I've had my head in the Roman Republic lately thanks to a series of murder mysteries that sent me to another series of fat, detailed novels, etc, and decided to do a Strauss & Howe on the Dying Republic Saeculum of Ancient Rome. From scratch, just for fun. The first question was the boundaries, since I don't like those of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. They give us -133, the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, which is a very strange way to start a First Turning, to -31, the Battle of Actium, which is definitely no such thing. It's the climax & resolution of the Fourth.

I'd start the Augustan First Turning at either -29, Octavian's return to Rome, or -27 when he was declared Caesar Augustus. If it hadn't been a First Turning before, it certainly was then!

Luckily, I had a baseline measurement for the saeculum: from either date, it was slightly less than 100 years to one of the best marked First Turnings in Roman history, Vespasian's accession in +69. Note: Vespasian was such an Eisenhowerish character I wonder if Ike modeled himself on the Emperor.

Counting backwards the same length of time actually does bring us back to a bit after the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, so let;s call that the climax & resolution of the last 4T. Unless, of course, you want to push it WAY back to the destruction of Carthage in -146! That's a bit of a stretch.

So - this turns the abortive uprising of Gaius Gracchus and its bloody aftermath into a typical First Turning witch hunt and mopup. That makes sense. What else was happening? Not much. A bunch of profitable foreign wars, mostly. So, timing:

Post-Gracchian High, -132 to -107. First Turning of the first post-Carthaginian saeculum of Ancient Rome. Most notable characters: Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi, Prophet Generation; the Gracchi brothers, Civic Generation. Enter Gaius Marius, stage left, running for Consul at the age of 50.
Generation - Civic.

Marian Awakening, -107 to - 82 (?). Notable character: Gaius Marius, generation Civic. Notable events: the reformation of the army from a militia of propertied citizens to a paid, trained, at least semi-professional body of common men loyal (a grave fault) mainly to their generals. And the Italian wars, fought hard and bitterly to gain the people (0r the cities) it Italy (or at least those with the Latin Rights) their rights. Ending: inconclusive. Note that the likes of Cato, Caesar, et al were born during this turmoil and notably scarred by it. (More later. ) Enter Lucius Cornelius Sulla, stage right. Generation: Artist, what a friend of mine refers to as Rogue Silent.

Clodian Unraveling, -82 to -52. You can date it from Sulla's dictatorship, or from the bloodbath that was Marius's 7th Consulate, or from the various marches on Rome that preceded both. I'm using Sulla's dictatorship because it left scars on Romans 40 years later in the same way Vietnam and World War I left scars on us moderns. That it was an Unraveling is not in question: read any of the literature of the period. What's truly interesting is that there doesn't seem to be a Prophet Generation on stage. Those who seem at first glance to be Prophets are actually, by birth and upbringing, Nomads. What I think happened is something similar to the blending of generations that took place after the American Civil War, only in reverse. The Italian Wars were SO Crisis-like that the Prophet generation receded into Silenthood and the Lost Generation (which almost all writers use about Clodius and his crowd!) took on the Prophet role. It's very hard to image, frex, that Cato is anything but a Prophet! Enter Big Julie, stage left ....

I picked -52 as the date of the Crisis because the murder of Publius Clodius did seem to mark a turning point in Roman history. It was the catalyst, with Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon as a major event, and his assassination as the anti-regeneracy.

Comments welcome.

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

Post-Gracchian High, -132 to -107. First Turning of the first post-Carthaginian saeculum of Ancient Rome. Most notable characters: Cornelia, Mother of the Gracchi, Prophet Generation; the Gracchi brothers, Civic Generation. Enter Gaius Marius, stage left, running for Consul at the age of 50.
Generation - Civic.

Marian Awakening, -107 to - 82 (?). Notable character: Gaius Marius, generation Civic. Notable events: the reformation of the army from a militia of propertied citizens to a paid, trained, at least semi-professional body of common men loyal (a grave fault) mainly to their generals. And the Italian wars, fought hard and bitterly to gain the people (0r the cities) it Italy (or at least those with the Latin Rights) their rights. Ending: inconclusive. Note that the likes of Cato, Caesar, et al were born during this turmoil and notably scarred by it. (More later. ) Enter Lucius Cornelius Sulla, stage right. Generation: Artist, what a friend of mine refers to as Rogue Silent.

Clodian Unraveling, -82 to -52. You can date it from Sulla's dictatorship, or from the bloodbath that was Marius's 7th Consulate, or from the various marches on Rome that preceded both. I'm using Sulla's dictatorship because it left scars on Romans 40 years later in the same way Vietnam and World War I left scars on us moderns. That it was an Unraveling is not in question: read any of the literature of the period. What's truly interesting is that there doesn't seem to be a Prophet Generation on stage. Those who seem at first glance to be Prophets are actually, by birth and upbringing, Nomads. What I think happened is something similar to the blending of generations that took place after the American Civil War, only in reverse. The Italian Wars were SO Crisis-like that the Prophet generation receded into Silenthood and the Lost Generation (which almost all writers use about Clodius and his crowd!) took on the Prophet role. It's very hard to image, frex, that Cato is anything but a Prophet! Enter Big Julie, stage left ....

I picked -52 as the date of the Crisis because the murder of Publius Clodius did seem to mark a turning point in Roman history. It was the catalyst, with Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon as a major event, and his assassination as the anti-regeneracy.

Comments welcome.

These are Dave McGuiness's dates. Thay map pretty well with yours.

229-196 (A); 196-164 (U); 164-133 (C); 133-105 (H)
105-76 (A); 76-44 (U); 44-12 (C); 12BC-29AD (H)
25-50 (A); 50-70 (U); 70-102 (C)

Thanks! I was getting started on the Early Empire next. (MegaHigh?) and dated the 4th Turning to the day Claudius got rid of Messalina and married Agrippina. :evil:

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

Thanks! I was getting started on the Early Empire next. (MegaHigh?) and dated the 4th Turning to the day Claudius got rid of Messalina and married Agrippina. :evil:

McGuiness has a scheme for 5000 years of turnings. Here is a summary that uses his dates from before 1435 and S&H after.

http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex...eculum2000.htm

His turnings seem to be pretty good as I discuss in this post on 18 May 2002:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=89

Would it make sense to compare the Gracchi to Martin Luther King? *** ***

I am teaching the Gracchi tomorrow and Tuesday and I will, as always, compare them to the Kennedys.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

************************************************** **************

If I had to say where the US was in Rome's history, my best guess is 72 AD. The Pax Romana started when Augustus became emperor (a few years BC) and lasted until 180 AD, thus lasting two saecula. I think we may be on the brink of the mid-pax romana crisis. But who knows; we may be earlier than that... it all depends when America reaches (or reached) its peak.

************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

It was stated that a generation with a Nomad upbringing took on the Prophet role during the Clodian Unraveling.

Sean Love categorized Prophet generations. Examples:

Missionary Less Radical

Puritan More Radical

Transcendental Absolutely Nuts


Into which category would these Nomads-turned-Prophets fit?

(~*~)

I can't even begin to guess what category they would fit in. Less radical? Enlighten me. I don''t have much knowledge of this era of history.

Comparing Classical to Western history has been a preoccupation of mine for a while too. I also have a saeculum schema for Rome, which is close to yours.

I must say, though, that I have an aversion to turnings exceeding 25 years in length because this requires Prophets to be well over 60 years old at their time of maximum political power. This conflicts with observation (most major political figures peak in their 50s).

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

I've had my head in the Roman Republic lately thanks to a series of murder mysteries that sent me to another series of fat, detailed novels, etc, and decided to do a Strauss & Howe on the Dying Republic Saeculum of Ancient Rome. From scratch, just for fun. . . I'd start the Augustan First Turning at either -29, Octavian's return to Rome, or -27 when he was declared Caesar Augustus. If it hadn't been a First Turning before, it certainly was then!

I concur with this -- sometime from 29 to 27 is definitely the Fourth/First turning change. Call it 28 B.C.

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

Luckily, I had a baseline measurement for the saeculum: from either date, it was slightly less than 100 years to one of the best marked First Turnings in Roman history, Vespasian's accession in +69. Note: Vespasian was such an Eisenhowerish character I wonder if Ike modeled himself on the Emperor.

I agree with Vespasian being a High-era ruler, the question is what part of the High? It is tempting to posit the Year of Four Emperors as a Crisis climax, but really, had Nero not gone mad, he certainly would have ruled longer. I see Nero as a High-era ruler -- blaming the Christians for the fire of 64AD is typical High-era scapegoating.

The more likely Crisis endpoint is Nero's rise to power with Claudius murdered (probably) by the sister of Caligula. I.e. this is a return to power of conservative elements after the relatively liberal reign of Claudius. (This, btw, yields 21 year turnings from Augustus to Nero.)

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

Counting backwards the same length of time actually does bring us back to a bit after the murder of Tiberius Gracchus, so let;s call that the climax & resolution of the last 4T. Unless, of course, you want to push it WAY back to the destruction of Carthage in -146! That's a bit of a stretch.

I just can't see Tiberius Gracchus' death as anything but a catalyst. There was no finality to that event at all. In fact, it sets the stage for pretty much all of the Late Republic political events.

Originally Posted by Pat Mathews

So - this turns the abortive uprising of Gaius Gracchus and its bloody aftermath into a typical First Turning witch hunt and mopup. That makes sense. What else was happening? Not much. A bunch of profitable foreign wars, mostly.

The political debate going on at this time is quite intense. Essentially the Gracchus brothers argue for a "living constitution" and their opponents seek to keep the Republic intact. The irony of this is that the Republic is maintained by violence first with Tiberius and then with Gaius causing the Republic's procedural rules to be seen merely as cover for the elite. As a result, over the next saeculum, even the conservative factions begin to violate the rules of the Republic (Sulla, Pompey, etc.).

This is a crisis -- it's low on warfare, but that's because the fall of Carthage left Rome uncontested in the Mediterranean. Thus the focus of conflict was internal.

My alternate saeculum (dates approximate):

158 - 137 BC Unraveling (Fall of Carthage)
137 - 115 BC Crisis (Land Reform and Constitutional Crisis)
115 - 93 BC High (slow build up to the Social War)
93 - 71 BC Awakening (Sulla and aftermath)
71 - 49 BC Unraveling (Revolts, Caesar and Pompey fued)
49 - 28 BC Crisis (Crossing of the Rubicon to the return of Octavian)
28 - 7 BC High (Consolidation of Empire)
7 BC - 14 AD Awakening (scattered revolts, ends with Augustus' death)
14 - 35 AD Unraveling (Tiberius)
35 - 55 AD Crisis (Caligula and Claudius)
55 - 75 AD High (Nero and Vespasian)
. . . I'll stop here for now.

The other big question raised by this thread is what part of Roman history is our present day most analagous to? The big determinant seems to be whether America can be seen as a civilization onto itself or just the latest development in (English dominated) Western civilization. If the former, then my guess is about 134 BC with our Carthage (the Soviets) recently dispatched and the role of America yet to be determined.

Really, though, I think we are just a historical extension of the British Empire -- which makes me guess 350 AD with the US/Britain as the Western Empire and the EU as the Eastern Empire. But that's another argument . . .



[/i]

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

If I had to say where the US was in Rome's history, my best guess is 72 AD.

Oswald Spengler would probably agree with that rough dating.

************************************************** **************

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Kupchan described the West as a whole acting as one pole during the bipolar Cold War. Now, the West is splitting into two poles, the EU and the USA. Kupchan compared this to the division of the Roman Empire into western & eastern halves. He also commented that a rivalry developed between these two halves.

Kupchan proposes to limit rivalry by promoting an international system similar to the Concert of Europe.

Of course, in my analogy, it's a bit late for a Tetrarchy to work. In fact, one could easily call the Bretton Woods agreement the rough equivalent of Diocletian's Tetrarchy. It served the same basic function and lasted about as long. (Which also leads to some highly amusing parallels: Nixon = Constantine and Earth Day = Council of Nicaea)

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

David McGuinness brought to our attention that the West-during the second half of the 20th century-experienced a period broadly similar to the Hellenistic Age of the ancient Greeks.

Which is consistent with McGuiness' chosen parallel date of 70 AD, however the decline of the common moral outlook of the West (which used to call itself "Christendom") is indicative of a much later stage in our civilization. The pagan faiths of classical civilization were still going strong in 70 AD -- which doesn't at all compare to the total disintegration of our formerly Christian moral outlook.

Our intellectual climate (where our policies schizophrenically include total acceptance of outside cultures and blind rage against non-Western political systems) is much more comparable to 4th century Rome than 1st century Rome. Look at our attitude toward Iraq -- we don't care what religion the Iraqis are, so long as they adopt democracy. Sure, there are some right-wingers who insist we should stamp out Islam -- but they are a small minority.

Interestingly, to further strengthen my analogy, Bush II seems to be doing a good job of filling the role of a Julian the Apostate -- giving the "old religion" a half-hearted last hurrah.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

7 BC - 14 AD Awakening (scattered revolts, ends with Augustus' death)
14 - 35 AD Unraveling (Tiberius)
35 - 55 AD Crisis (Caligula and Claudius)
55 - 75 AD High (Nero and Vespasian)
. . . I'll stop here for now.

Kurt,

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

Just curious.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

One reason I bring it up is that Strauss & Howe like to point out that it is the story of the rising Prophet archetype is about spiritual/values founding events where religions arise, and the story of Jesus (and John the Baptist, and others around that time) staring down "corrupt", tragic, midlife-to-elder figures (Herod, Pilate) sounds a lot like a young Prophet archetype taking on aging Hero archetype. In other words the classic story of an Awakening. The fact that societal tragedies occur half-a-cycle (c. 70) and again a cycle-and-a-half later (c. 144) leading in stages to the Diaspora lead me in the direction of those being Crisis periods.

At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

One reason I bring it up is that Strauss & Howe like to point out that it is the story of the rising Prophet archetype is about spiritual/values founding events where religions arise, and the story of Jesus (and John the Baptist, and others around that time) staring down "corrupt", tragic, midlife-to-elder figures (Herod, Pilate) sounds a lot like a young Prophet archetype taking on aging Hero archetype. In other words the classic story of an Awakening. The fact that societal tragedies occur half-a-cycle (c. 70) and again a cycle-and-a-half later (c. 144) leading in stages to the Diaspora lead me in the direction of those being Crisis periods.

At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Could at least a portion of the Tiberian Unraveling have been experienced by the Judean Kingdom (and environs) as an awakening even though it was part of the Roman world? Likewise, could the events in that same region 40 years later have been a crisis for that area even though Rome proper was likely experiencing a high (soon-to-be awakening)?

That's one possibility, but I think it is more likely that some slight saecular variation was still common in classical civilization before the Empire peaked. I think it more likely that the Judean region was a bit ahead of Rome on the saeculum. I.e. Jesus' ministry would fall in late Unraveling for people in Rome itself, but early Crisis for the eastern provinces. Similarly, the disastrous razing of Jerusalem in 70 AD would have been early Awakening for Judea, late High for Rome itself. With a slightly longer turning length (22 versus 20 years in Rome) for these eastern provinces they would eventually synch up with Rome around 135 at the end of the Bar Kokhba rebellion (which is a late Crisis event for both the Roman saeculum and the Judean variation).

This is similar to the variation apparently present during the American Revolution where the colonies seemed to go into Crisis earlier than Britain itself did. It seems to me that Turnings can be somewhat fuzzy, especially when comparing across the entire breadth of a civilization.

One reason I bring it up is that Strauss & Howe like to point out that it is the story of the rising Prophet archetype is about spiritual/values founding events where religions arise, and the story of Jesus (and John the Baptist, and others around that time) staring down "corrupt", tragic, midlife-to-elder figures (Herod, Pilate) sounds a lot like a young Prophet archetype taking on aging Hero archetype. In other words the classic story of an Awakening. The fact that societal tragedies occur half-a-cycle (c. 70) and again a cycle-and-a-half later (c. 144) leading in stages to the Diaspora lead me in the direction of those being Crisis periods.

At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.

Your listing of a 137-115 BC Crisis (Land Reform and Constitutional Crisis) is interesting.

Your listing of a 137-115 BC Crisis (Land Reform and Constitutional Crisis) is interesting.

Your listing of a 137-115 BC Crisis (Land Reform and Constitutional Crisis) is interesting.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

If I had to say where the US was in Rome's history, my best guess is 72 AD.

Oswald Spengler would probably agree with that rough dating.

This guy is really into Spengler and has done a neat jpb of comparing today with the Spenglerian scheme.

http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm