some say a 4T ended in 1806 (like you). Some say the 4T ended in 1815 (my less-informed inclination). Yet another says a 2T started in 1815!!! Wow.

Thanks. As for why I think the crisis ended for Britain is this. Now follow me closely: In 1802, the British and French signed a peace treaty, but it would be better called a temporary cease fire, since both sides knew they would be back at each other throats, and they were in 1803, when Britain refused to leave the island of Malta. Britain at the time had no allies, and the French, under Napoleon, were very strong.
From the very moment of the renewal of hostilities, Napoleon has set up an Army of Invasion, prepared to invade England. The British, for their part, were prepared to defend themselves with a Home Guard, as well as having lookouts and signal beacons along the coast, watching for the first signs of the French Army crossing the channel. But, the only way the French would be able to do that would be if they could gain control of the channel and the only way that would happen would be the defeat of the Royal Navy. At the same time, the British, under William Pitt the younger, who had returned to power in May 1804, signed treaties with the Austrians and Russians, whose armies would then move to the west and, thereby would crush Napoleon from the rear. Napoleon, during the meantime, had himself declared Emperor of France.
In 1805, during the summer, the Austro-Russian armies moved westward, while the combined Frenco-Spanish navy first moved to the west, towards the Caribbean, and then back to the channel, so that it could slip past the ships of the Royal Navy that were under the command of Admiral Nelson, so that they could combine with the French Army that was set to invade England, and defend it during the crossing to England. The results was the destruction of the Franco-Spanish Navy by Nelson's ships at Trafalgar on October 21, while a French army of seven corps that were sent to defend the French 'rear' against the combined Austro-Russian army, forced an Austrian Army of 50,000 men to surrender at Ulm in Bavaria on October 15. The result was that England were now master of the sea for the rest of the so-call Napoleon Wars, and would then be the dominant Navy in the world until the dawn of the 20th Century, while France was becoming the dominant land power in Europe.
Napoleon's army, its naval support now gone, would no longer be able to threathen England/Britain with invasion, but it still had the Austro-Russian armies to worry about. So, the Invasion Army was moved to the east to combine with the units that had already been sent to defend the 'rear' and defeat them. In December, his army met the Austro-Russian army at Austerlitz and destroyed it. The Russian withdrew back to Poland, while the Austrians signed a peace treaty. The following year, the French then faced the Prussian Army, which it destroyed in the battles of Jena and Auerstadt, thus destroying the major proponent of the 'Frederick the Great' style of warfare, while making the Prussian court flee to the east and be defended by the Russians, who in 1807 themselves came to term with Napoleon, ending the Third Coalition. This is important, since days after the Battle of Jena, Napoleon issued the Belin Decrees, which were suppose to cripple Britain economically, by closing the ports of French-controlled Europe from British trade goods. And, he then tried to expand it to the rest of Europe that he didn't have control of militarily.
Of course, Britain retailaited with it orders in council in 1807 which said that neturals trading with the French had to stop by Britain first, which was in reality trying to make the neutrals take on British goods thereby trying to get past the Continental System of Napoleon. So, from 1806, Britain and France were in as much an Economic war as it was a shooting war. But, it was a war that the French lost since they were trying to deny Europe economic goods that the British could mainly supply, as well as having the system put upon the rest of Europe without it approval caused anomosity towards the French, which eventually led to the Spanish Ulser of the Peninsular War of 1808-1814, the disaster of the Russian Campaign of 1812, the War of (German) Liberation of 1813 including the Battle of the Nations of Leipzig, the invasion of France and occupation of Paris of 1813-1814 and the Hundred Days of 1815.
So, Britain, by 1806, which first had a government of all the Talents in control in 1806-07 (after William's death), and then the Duke of Portland ministry that began in 1807, was in an economic frame of mind, with the invasion crisis resolved since the French could no longer attack her since it no longer had a fleet, scooping up the colonies of its defeated allies and attacking French along the edges instead of headon. The French, at the same time, tried to strike at Britain economically, which eventually ended in failure, but the French only tried it since she was the main military power on the European continent and tried to 'bully' the other states to see things its way economically, since it had the military power to do so at the start.

As for a 2nd Turning starting in 1815, I do not see an Awakening happening at all since neither Britain or Europe had had enough time to economically recover from the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. Simple as that. A high needed to have had a time to work its course, and neither Britain or Europe had had the time to recover from over 20 years of war.

Stanley

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

So, Britain, by 1806, which first had a government of all the Talents in control in 1806-07 (after William's death), and then the Duke of Portland ministry that began in 1807, was in an economic frame of mind, with the invasion crisis resolved since the French could no longer attack her since it no longer had a fleet, scooping up the colonies of its defeated allies and attacking French along the edges instead of headon. The French, at the same time, tried to strike at Britain economically, which eventually ended in failure, but the French only tried it since she was the main military power on the European continent and tried to 'bully' the other states to see things its way economically, since it had the military power to do so at the start.

So the 1806-1815 portion of the Napoleonic Wars were 1T in nature by your reckoning, with 1805 being a climatic 4T ending for England?

William Jennings Bryan wrote:

So the 1806-1815 portion of the Napoleonic Wars were 1T in nature by your reckoning, with 1805 being a climatic 4T ending for England?

Yes. Britain's political nation, translated as being mostly the aristocracy, the gentry and the upper middle class, as well as those who had emigrated from France because of the French Revolution, felt threaten by the political going ons in France, especially during the period of the Reign of Terror of the early to mid 1790s, and feared what would happen to their own positions in Britain if it was transferred there. If you look at British history, the government cracked down hard on those radicals that did exist, while those who supported the government joined what would best be termed a Home Guard, instead of the regular Army, to defend hearth and home from the radical French hordes. That fear only went away with the victory of Tarfalgar, since Napoleon's armies, without having a navy to transport and protect it, had no way to cross the English Channel successfully.

Stanley

Right on Stanley, and welcome back. Didn't we go through all of this in 1998 and 1999? I wish there was some way to resurrect the old threads. I can't get to them, and they contained a much higher level of discussion than the highly politicized nature of these threads in recent years. I see you have Kaiser's piece from the Maine Historical Society Conference, and, if you would like a copy of mine, I can send it to you in PDF format. Just e-mail me, and I'll send it off. I am sure it would shed some light on what you are working on.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by David Krein

Right on Stanley, and welcome back. Didn't we go through all of this in 1998 and 1999? I wish there was some way to resurrect the old threads. I can't get to them, and they contained a much higher level of discussion than the highly politicized nature of these threads in recent years.

Firstly you can get the old Western Europe discussion threads from http://web.archive.org if you want all of the old thread, it is going to be a pain in the a***. However if I have some spare time, I could be able to do it.

I think Tim Walker has printed out the old discussion threads, if you could request the Western Europe thread, he would be able to fax them to you.

I see you have Kaiser's piece from the Maine Historical Society Conference, and, if you would like a copy of mine, I can send it to you in PDF format. Just e-mail me, and I'll send it off. I am sure it would shed some light on what you are working on.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Your essay on generational voting patterns in Britain's parliament during the 19th century was interesting.

What I found strange was that the Artist Reform Generation generally supported the repeal of the Corn Laws, while the Prophert Victorian Generation generally opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws.

David Krein wrote:

Right on Stanley, and welcome back. Didn't we go through all of this in 1998 and 1999? I wish there was some way to resurrect the old threads. I can't get to them, and they contained a much higher level of discussion than the highly politicized nature of these threads in recent years. I see you have Kaiser's piece from the Maine Historical Society Conference, and, if you would like a copy of mine, I can send it to you in PDF format. Just e-mail me, and I'll send it off. I am sure it would shed some light on what you are working on.

Thank you, David and its nice to be back. Yes, I believe we did. I can still remember me and Professor Kaiser arguing on whether John Churchill was a Nomad or a Hero. lol. The argument have gone political? I have no idea that they did. Guess I'd been away too long. lol. Yeah, I read Dr. Kaiser's article. Real interesting. Will be glad when I get the chance to copy it so that I can put it into my articles collection. Sure. Just send the article to, leoni2@juno.com. Every little bit help don't you know.

Stanley '61

Tristan wrote:

Your essay on generational voting patterns in Britain's parliament during the 19th century was interesting.

What I found strange was that the Artist Reform Generation generally supported the repeal of the Corn Laws, while the Prophert Victorian Generation generally opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws.

That's the Romantic Generation, not Reform, Tristan. And the Victorians in Parliament voted to keep the Corn Laws? Hmm, now that is interesting. Need to check that out as soon as I can. I can only speculate that they didn't want Britain to be flooded with cheap foreign (read American) corn (aka wheat). I think that few people remember that Britain use to grow it own corn, and that they would sell it oversea. But, the corn that was sold on the home market was priced too high for the average John Bulls to buy for their family. The Corn Law repeal, which, when finally passed under Peel, destroying the old Tory Party in the process, was so that the average John Bulls would now be able to buy cheaper wheat. Which, unfortunately, had the long term effect that Britain doesn't grow as much corn as she use to.

Stanley '61

Originally Posted by Stanley Alston '61

That's the Romantic Generation, not Reform, Tristan.

David Kerin called the generation you called the Romantics the Reform generation.