This guy is really into Spengler and has done a neat jpb of comparing today with the Spenglerian scheme.Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68
Oswald Spengler would probably agree with that rough dating.
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm
This guy is really into Spengler and has done a neat jpb of comparing today with the Spenglerian scheme.Oswald Spengler would probably agree with that rough dating.
http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
McGuinness has Jesus a prophet archetype in an awakening. I think this makes more sense that Kurt's scheme. I don't see what is particularly crisis-like about the reign of Claudius. And how does Nero (with civil war in 69) constitute a High? I think having the High begin with the beginning of the five good emperors makes somewhat more sense. The empire reached its maximum extent under Trajan, which strikes me as a High-type achievement. And it seems obvious that things were starting to unravel with the German Wars under Marcus Aurelius. The Civil War in the 190's should be a crisis event.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.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.
At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.
I have trouble following McGuiness's cycle in the 3rd century though.
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
McGuinness has Jesus a prophet archetype in an awakening. I think this makes more sense that Kurt's scheme. I don't see what is particularly crisis-like about the reign of Claudius. And how does Nero (with civil war in 69) constitute a High? I think having the High begin with the beginning of the five good emperors makes somewhat more sense. The empire reached its maximum extent under Trajan, which strikes me as a High-type achievement. And it seems obvious that things were starting to unravel with the German Wars under Marcus Aurelius. The Civil War in the 190's should be a crisis event.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.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.
At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.
I have trouble following McGuiness's cycle in the 3rd century though.
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
McGuinness has Jesus a prophet archetype in an awakening. I think this makes more sense that Kurt's scheme. I don't see what is particularly crisis-like about the reign of Claudius. And how does Nero (with civil war in 69) constitute a High? I think having the High begin with the beginning of the five good emperors makes somewhat more sense. The empire reached its maximum extent under Trajan, which strikes me as a High-type achievement. And it seems obvious that things were starting to unravel with the German Wars under Marcus Aurelius. The Civil War in the 190's should be a crisis event.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.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.
At least in the case of the first such tragedy, imagine the young Zealots of Jesus's time leading a rebellion as elders.
I have trouble following McGuiness's cycle in the 3rd century though.
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
It's true that the story of Jesus as told by the new testament authors has this ring. But that could have less to do with the time Jesus lived than with the time the first written accounts of his life were written (probably around the time of the Zealot rebellion).
In any case, the Zealot movement is presumed to have arisen right around the time of Jesus' birth -- putting it square in an Awakening.
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
It's true that the story of Jesus as told by the new testament authors has this ring. But that could have less to do with the time Jesus lived than with the time the first written accounts of his life were written (probably around the time of the Zealot rebellion).
In any case, the Zealot movement is presumed to have arisen right around the time of Jesus' birth -- putting it square in an Awakening.
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
It's true that the story of Jesus as told by the new testament authors has this ring. But that could have less to do with the time Jesus lived than with the time the first written accounts of his life were written (probably around the time of the Zealot rebellion).
In any case, the Zealot movement is presumed to have arisen right around the time of Jesus' birth -- putting it square in an Awakening.
Re: response to Kurt Horner
If America is a distinct civilization from the West, then yes, big parallels. In fact the shenanigans in the 2000 election could be very analagous to the murder of Tiberius Gracchus. (A conservative element blocks out of power a perceived radical but does it using methods that delegitimize the entire system they are trying to conserve.)
Re: response to Kurt Horner
If America is a distinct civilization from the West, then yes, big parallels. In fact the shenanigans in the 2000 election could be very analagous to the murder of Tiberius Gracchus. (A conservative element blocks out of power a perceived radical but does it using methods that delegitimize the entire system they are trying to conserve.)
Re: response to Kurt Horner
If America is a distinct civilization from the West, then yes, big parallels. In fact the shenanigans in the 2000 election could be very analagous to the murder of Tiberius Gracchus. (A conservative element blocks out of power a perceived radical but does it using methods that delegitimize the entire system they are trying to conserve.)
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
The word "crisis" threw me off for a bit when I was constructing a timeline. Really, the "first crisis of the Empire" lasts about a year and is bookended by two stable rulers. The real crisis was the unresolved issue of how an Emperor would legitimate his rule. This was unresolved because of how Claudius came to power (in the first open assassination of an Emperor, followed by his being proclaimed Emperor by soldiers).
In fact, this practice of a "soldiers election" becomes the primary way in which new Emperors are chosen for the rest of Roman history. The permanency of this mechanism indicates that Claudius accession is in a Crisis. Or read here paying particular attention to the events in the few days following Caligula's murder. In just those few days, the path back to Republic is forever blocked and the soldiers take on a greater political role than the Senate.
I should also note that Claudius' accession brings into clear view the crucial, but somewhat unusual (to Westerners), political dynamic of the Empire. We are used to seeing a military coup as an elitist event. But clearly, in Roman society, a military coup was a populist event -- where the lower classes got their way after a long stretch of elite dominance. Nero's rise to power, probably after an assassination of Claudius, is a very typical conservative resurgence in late Crisis.
Maximum extent, yes. But Trajan overreaches and Hadrian's first act is to roll back some of the gains Trajan made to more stable boundaries. Hadrian seems to be a solid Crisis-era leader who cleans up the mess accumulated over Trajan's rule.
I see Marcus Aurelius as largely ruling during an Awakening, and agree that the succession dispute following Commodus' reign is the early part of a Crisis, with Septimius Severus as a Grey Champion.
Also, there is a clear structure to Roman history showing shifts in power back-and-forth between conservative aristocratic elements and populist military elements.
Gracchus' brothers -- populist shift
Civil War -- aristocratic shift
Claudius -- populist shift
Hadrian -- aristocratic shift
Severus -- populist shift (pattern seems to end here, the dominance of the military is basically complete at this point)
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
The word "crisis" threw me off for a bit when I was constructing a timeline. Really, the "first crisis of the Empire" lasts about a year and is bookended by two stable rulers. The real crisis was the unresolved issue of how an Emperor would legitimate his rule. This was unresolved because of how Claudius came to power (in the first open assassination of an Emperor, followed by his being proclaimed Emperor by soldiers).
In fact, this practice of a "soldiers election" becomes the primary way in which new Emperors are chosen for the rest of Roman history. The permanency of this mechanism indicates that Claudius accession is in a Crisis. Or read here paying particular attention to the events in the few days following Caligula's murder. In just those few days, the path back to Republic is forever blocked and the soldiers take on a greater political role than the Senate.
I should also note that Claudius' accession brings into clear view the crucial, but somewhat unusual (to Westerners), political dynamic of the Empire. We are used to seeing a military coup as an elitist event. But clearly, in Roman society, a military coup was a populist event -- where the lower classes got their way after a long stretch of elite dominance. Nero's rise to power, probably after an assassination of Claudius, is a very typical conservative resurgence in late Crisis.
Maximum extent, yes. But Trajan overreaches and Hadrian's first act is to roll back some of the gains Trajan made to more stable boundaries. Hadrian seems to be a solid Crisis-era leader who cleans up the mess accumulated over Trajan's rule.
I see Marcus Aurelius as largely ruling during an Awakening, and agree that the succession dispute following Commodus' reign is the early part of a Crisis, with Septimius Severus as a Grey Champion.
Also, there is a clear structure to Roman history showing shifts in power back-and-forth between conservative aristocratic elements and populist military elements.
Gracchus' brothers -- populist shift
Civil War -- aristocratic shift
Claudius -- populist shift
Hadrian -- aristocratic shift
Severus -- populist shift (pattern seems to end here, the dominance of the military is basically complete at this point)
Re: The Saeculum in Ancient Rome
The word "crisis" threw me off for a bit when I was constructing a timeline. Really, the "first crisis of the Empire" lasts about a year and is bookended by two stable rulers. The real crisis was the unresolved issue of how an Emperor would legitimate his rule. This was unresolved because of how Claudius came to power (in the first open assassination of an Emperor, followed by his being proclaimed Emperor by soldiers).
In fact, this practice of a "soldiers election" becomes the primary way in which new Emperors are chosen for the rest of Roman history. The permanency of this mechanism indicates that Claudius accession is in a Crisis. Or read here paying particular attention to the events in the few days following Caligula's murder. In just those few days, the path back to Republic is forever blocked and the soldiers take on a greater political role than the Senate.
I should also note that Claudius' accession brings into clear view the crucial, but somewhat unusual (to Westerners), political dynamic of the Empire. We are used to seeing a military coup as an elitist event. But clearly, in Roman society, a military coup was a populist event -- where the lower classes got their way after a long stretch of elite dominance. Nero's rise to power, probably after an assassination of Claudius, is a very typical conservative resurgence in late Crisis.
Maximum extent, yes. But Trajan overreaches and Hadrian's first act is to roll back some of the gains Trajan made to more stable boundaries. Hadrian seems to be a solid Crisis-era leader who cleans up the mess accumulated over Trajan's rule.
I see Marcus Aurelius as largely ruling during an Awakening, and agree that the succession dispute following Commodus' reign is the early part of a Crisis, with Septimius Severus as a Grey Champion.
Also, there is a clear structure to Roman history showing shifts in power back-and-forth between conservative aristocratic elements and populist military elements.
Gracchus' brothers -- populist shift
Civil War -- aristocratic shift
Claudius -- populist shift
Hadrian -- aristocratic shift
Severus -- populist shift (pattern seems to end here, the dominance of the military is basically complete at this point)
************************************************** **************
************************************************** **************
************************************************** **************
Re: 137-115 BC
Well, that depends on which point in Roman history we are most analagous to. If we use the Gracchian Crisis, the most important political developments will be on the Right. Essentially, the Roman right-wing had the opportunity to deal with Gaius Gracchus' attempt to steal power in a legal manner or a violent manner. They chose violence, and as a result the Republic remained but its spirit was dead.
To continue the analogy, you can compare the politics of that time with our own. Many Republicans are dissatisfied with their party leaders but fear the Left even more. As a result, they may be inclined to choose a brutal right-winger over any left-winger. The main way to make our history different from Rome's would then be to strengthen the libertarian right as opposed to the authoritarian right.
But, unfortunately, I don't think that Crisis is the right analog. Rather the final division of the Empire following Constantine's death in mid 4th century is much more relevant. In my view, English-speakers are the Romans of Christendom and London is our Rome with America as a sort of hybrid of Britain and the Rhine frontier. Brussels is our Nicomedia, the Eastern capitol of the Empire for a brief period.
Essentially, all political debate by this period was largely irrelevant. A war between western and eastern economic elites had emerged. The Empire was too large and bureaucratic to coordinate with one ruler but had made too many outside enemies to withstand a lack of a unified defense. So, if this analog is correct we should see the US continue to over-extend itself until an economic collapse occurs and the center of Western power will shift to the EU. However, this shift will be indicative of an overall decline of the West. In my turning scheme, I see the battle of Adrianople as a early High event -- which basically exposed the split Empire scheme as being no more stable than the combined one. We can expect a European defeat in the 2020s that will signal an overall decline. My random guess would be an attempted Muslim coup in a European nation following American withdrawal from the Middle East (but really it could go down in any number of ways).
As for advice in that scenario -- the best strategy is to be prepared to leave the US. Trying to reverse the decline would be like trying to prevent a boulder from rolling downhill. While I think the US will survive this Crisis intact, if you value liberty you won't want to live here.
Re: 137-115 BC
Well, that depends on which point in Roman history we are most analagous to. If we use the Gracchian Crisis, the most important political developments will be on the Right. Essentially, the Roman right-wing had the opportunity to deal with Gaius Gracchus' attempt to steal power in a legal manner or a violent manner. They chose violence, and as a result the Republic remained but its spirit was dead.
To continue the analogy, you can compare the politics of that time with our own. Many Republicans are dissatisfied with their party leaders but fear the Left even more. As a result, they may be inclined to choose a brutal right-winger over any left-winger. The main way to make our history different from Rome's would then be to strengthen the libertarian right as opposed to the authoritarian right.
But, unfortunately, I don't think that Crisis is the right analog. Rather the final division of the Empire following Constantine's death in mid 4th century is much more relevant. In my view, English-speakers are the Romans of Christendom and London is our Rome with America as a sort of hybrid of Britain and the Rhine frontier. Brussels is our Nicomedia, the Eastern capitol of the Empire for a brief period.
Essentially, all political debate by this period was largely irrelevant. A war between western and eastern economic elites had emerged. The Empire was too large and bureaucratic to coordinate with one ruler but had made too many outside enemies to withstand a lack of a unified defense. So, if this analog is correct we should see the US continue to over-extend itself until an economic collapse occurs and the center of Western power will shift to the EU. However, this shift will be indicative of an overall decline of the West. In my turning scheme, I see the battle of Adrianople as a early High event -- which basically exposed the split Empire scheme as being no more stable than the combined one. We can expect a European defeat in the 2020s that will signal an overall decline. My random guess would be an attempted Muslim coup in a European nation following American withdrawal from the Middle East (but really it could go down in any number of ways).
As for advice in that scenario -- the best strategy is to be prepared to leave the US. Trying to reverse the decline would be like trying to prevent a boulder from rolling downhill. While I think the US will survive this Crisis intact, if you value liberty you won't want to live here.
Re: 137-115 BC
Well, that depends on which point in Roman history we are most analagous to. If we use the Gracchian Crisis, the most important political developments will be on the Right. Essentially, the Roman right-wing had the opportunity to deal with Gaius Gracchus' attempt to steal power in a legal manner or a violent manner. They chose violence, and as a result the Republic remained but its spirit was dead.
To continue the analogy, you can compare the politics of that time with our own. Many Republicans are dissatisfied with their party leaders but fear the Left even more. As a result, they may be inclined to choose a brutal right-winger over any left-winger. The main way to make our history different from Rome's would then be to strengthen the libertarian right as opposed to the authoritarian right.
But, unfortunately, I don't think that Crisis is the right analog. Rather the final division of the Empire following Constantine's death in mid 4th century is much more relevant. In my view, English-speakers are the Romans of Christendom and London is our Rome with America as a sort of hybrid of Britain and the Rhine frontier. Brussels is our Nicomedia, the Eastern capitol of the Empire for a brief period.
Essentially, all political debate by this period was largely irrelevant. A war between western and eastern economic elites had emerged. The Empire was too large and bureaucratic to coordinate with one ruler but had made too many outside enemies to withstand a lack of a unified defense. So, if this analog is correct we should see the US continue to over-extend itself until an economic collapse occurs and the center of Western power will shift to the EU. However, this shift will be indicative of an overall decline of the West. In my turning scheme, I see the battle of Adrianople as a early High event -- which basically exposed the split Empire scheme as being no more stable than the combined one. We can expect a European defeat in the 2020s that will signal an overall decline. My random guess would be an attempted Muslim coup in a European nation following American withdrawal from the Middle East (but really it could go down in any number of ways).
As for advice in that scenario -- the best strategy is to be prepared to leave the US. Trying to reverse the decline would be like trying to prevent a boulder from rolling downhill. While I think the US will survive this Crisis intact, if you value liberty you won't want to live here.
Transiting Republic to Empire...
I think we are in a (more or less) 2000-year cycle. I see Britian (and Europe) as the "Mother Culture" as Greece was to Greco-Roman culture. I see the British Empire analogous to Hellenic Empire with it's ancient cities, culture, etc, and the United States as the more spartan (and crass) Rome that counquers not only through imperalism, but through a cultural "Romanization". The Islamic world analogus to the Parthians? Russia - the Germanic tribes? China...well, as China - although not as isolated.
Where are we at? I would say transiting from Republic to Empire. We could be in the late Republic with this 4T making a transit into Empire, or the last 4T was the transit from Republic to Empire.
I don't think it can be any later than that, though. Our culture has been pretty homogenus until as of late. I think multiculturalism and the emerging poly-monotheism is a definite sign of Empire.
Transiting Republic to Empire...
I think we are in a (more or less) 2000-year cycle. I see Britian (and Europe) as the "Mother Culture" as Greece was to Greco-Roman culture. I see the British Empire analogous to Hellenic Empire with it's ancient cities, culture, etc, and the United States as the more spartan (and crass) Rome that counquers not only through imperalism, but through a cultural "Romanization". The Islamic world analogus to the Parthians? Russia - the Germanic tribes? China...well, as China - although not as isolated.
Where are we at? I would say transiting from Republic to Empire. We could be in the late Republic with this 4T making a transit into Empire, or the last 4T was the transit from Republic to Empire.
I don't think it can be any later than that, though. Our culture has been pretty homogenus until as of late. I think multiculturalism and the emerging poly-monotheism is a definite sign of Empire.
Transiting Republic to Empire...
I think we are in a (more or less) 2000-year cycle. I see Britian (and Europe) as the "Mother Culture" as Greece was to Greco-Roman culture. I see the British Empire analogous to Hellenic Empire with it's ancient cities, culture, etc, and the United States as the more spartan (and crass) Rome that counquers not only through imperalism, but through a cultural "Romanization". The Islamic world analogus to the Parthians? Russia - the Germanic tribes? China...well, as China - although not as isolated.
Where are we at? I would say transiting from Republic to Empire. We could be in the late Republic with this 4T making a transit into Empire, or the last 4T was the transit from Republic to Empire.
I don't think it can be any later than that, though. Our culture has been pretty homogenus until as of late. I think multiculturalism and the emerging poly-monotheism is a definite sign of Empire.
Re: Transiting Republic to Empire...
It is tempting to make this analogy (America:Britain::Rome:Greece) and, in fact, the Federalists hoped this analogy would hold when they made the Constitution. But, alas, the British Empire was just as guilty of forcing civilization upon its subjects as the American one is today. A much sharper contrast can be seen with the difference between the French and British new world colonies. The French were far less invasive and lived on much better terms with the native population. Furthermore the British (and now Americans) have stereotyped the French as slimy cowards with loose morals for several centuries now -- just as the Romans regarded the Greeks.
A country frequently described as the great "Melting Pot" doesn't strike me as particularly homogenous. Multiculturalism seems far more reminiscent of the late Empire acceptance of Christianity, as well.
There are some additional parallels lending weight to my 4th century analogy. The first Roman Emperor who was not Roman born was Hadrian -- three saecula back from the mid-4th century -- which in our civilization corresponds to the American Revolution (a significant shift in the power center of Anglo society). And one saeculum later we arrive at the Severan Crisis, the largest outcome of which is universal citizenship for all free men in the Empire. Critics contended that Roman citizenship no longer mattered all that much -- just as critics contend that Lincoln freed the slaves in a manner that obliterated the rights of all citizens.
Re: Transiting Republic to Empire...
What do you mean by "not Roman born"? And how are the circumstances of Hadrian's birth analogous to the American Revolution?
