Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What do you mean by "not Roman born"? And how are the circumstances of Hadrian's birth analogous to the American Revolution?

Sorry. I overcompressed my thoughts. Hadrian's family was Iberian (granted they had Roman ancestors, but his family had been there for three centuries). All the previous Emperors were from Roman families whose land was on the Italian peninsula.

The analogy is that in both cases the Imperial country itself was no longer the sole power center. The Empire had now created enough civilization in its colonies that the colonies could compete with the capitol.

The exact shift in power is different since the basis of power in Roman society was almost entirely military -- while in the West, banking and finance play a greater role. (Which is why the analogy isn't direct and there wasn't a Washington dynasty of English monarchs.)

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Sorry. I overcompressed my thoughts. Hadrian's family was Iberian (granted they had Roman ancestors, but his family had been there for three centuries). All the previous Emperors were from Roman families whose land was on the Italian peninsula.

Trajan also was Iberian in this same way:
The patria of the Ulpii was Italica, in Spanish Baetica, where their ancestors had settled late in the third century B.C. Trajan's father was the first member of the family to pursue a senatorial career; it proved to be a very successful one.

The analogy is that in both cases the Imperial country itself was no longer the sole power center. The Empire had now created enough civilization in its colonies that the colonies could compete with the capitol.

Both Trajan and Hadrian were still from Roman families and were considered Romans by their peers. It was in the 3rd century that non-Romans became Emperor. I don't see the fact that his family lived in Spain as being significant. This would be like seeing Jackson's presdency as being significant simply because his power base was Tennesse, not one of the 13 colonies.

What sort of things do you look for when spotting turnings? What are your "markers". I have used the frequency of popular unrest to mark social moments and religious/spiritual events to mark Awakenings. Here is was my crude analysis looks like:

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Originally Posted by BoomerXer

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".

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.

Originally Posted by BoomerXer

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.

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.

"Melting pot" and multiculturalism are two different things. Melting pot is a melding into conformity, whereas multiculturalism is a celebration and acceptance of diversity - and a very recent thing. Our culture has been very culturally homogenous until recently. White - Christian(mostly Protestant) - with other aspects culturally invisible until recently. During the Awakening multiculturalism emerged and was (and is) celebrated. Rome's multicultural period began with the Empire and the increasingly rapid importation of Eastern and Egyptian "influences" which Republicans spoke out against as "decadent". By the end of the 1st century Italy was awash with all manner of exotic cults and influences. It lasted well past Constantine's reign. The influence of Eastern Religion has only crept into our culture since the 1960's. IMO - our culture is just beginning to have the "feel" of Empire and has a long way to go.

Pardon me for interjecting myself into your conversation - I just wanted to toss my 2cents in and see what you thought.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Trajan also was Iberian in this same way:
The patria of the Ulpii was Italica, in Spanish Baetica, where their ancestors had settled late in the third century B.C. Trajan's father was the first member of the family to pursue a senatorial career; it proved to be a very successful one.

Quote further: "He was thereafter adlected by the emperor in patricios and sent to govern Baetica." And from this (you'll have to click on the Trajan link): "Marcus Ulpius Trajanus was born on 18 September at Italica near Seville, most likely in the year AD 52. His Spanish origin made him the first emperor not to come from Italy. Although he was from an old Umbrian family from Tuder in northern Italy which had chosen to settle in Spain. So his family was not a purely provincial one."

So yes, technically, Trajan was non-Roman -- but it was Hadrian whose family was actually a Baetian family of long standing. And in any case, Trajan was Hadrian's immediate predecessor which in and of itself indicates a power shift in progress.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Both Trajan and Hadrian were still from Roman families and were considered Romans by their peers. It was in the 3rd century that non-Romans became Emperor. I don't see the fact that his family lived in Spain as being significant. This would be like seeing Jackson's presdency as being significant simply because his power base was Tennesse, not one of the 13 colonies.

Consider my analogy. The American colonists were just as English as the King himself. It's the geographic shift that is important. Keep in mind the scale of the British Empire is much greater than the Roman one -- Spain to Rome is comparable to New York to London on the scale of the respective civilizations.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What sort of things do you look for when spotting turnings? What are your "markers". I have used the frequency of popular unrest to mark social moments and religious/spiritual events to mark Awakenings.

The events matter less than the reactions to them. It is difficult to look back so far in time and understand the mental space of the Romans. The best way to do it is to look for changes that have lasting impact.

Just gathering up a list of "notable" revolts or religious gatherings does nothing to help sort them without also knowing the circumstances behind the revolts, etc. On your graph, the degree of spiritual events varies radically over the centuries -- really high in the 4th century AD, flatlined in the 1st century BC. Is this accurate? Did spirtualism cease to exist for over a century and spin out-of-control in the 4th century? More likely your choice of "important" events is skewed. One obvious skew factor is that Western historians are less likely to notice pagan spiritual events -- note the "greater" activity later on in the Empire.

I simply started with obvious turnings (like the Civil War) and projected forward and backward. In every case, when I ran into confusion, the confusion was a result of limited historical knowledge on my part. Once I read more, the turning boundaries cleared up.

To explain what I look for would require an explanation of what I consider to be the causative factors behind turning length and the generic "narrative" of the four turning types. I'll explain that in a separate post (which will have to wait until tommorrow, I need some sleep).

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

The events matter less than the reactions to them. It is difficult to look back so far in time and understand the mental space of the Romans. The best way to do it is to look for changes that have lasting impact.

Just gathering up a list of "notable" revolts or religious gatherings does nothing to help sort them without also knowing the circumstances behind the revolts, etc.

Actually we don't know that. What is the saeculum? It is NOT a historical cycle caused by the interplay of generational "archetypes" This is an explanation for the saeculum. Before we can even talk about an explanation we have to see if there is anything that needs explaining.

The saeculum is a historical cycle. A cycle involves repetition at regular intervals. History is an account of what happened in the past, that is, past events. A historical cycle means a repetition of (some type of) historical events on a semi-regular basis.

There are a multitude of events. We need to classify these into some sort of category which we can then check for evidence of a cyclical nature. S&H's saeculum calls for something called an spirtiual awakening. They relate their awakenings to periods of time identified by McLoughlin as being notable for their spiritual content.

One might think that if spiritual awakenings really do exist one might be able to see them by noting the frequency of spiritual events. I did this and you can. There is an excellent correlation since 1095 between periods of high-frequency spiratual events and periods that S&H (and before 1435, Dave McGuinness) call spiritual awakenings.

S&H also talk about social moments as times when society changes a great deal. Such periods should have more turmoil than non-social moments. One might think that periods of greater turmoil (social moments) would have a greater than normal frequency of popular unrest events. They do. There is a good correlation between periods of high-frequency unrest events and periods that S&H call social moments. Between the two methods, a saeculum can be traced out for the post-1435 period that aligns with the S&H saeculum in a statistically-significant fashion. There is about a 1% probability that this alignment was due to random chance.

This demonstration appears in my book on the Kondratiev cycle. It consitutes a validated methodology for determining saeculum turning points. The validation comes from the fact that it matches with the reference standard for the saeculum, the cycle defined by S&H.

Unfortunately, the data is too sparse to apply this method directly before 1100 AD (see below). What I can do is compare two cycle schemes to see which one fits the spirtual/unrest frequency data better.

I constructed my own saeculum for 1-1100 AD. I then compared my saeculum with Dave McGuiness's saeculum (using a statistical test) to see which saeculum fit the data better. You would think that my saeculum would have to fit the data better than his did because I used the plot of event density in my arguments for the turning datings. But it did not. His saeculum fit better. This shows that the methology is probably objective, since it gave unanticipated results contrary to what one would expect if there was bias.

What this means is the record to too sparse to use to actually determine turnings (like I tried to do) but it can be used to evaluate turning schemes determined using a different methodology. I can test two different cycle schemes and determine which one is "better", as long as the "sample" is long enough for statistical comparison (at least 500 years is probably necessary, more is better).

Now if you can provide a proposed saeculum for some lengthy period before 1100 AD, I can test it for alignment and see which one (yours or Dave's) fits the data better. If your saeculum fits even better than Dave's then I think you are on to something. In either case, a comparsion between differences between your saeculum and Dave's could give insight into what is important in a the saeculum at this early date. A hybrid saeculum using ideas from both might even fit better.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Actually we don't know that. What is the saeculum? It is NOT a historical cycle caused by the interplay of generational "archetypes" This is an explanation for the saeculum. Before we can even talk about an explanation we have to see if there is anything that needs explaining.

Well, yes, we needed to find a cycle before explaining the cycle -- but that has already been done for the Anglo-American cycle. To look for a similar pattern in other civilizations is perfectly valid unless you wish to argue that other civilizations don't have saecula (which you clearly don't).

To get right down to it, the saecula is "a historical cycle caused by the interplay of generational archetypes." The course of history is determined by human action, and those actions have fallen into a pattern because human beings, when raising children, try to correct for the perceived errors of their parents. If Strauss and Howe's theory is even remotely accurate, this pattern must be present in other civilizations and have the same underlying cause.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The saeculum is a historical cycle. A cycle involves repetition at regular intervals. History is an account of what happened in the past, that is, past events. A historical cycle means a repetition of (some type of) historical events on a semi-regular basis.

But what kind of events? If you over-define what kind of event constitutes Awakening behavior, it may become difficult to find Awakenings in cultures whose spiritual life was different from our own. It is vital that your definition of "Awakening" be as general as possible otherwise it may only have explanatory power for our own saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I did this and you can. There is an excellent correlation since 1095 between periods of high-frequency spiratual events and periods that S&H (and before 1435, Dave McGuinness) call spiritual awakenings.

Of course, but that's the West. You know the West, you're a Westerner. When you pick what events are worth plotting your filter is a "good" one because it is determined by your own cultural background. That same filter is not necessarily valid for classical civilization.

As an example, let's say you were constructing a saeculum for continental Europe. Is the Thirty Years War, one military event? Or is it ten? Or five? Or a thousand? Your decision will have the effect of "weighting" the Thirty Years War -- maybe too much, maybe too little. How much weight does the Thirty Years War have versus the Napoleonic Wars? How many "war-units" are we dealing with? See the problem?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now if you can provide a proposed saeculum for some lengthy period before 1100 AD, I can test it for alignment and see which one (yours or Dave's) fits the data better. If your saeculum fits even better than Dave's then I think you are on to something. In either case, a comparsion between differences between your saeculum and Dave's could give insight into what is important in a the saeculum at this early date. A hybrid saeculum using ideas from both might even fit better.

While I'm more than happy to provide my complete saeculum scheme (next post), I remain skeptical as to your methodology. Specifically, I'm not sure your "data set" is a good one. What sources did you use to determine data points, and what time slices are important (i.e. does a three year event count as one point or three points or some other amount)? Are some data points given higher value than others?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Now if you can provide a proposed saeculum for some lengthy period before 1100 AD, I can test it for alignment and see which one (yours or Dave's) fits the data better. If your saeculum fits even better than Dave's then I think you are on to something. In either case, a comparsion between differences between your saeculum and Dave's could give insight into what is important in a the saeculum at this early date. A hybrid saeculum using ideas from both might even fit better.

OK, first off, some theory is in order. My theory is that turning length is governed by the average age at which a person attains a position of social influence in the society in question. If a society is more aristocratic, power will be passed by inheritance and this average age will be older -- thus longer turning lengths. If the society is more democratic, power will be passed when military rank or voting age is achieved -- thus shorter turning lengths.

In general, a civilization will transfer power more by mass politics and less by inheritance as it progresses through empire and decline. Although the highest of the elite will still use inheritance in later periods -- the degree of corruption will enable them to cheat and grab power at a younger age. Also demagogues will be able to manipulate the masses to force social change at a more rapid rate. Thus turning length will tend to decrease over time except in the final stages of decline and collapse where turning length will tend to go up again as elites carve out regions of personal power (transferred by inheritance) as the social system disintegrates. Of course, the magnitude of these shifts in turning length will correspond to the degree of shift from inheritance politics to mass politics.

In classical civilization, the shift away from aristocracy toward military populism is gradual, so we should see a much more gradual turning length decrease. (As opposed to the West, which had a pretty rapid turning length decrease due to sudden and wrenching democritization.)

With that in mind, here are the turnings I propose (which I think are within a few years and subject to local variations across the Empire):

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)
75 - 95 AD Awakening (Domitian)
95 - 115 AD Unraveling (Trajan)
115 - 134 Crisis (Hadrian)
134 - 153 High (Antoninus Pius)
153 - 172 Awakening (Marcus Aurelius)
172 - 191 Unraveling (Commodus)
191 - 210 Crisis (Septimius Severus)
210 - 229 High (Caracalla and Alexander Severus)
229 - 248 Awakening (Millenium Celebration)
248 - 267 Unraveling (Seperatism in Gaul)
267 - 287 Crisis (Reconsolidation culminating with Diocletian)
287 - 307 High (Tetrarchy and Diocletian's abdication)
307 - 327 Awakening (Constantine and Council of Nicaea)
327 - 347 Unraveling (Constantine's successors)
347 - 367 Crisis (Julian the Apostate, permanent split of Empire)
367 - 387 High (Adrianople)
387 - 407 Awakening (Evacuation of Britain)
407 - 427 Unraveling (Unchecked barbarian migrations)
427 - 448 Crisis (Attila the Hun)
448 - 469 High (Rule by generals)
469 - 490 Awakening (Fall of Rome, Odoacer)

It appears that in late Empire the East begins to diverge from the West developing a distinct saeculum with longer turning lengths. Justinian appears to be the major Crisis figure in the East in the next saecula. The Attilan Crisis is probably the last crisis spanning the whole Empire before a distinct Byzantine civilization emerges.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

To get right down to it, the saecula is "a historical cycle caused by the interplay of generational archetypes." The course of history is determined by human action, and those actions have fallen into a pattern because human beings, when raising children, try to correct for the perceived errors of their parents. If Strauss and Howe's theory is even remotely accurate, this pattern must be present in other civilizations and have the same underlying cause.

No. The saeculum is a cycle that existed long before S&H wrote about it. In fact they acknowledge the original Etruscan cycle and say they took its name for their cycle. The original saeculum was a little over 100 years long, where in Generations S&H postulated an 88-year cycle. So it seemed then that they were talking about something different that the original saeculum.

But if you look at the first several S&H saecula in T4T, you see they are a little over 100 years long. And when you add in McGuiness's turnings for 1095-1435 you find six complete saeculae between 1095 and 1727 with an average length of 105 yrs, which is consistent with the Etruscan cycle. It appears that S&H didn't discover a new cycle, but the same one that the Etruscans noted. In modern times it has shortened, which they mention in T4T.

S&H's theory is unlikely to be right. The concept is inconsistent with a 105 year cycle length, which appears to have been the length until around 1700. Nevertheless, they did seem to find a cycle using their methodology and traced it to the present. It appears to be the same cycle found by many other researchers using competely different criteria and given a various names and a whole range of explanations. All of these appear to reflect the Etruscan saeculum. Or perhaps the saeculum is simply a useful organizing principle for a set of cycles that are independent, but which interact with each other so that they they align in ways to produce a cyclical appearance to history.

Nevertheless what S&H propose is interesting and some elements of what they describe are quite likely involved. And these concepts were useful in their outlining of the saecula since 1435, with only one apparent flaw (the CWA). You make be able to trace the saeculum during classical times, which could be checked out.

As for the events, these are just what has been listed in time lines by various historians. Obviously different historians will pick different events (although there is a lot of overlap). Also there are huge gaps in the record. Even with the S&H model one shuld expect all sorts of spiritual goings on during awakenings, Christian, Muslim, pagan etc. So a timeline of just Christian events (which can be constructed because records have been preserved by the Church) should still how saecular oscillations. I rather doubt that the Church fathers, when they decide whether or not to cannozied a particular hisotrical person as a saint, take into considered when that person was born wrt Awakenings. One would expect their births to be randomaly scatter throughout time. The idea of spiritual awakenings suggests that saint births might be clustered. They certainly don't have to be, but if it is found that they are clustered, this is a signficant finding, especially if the clustering is consistent with the saeculum.

So your criticisms are not as powerful as they seem at first glance. I am simply lookijng for unsual patternings that are unlikely to occur by coincidence. How else can one proceed? How can one know whether the S&H saeculum or the one you come up with is "valid"?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

No. The saeculum is a cycle that existed long before S&H wrote about it. In fact they acknowledge the original Etruscan cycle and say they took its name for their cycle. The original saeculum was a little over 100 years long, where in Generations S&H postulated an 88-year cycle. So it seemed then that they were talking about something different that the original saeculum.

Of course it existed previously. If the theory is correct, the saeculum will have to be present in every civilization in human history. There shouldn't be a magical 105 year cycle just hanging in the sky -- it must have a cause. The logic goes like this:

1) A clustering of events of a particular nature occurs at regular intervals in English-speaking Western civilization.
2) A model of this cycle is developed -- Turning theory -- and it is surmised that the underlying cause is shifting parenting styles.
3) However, since humans have reproduced in the same basic way for centuries, one should expect to see the pattern occur in other non-Western cultures.
4) If the cycle can't be found, either there is something unique about the West or the model is wrong.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

S&H's theory is unlikely to be right. The concept is inconsistent with a 105 year cycle length, which appears to have been the length until around 1700. Nevertheless, they did seem to find a cycle using their methodology and traced it to the present. It appears to be the same cycle found by many other researchers using competely different criteria and given a various names and a whole range of explanations. All of these appear to reflect the Etruscan saeculum. Or perhaps the saeculum is simply a useful organizing principle for a set of cycles that are independent, but which interact with each other so that they they align in ways to produce a cyclical appearance to history.

It is a huge assumption to call the Etruscan cycle the same cycle as the pre-1700 Western saecula. They are roughly the same length -- but so what? No wonder your cycle and McGuiness' are so long. You both tried to "fill-in-the-gap" between the Etruscans and the War of the Roses -- without regard as to whether different cultures have different saecula. You've just tried to curve fit a pattern onto over 2000 years of human history concerning at least a hundred distinct ethnic groups.

More likely the common turning length between the medieval Western saeculum and the Etruscan one is due to both cultures having landed aristocracies that transferred power through inheritance. The average age of social impact is the same in both cultures. (And since such societies are the norm in human history we should expect most civilizations not in an Imperial phase to have 100 year saecula.)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

As for the events, these are just what has been listed in time lines by various historians. Obviously different historians will pick different events (although there is a lot of overlap). Also there are huge gaps in the record.

Which means you have to select which events have relevance (just as I do). Our method is effectively the same, I just didn't do any math. I'm not sure doing a statistical analysis really makes your argument any stronger -- since the data is so clearly a biased sample. Your schema would stand or fall on the basis of the validity of your sample bias -- as would mine.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

So your criticisms are not as powerful as they seem at first glance. I am simply lookijng for unsual patternings that are unlikely to occur by coincidence. How else can one proceed? How can one know whether the S&H saeculum or the one you come up with is "valid"?

Well you can't prove everything with math. The question to ask is, does a particular turning schema make sense? The long saecula presented by yourself and McGuiness fail this test because of the long (in some cases 125 year!) saecula. Is it really reasonable for a Crisis to occur where the Prophets are 60 to 90 years old when the crisis starts? Such a cycle breaks the theory. There's no point in even postulating a turning schema that wrecks the theory itself.

If we can only construct 120 year saecula in Imperial Rome -- that is evidence that there is no Roman saeculum. Once you reduce turning length to reasonable levels -- there are only so many turnings schemes that make any sense. As there don't appear to be any sudden changes in social structure during classical civilization (at least not on par with the late 18th century) we can only postulate gradual turning length shifts. At that point there's really only one schema left -- and that's what I posted previously.

Now you could argue for a different underlying cause for the cycle . . .

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

With that in mind, here are the turnings I propose (which I think are within a few years and subject to local variations across the Empire):

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)
75 - 95 AD Awakening (Domitian)
95 - 115 AD Unraveling (Trajan)
115 - 134 Crisis (Hadrian)
134 - 153 High (Antoninus Pius)
153 - 172 Awakening (Marcus Aurelius)
172 - 191 Unraveling (Commodus)
191 - 210 Crisis (Septimius Severus)
210 - 229 High (Caracalla and Alexander Severus)
229 - 248 Awakening (Millenium Celebration)
248 - 267 Unraveling (Seperatism in Gaul)
267 - 287 Crisis (Reconsolidation culminating with Diocletian)
287 - 307 High (Tetrarchy and Diocletian's abdication)
307 - 327 Awakening (Constantine and Council of Nicaea)
327 - 347 Unraveling (Constantine's successors)
347 - 367 Crisis (Julian the Apostate, permanent split of Empire)
367 - 387 High (Adrianople)
387 - 407 Awakening (Evacuation of Britain)
407 - 427 Unraveling (Unchecked barbarian migrations)
427 - 448 Crisis (Attila the Hun)
448 - 469 High (Rule by generals)
469 - 490 Awakening (Fall of Rome, Odoacer)

First here are the results I get when I analyse the S&H saeculum between 1435 and 1991:

In Awakenings the spiritual event density is 120/142 versus 191/418 for the non-awakenings. Spiritual events are 85% more frequent. The probability of this arising from chance is 0.0003%.

In Awakenings and Crises, the unrest event density is 381/273 versus 246/283 for Highs and Unravelings. Unrest events are 24% more frequent in social meoments than other times. The probability of this difference arising from chance is 0.04%.

For the 1095-1516 period, (using McGuiness turnings up to 1435 and S&H after) the corresponding results are:

Spiritual Events:
Awakenings (43/109) versus non-Awakenings (71/313), prob of chance = 0.15%
Unrest Events:
Awakening+Crises (41/226) versus High+Unraveling (33/196), no significant difference

For the period 137BC to 490 AD using the McGuinness saeculum

Spiritual Events:
Awakenings (29/158) versus non-Awakenings (86/469), no significant difference

Unrest Events:
Awakening+Crises (80/324) versus High+Unraveling (60/303), prob of chance = 9%

For the period 137BC to 490 AD using the Horner saeculum

Spiritual Events:
Awakenings (29/169) versus non-Awakenings (86/458), no significant difference

Unrest Events:
Awakening+Crises (78/339) versus High+Unraveling (62/288), no significant difference

The numbers of events are not very great for the early times. Neither saeculum matches the event data in a statistically significant fashion although McGuinness is close to significance with unrest events. A longer time period may show a bigger difference between the two.

It is hard to find many events, the entire period has only 115 spirtual events and 140 unrest events. Compare to the 311 spiritual and 627 events for the shorter 1435-1991 period. This is why I could not construct a good saeculum for the pre-1100 period. In order to directly identify turnings from a plot of events one needs a lot of events.

Using your method, how would you apply it to the 500-1000 and the 1000-1500 period?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

It is a huge assumption to call the Etruscan cycle the same cycle as the pre-1700 Western saecula. They are roughly the same length -- but so what?

There is no saeculum that can be applied to Etruscan history, practically nothing is known about the Etruscans. The Romans have described it to us and used the concept themselves. An Etruscan (Roman) saeculum is based on the longest human life and so it typically a little over 100 years long (I think 108 years was "standard"). S&H adopted the term for their cycle and defined it as a long life (not longest) of 88 years. Later they discovered more turnings and now had 10 consecutive turnings from 1435 to 1704 that define saeculum whose length is not ~88 years, but ~108 years. In other words their saeculum is an Etruscan 100+ year cycle, not an S&H 88-year cycle before 1700.

The S&H model does not apply to 108 year saecula. It was designed for the 88-year length. Take the concept of a gray champion who is supposed to be a prophet in a Crisis. With a saeculum of Etruscan length there are no gray champions, the prophets are either dead or too old. In Generations S&H identified gray champions in three crises who were real people. They did not for the first crisis, for the simple fact that they were none. Instead they invoked a literary figure. The two crises before the Glorious Revolution similarly lacked any gray champions, for the simple fact that such men would simply not be available in these crises having been born too long before.

With the extra turnings S&H introduced in T4T, fully half of the crises lack gray champions and they even have to fudge a bit in the Revolution by interpreting Washington's role (a champion if there ever was one) as a "management" role as opposed to leadership. Who in the Revolutionary Crisis plays the roles of Lincoln and FDR in the subsequent Crises? Obviously it's Washington, but he is from too young of a generation to be "gray". Yet he wasn't too young as a man, he was 62 at the end of the crisis, Lincoln was 56 and FDR 64.

No wonder your cycle and McGuinness' are so long. You both tried to "fill-in-the-gap" between the Etruscans and the War of the Roses -- without regard as to whether different cultures have different saecula. You've just tried to curve fit a pattern onto over 2000 years of human history concerning at least a hundred distinct ethnic groups.

It is S&H's cycle that is so long. Look at the pre-1700 dates.

Which means you have to select which events have relevance (just as I do). Our method is effectively the same, I just didn't do any math. I'm not sure doing a statistical analysis really makes your argument any stronger -- since the data is so clearly a biased sample. Your schema would stand or fall on the basis of the validity of your sample bias -- as would mine.

No I don't. For example, one can find a list of Roman Catholic saints which gives birth dates for many of them. Put all of them in the timeline. You can fine timelines of labor history, put in all the dates for strikes and such from that timeline. There is no bias because none of these timelines were being used to illustrate cyclical history and so are not biased to show cycles.

There is no reason to believe that more saints should be born in one type of generation versus another unless there really is such a thing as a prophet generation. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that more composers should be born in one particular generation versus another. So you do the analysis and you find that saints are more commonly found in prophet generations, but there is no generational correlation with composers. This sort of analysis is objective and can give definitive results.

The question to ask is, does a particular turning schema make sense? The long saecula presented by yourself and McGuinness fail this test because of the long (in some cases 125 year!) saecula. Is it really reasonable for a Crisis to occur where the Prophets are 60 to 90 years old when the crisis starts? Such a cycle breaks the theory. There's no point in even postulating a turning schema that wrecks the theory itself.

Of course it breaks the theory. You are arguing circularly. You use the theory to determine the cycles to prove the theory. In order to even talk about a theory, you must have a cycle that can be determined in a reproducible manner. Otherwise there is nothing to explain.

In your approach you take an idea and develop a set of cycles around it. Another person can develop a set of cycles over the same period that is different from yours. You will of course prefer your cycles and he will prefer his. This sort of cycle assessment is really based on esthetics. Each person will create his/her own set of cycles based on their own vision of what is important. But there is no way to determine which cycle scheme is "best". And if they are all "valid" then does such a thing as a saeculum even exist if no one can agree on the dating?

For example, you probably take the S&H cycle as a given, as if it were real thing that is "out there", rather than an intellectual construct of the authors. Looking at their cycle there are things that don't make sense. Why is the American revolution a crisis but not the English one? You might say the latter was "religious" in nature as was the contemporaneous Thirty Years War. But the War of the Armada is also a religious war, so why is that a crisis? Various arguments can be made to "explain" S&H's choice, but they are all ad hoc. If the cycle was drawn differently, arguments could be marshalled to explain that view too.

As another example, I can't see an awakening miss the foundation of major religions like yours does. After all, S&H made the Reformation an awakening, so why not the beginnng of Christianity? What is spiritual about the period 7BC to AD14? How can this period be a spiritual awakening when a major new religion arose in the decades after AD 30? It sort of defeats the idea of the S&H's saeculum, which was heavily influenced by McLoughlin's Spiritual Awakenings which are religious in nature.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The numbers of events are not very great for the early times. Neither saeculum matches the event data in a statistically significant fashion although McGuinness is close to significance with unrest events . . . In order to directly identify turnings from a plot of events one needs a lot of events.

Certainly any errors due to sample bias would be reduced the more events you have to calculate with. I think your data may insufficient to the task that far back in time -- which would bring us back to interpretive methods.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Using your method, how would you apply it to the 500-1000 and the 1000-1500 period?

The 500-1000 period is difficult for two reasons. 1) My historical knowledge in that period is poor and the historical record itself is rather sparse. 2) Since I view saecula as civilizational phenomenon, there would end up being at least three saecula during that period in the region of the former Roman Empire (Western, Orthodox and Muslim).

The 1000-1500 period is easier, if we confine ourselves to the West. I would imagine that McGuiness and I would largely agree in that period. However, I have a hunch -- and maybe we could use your method to test it -- that England and the continent diverge at the Black Death and don't re-synch until Napoleon.

For example, Martin Luther seems like a Prophet, but under the S&H saecula he's an Artist (?!?). Furthermore, does it really make sense to have the Thirty Years War be an Awakening War? These are just a few of the many continental "anomalies."

But, since in my hypothesis turning length is related to age of social influence, the Black Death should have sharply reduced turning length and that reduction would be more pronounced and longer lasting in those parts of Europe (France, Northern Italy, Germany) where the Death was most devastating. Between the Death and Napoleon we've got one extra saeculum on the continent versus in England.

My guess would be a roughly 100 year Western saeculum from Charlemagne to the Black Death. Afterward, things would get complicated.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Certainly any errors due to sample bias would be reduced the more events you have to calculate with.

Numbers help with sampling bias results from unrelated factors such as the interest of the compiling historian. Most timelines and histories tend to focus on "important" events. There is no reason to believe important events are any different from unimportant events in terms of propensity to show a cyclical pattern. Thus, a timeline biased towards important events (in the opinion of the compiling historian) should have no impact as long as the compiler is not a cycle historian.

For example, I wouldn't use events from this webpage

But I see no reason not to use this one, or this one

The criticism that spiritual events are generally not from pagan traditions is invalid as well. If some times are more "spiritual/religious" than others, it should show up in any religious tradition for which sufficient data exists.

I think your data may insufficient to the task that far back in time -- which would bring us back to interpretive methods.

My "event density" method can be used for testing saecula that one comes up with. For example, the awakenings you identify do not show any tendency towards greater frequency of religious activity, unlike the S&H awakenings, which show a pronounced trend in this direction. Of course this could simply reflect the inadequacy of my list of events. McGuinness's saeculum shows the same thing over the period of interest. Similarly, the social moment turnings you identify show no tendency towards a greater frequency of unrest events, whereas those of S&H do. In contrast, McGuinness's social moments do show such a tendency, although it is only moderately significant.

The event density method is insufficient for determining the saeculum directly, even for the modern era with lots of events. I did not go into this, but I also use a lot of time series data for cycle evaluation. A time series (such as a price index, a crime index or a production index) contains an entry which summarizes many events. For example, a price index reflects the action of a large number of individual buying and selling decisions (all of the "events"). Similarly a crime index tells us something about the criminal behavior of a group of people (again many events).

The event density method is based on the idea that a social moment is an eventful time. Those identified by S&H were very very significantly more eventful than the times in between. Look at the last social moment. The 1964-1984 period saw a large amount of unrest: race riots, campuses protests, strikes, etc. It saw a wave of new religious groups get started. These type of events were very significantly more frequent during the awakening than before or after. Here is my original development of this idea (written in late summer 2000):
http://csf.colorado.edu/authors/Alex.../Framework.htm

The 500-1000 period is difficult for two reasons. 1) My historical knowledge in that period is poor and the historical record itself is rather sparse. 2) Since I view saecula as civilizational phenomenon, there would end up being at least three saecula during that period in the region of the former Roman Empire (Western, Orthodox and Muslim).

I see the unit for the saeculum as being the world system, a region interconnected by extensive trade links through which cultural exchange occurs.

But, since in my hypothesis turning length is related to age of social influence, the Black Death should have sharply reduced turning length and that reduction would be more pronounced and longer lasting in those parts of Europe (France, Northern Italy, Germany) where the Death was most devastating. Between the Death and Napoleon we've got one extra saeculum on the continent versus in England.

Why do you think the Black Death hit France and Germany more severely than it did England? What data I've seen suggests that all the Western European nations got hit hard. There were pockets that avoided the plague and others that got hit very hard, but over large areas like entire nations these local differences would average out.

Why do you think turning length would shorten with the Black Death?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

There is no saeculum that can be applied to Etruscan history, practically nothing is known about the Etruscans. The Romans have described it to us and used the concept themselves. An Etruscan (Roman) saeculum is based on the longest human life and so it typically a little over 100 years long (I think 108 years was "standard").

Well, sure, it would be really hard to figure out the Etruscan saeculum -- if there is one. But I think it's reasonable to conclude that since Roman historians saw the pattern and we've seen similar patterns in other times in history that it's fair to assume there was one.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The S&H model does not apply to 108 year saecula. It was designed for the 88-year length. Take the concept of a gray champion who is supposed to be a prophet in a Crisis. With a saeculum of Etruscan length there are no gray champions, the prophets are either dead or too old. In Generations S&H identified gray champions in three crises who were real people. They did not for the first crisis, for the simple fact that they were none. Instead they invoked a literary figure. The two crises before the Glorious Revolution similarly lacked any gray champions, for the simple fact that such men would simply not be available in these crises having been born too long before.

There are a lot of problems with S&H's own turning dates. The turning theory itself has resonance -- their application of it, however, seems flawed. I agree that it is difficult to have Grey Champions in long saecula, but the GC concept is, IMO, non-essential to the theory. The critical change that occurs at a turning shift is the new generation entering positions of social influence. Prophets need to still be around when the Crisis occurs, but they do not need to be in the peak of their careers.

If we take 108 years as the upper bound of saeculum length, we get 27 year turnings -- so a first wave Prophet would be 3+27+27+27+3 = 87 years old at the catalyst -- close enough to that 88-year "long human life" mentioned earlier. Saecula longer than that would seem to argue against a generational explanation for the cycle. (Let me restate that, just to be clear: There might be saecula over 110 years long but that would indicate that generational change is not the cause of the cycle.)

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

It is S&H's cycle that is so long. Look at the pre-1700 dates.

I've got an alternate that shortens up the earlier S&H cycles and eliminates the Civil War Anomaly. It's very similar though, so it should score abut the same statistically as the "official" S&H saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Of course it breaks the theory. You are arguing circularly. You use the theory to determine the cycles to prove the theory. In order to even talk about a theory, you must have a cycle that can be determined in a reproducible manner. Otherwise there is nothing to explain. . . For example, you probably take the S&H cycle as a given, as if it were real thing that is "out there", rather than an intellectual construct of the authors.

I do not take the S&H pattern as given. They have provided an incomplete causative explanation for a possible pattern. I have taken the causative explanation, taken it to its furthest conclusion and applied it. If the theory, when applied, is in conflict with reality, then it is wrong. If the theory contradicts S&Hs turnings (as I think it does in a few places) then S&Hs turnings cannot be supported with a generational explanation (other explanations are, of course, open).

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why is the American revolution a crisis but not the English one? You might say the latter was "religious" in nature as was the contemporaneous Thirty Years War. But the War of the Armada is also a religious war, so why is that a crisis? Various arguments can be made to "explain" S&H's choice, but they are all ad hoc. If the cycle was drawn differently, arguments could be marshalled to explain that view too.

Alas, the turnings themselves are going to be based off the perceptions of the people living in those times. The critical point in the saeculum which is easiest to identify is the "break point" in a Crisis (what S&H are refering to when they talk of an event "ushering in the regeneracy") -- where there is a clear break with the political pattern of the preceding saeculum. The Crisis in its first few years accelerates toward the break point. So I would look for a sweeping political moment preceded by increasing dissent and followed by policy changes. This break point doesn't need to be that big of an event -- it just needs to loom large in the minds of the people then living.

Those break points for the American (and earlier British saeculum) seem to be:
Battle of Stoke 1487
Defeat of the Armada 1588
Glorious Revolution 1688
Declaration of Independence 1776
Fort Sumter 1861
New Deal 1933
Events close to these like Towton 1784, or Lexington Green 1775 are also possible, but these points of change are clear and considered significant long after the fact.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

As another example, I can't see an awakening miss the foundation of major religions like yours does. After all, S&H made the Reformation an awakening, so why not the beginnng of Christianity?

Actually, my turnings do have the foundation of Christianity in an Awakening -- in the latter first century when the Zealot Rebellion occurs, and when Christianity truly became a distinct faith. Christianity's beginnings are very fuzzy because Christ was a martyr for an as yet un-created faith. If you look back at my earlier post about the Judean saeculum on this thread, you'll note that this makes the crucifixion an early Crisis event (comparable to, say, John Brown's Raid) but since that time would still be an Unravelling for Rome proper, Pilate is an Artist, the Jewish religious leaders are angry Prophets and Jesus is a Nomad making them both look like fools.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

What is spiritual about the period 7BC to AD14?

Origins of the Zealot movement, for one. Also, Augustus reorganizes the roman shrines and pagan ceremonies during this time. The big spirtual question of the time concerns Augustus himself. Is he a God? Or just god-like? At the end of the Awakening, Tiberius resolves this conundrum by deifying Augustus posthumously. (Also, note that when the Crisis starts one of the ways that Caligula overreaches is by claiming living godhood.)

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I have taken the causative explanation, taken it to its furthest conclusion and applied it. If the theory, when applied, is in conflict with reality, then it is wrong.

How do you make this determination of whether the theory conflicts with reality?

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

If we take 108 years as the upper bound of saeculum length, we get 27 year turnings -- so a first wave Prophet would be 3+27+27+27+3 = 87 years old at the catalyst -- close enough to that 88-year "long human life" mentioned earlier.

No. It's simple, with a 108 year saeculum, the "generational constellation" of three generations won't occur because the oldest of the three will be either dead or too old. Only two generations will shape history. The gray champion is simply an example of the action of this third generation. The absence of real gray champions when the saeculum was of the Etruscan length means the three generation model wasn't in action. But the three generation constellation is critical, it is what generates the alternation between spiritual and secular social moments. With only two generations one would expect a two-stroke cycle, if it were produced solely by generational factors.

My model has every other turning be an "eventful" period that S&H would term a social moment. The turning length is that of a biological generation: 26-27 years. This two-stroke cycle arises directly out of a standard population cycle mechanism, which functions independently of generational archetypes. The social moments are essentially forced upon the population by the endogenous population mechanism, but there is a choice of response to the social moment. The choice is determined by the basic character of the generations in power. If the generations tend towards a secular outlook (i.e. Nomads and Heroes) the social moment is a Secular Crisis. If the generations tend towards a spiritual outlook (i.e. Artists and Prophets) the social moment is an Awakening.

During the social moment, the generation being born and growing up rebels against their elders by adopting the other outlook. Hence in a crisis spiritual Artists are born to secular Heros. Artists retain the communitarian ethic of their parents because this style is favored by the conditions of the Crisis, but Artists rebel during the High against the spirit-dead world created by their Hero parents and Nomad grandparents. On the other hand, secular Nomads are born to spiritual Prophets during the Awakening. Nomads retain the individualistic ethic of their parents as this style is favored by the conditions of the Awakening During the unraveling, Nomads rebel against their (too) spirit-filled elders by adopting a pragmatic, secular worldview. In my scheme, the "gray champions" of the crisis are Nomads.

This scheme broke down in the late 18th century. The cycle length had been temporaily shorted by 11% because because of changes to the operation of the basic cycle caused by the Financial Revolution in the late 17th century. The cycle should have lengthened to over a century afterward. It tried to do so in the Transcendental Awakening (the 1727-1822 period at 95 years was the last "long" saeculum). The old cycle collapsed around 1820 and was replaced with a new one with 18-year turnings (the ten turnings from 1822 to 2001 have averaged 17.9 years in length, compare with the ten 26.9-year turnings between 1435-1704).

The saeculum can be tracked in financial markets, which is my primary interest in S&H theory. The 18-year length is manifest in the six regular panic cycles between 1819 and 1929 and the four secular bull/bear markets between 1929 and 2000. I write financial articles, once solely as a hobby, but now for money too. So my interest in this stuff is practical--a rather "Nomadic" approach for a Prophet--but then I'm an engineer.

I don't know what caused the shift to 18 years and the sudden emergence of the 18-year panic cycle in 1819. I believe that the mechanism for the cycle today is something like the archetype model S&H proposed with changing parenting styles that you use. I also believe that the onset of democratic government in the US and UK in the late 18th century/early 19th centuries was involved in precipitating the 33% reduction in basal turning length. I think your model is something I want to explore further, but I don't think it is really applicable to Roman turnings, which I would expect to follow the population cycle. But it might be key to the transition to the 18-year cycle which is NOT based on any exogenous factor, but seems to arise from pyschological interactions.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The criticism that spiritual events are generally not from pagan traditions is invalid as well. If some times are more "spiritual/religious" than others, it should show up in any religious tradition for which sufficient data exists.

But if the religion of the time was intimately tied with affairs of state and highly ceremonial -- like Roman religion -- then you would be likely to have a sampling problem. Your graph does have a curious lack of data in the 1st century BC. Christian or Jewish sources would be useless for that time frame as they would regard the Roman spiritual life as pagan garbage unworthy of note except as a demonstration of depravity.

Hmm . . . maybe if your event index was entirely drawn from contemporary historians it could be a good sample. But then you have to define "contemporary."

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I see the unit for the saeculum as being the world system, a region interconnected by extensive trade links through which cultural exchange occurs.

And when trade declined in the Dark Ages -- you would expect to see saecular divergence. Once distinctly different, two saecula could later harmonize with each other -- but only if the cultures involved were similar. I.e. England and the Continent diverge and later recombine, but the Muslim saeculum is not the same at all.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Why do you think the Black Death hit France and Germany more severely than it did England? What data I've seen suggests that all the Western European nations got hit hard. There were pockets that avoided the plague and others that got hit very hard, but over large areas like entire nations these local differences would average out. Why do you think turning length would shorten with the Black Death?

The numbers are scanty, but if you look at the worst hit cities in Italy (Pisa, Venice) or in France (Paris, Marseilles) you get 60-80% lethality. In England (Bristol, London) the worst are 30-50% lethality. The Death basically hit England once and then flared occasionally before disappearing. In France and Italy, half the people would die and then the Death would come back a year later and kill half of those who survived the last time.

In both cases, lots of people would die and pass their positions, estates and businesses to their descendants earlier than expected -- also some property would simply have brand new owners. I.e. the new generation takes over early, and the turning is cut short. The long term social impact of this would take generations to iron out and in the meantime the changes in social structure would ensure a slow return to the older turning length.

The lower death rate in England (combined with some geographical separation) means less drop in turning length and a faster return to the longer turning lengths. Eventually (400+ years) you get one extra saeculum transpiring on the Continent relative to England.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

How do you make this determination of whether the theory conflicts with reality?

Primary documents. The mood of the time. Your method basically checks a saeculum at the Awakening (by looking for a lot of events of an unruly nature clustered together). My method checks for a saeculum at the Crisis (by looking for a "break point") which can only be determined by reference to events and people's recorded reactions to them.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't know what caused the shift to 18 years and the sudden emergence of the 18-year panic cycle in 1819. I believe that the mechanism for the cycle today is something like the archetype model S&H proposed with changing parenting styles that you use. I also believe that the onset of democratic government in the US and UK in the late 18th century/early 19th centuries was involved in precipitating the 33% reduction in basal turning length. I think your model is something I want to explore further, but I don't think it is really applicable to Roman turnings, which I would expect to follow the population cycle. But it might be key to the transition to the 18-year cycle which is NOT based on any exogenous factor, but seems to arise from pyschological interactions.

I had it in my head that you thought the 26 year to 18 year turning compaction occurred because of a switch from an underlying Malthusian cycle to one based on a debt cycle.

I am confused. Help.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I don't know what caused the shift to 18 years and the sudden emergence of the 18-year panic cycle in 1819. I believe that the mechanism for the cycle today is something like the archetype model S&H proposed with changing parenting styles that you use. I also believe that the onset of democratic government in the US and UK in the late 18th century/early 19th centuries was involved in precipitating the 33% reduction in basal turning length. I think your model is something I want to explore further, but I don't think it is really applicable to Roman turnings, which I would expect to follow the population cycle. But it might be key to the transition to the 18-year cycle which is NOT based on any exogenous factor, but seems to arise from pyschological interactions.

I had it in my head that you thought the 26 year to 18 year turning compaction occurred because of a switch from an underlying Malthusian cycle to one based on a debt cycle.

I am confused. Help.

The shift from population to debt is the factor that caused the 11% drop in length in the 18th century (from ~105 to ~93 years). It's effect should have been temporary and the saeculum should have bounced back up to the 100+ year length in the 19th century. It did not, instead it dropped to ~72 years quite abruptly around 1820. I used to think the cause of this shift was industrialization (this is the explanation proposed in my Kondratiev book) but I no longer think that.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Your graph does have a curious lack of data in the 1st century BC.

Not curious at all, its over two thousand years ago. The only reason that data of this sort can be found more easily a few centuries later is that the Catholic Church has been in existence a long time and had a vested interest in maintaining records for this sort of thing. For example the Church collects information on holy people as part of the canonization process. Doing this creates a situation where data like birthdates is available for a particular type of people over along period of time. This data has been compiled into online sites by people for reasons having nothing to do with cyclical history. Nevertheless, it is available for someone like me to survey. Nobody bothered to collect and preserve this sort of information about pagan religion back when it could be collected. Thus before the time of the Church, the record gets pretty sparse.

My method checks for a saeculum at the Crisis (by looking for a "break point") which can only be determined by reference to events and people's recorded reactions to them.

My method looks at both the Awakening and Crisis--both are unruly times. Awakenings are also identified by the religious/spiritual events.

But to look for break points one has to pick a crisis era. For example, you interpret where an emperor was from as important and use that to provide a crisis during Hadrian's reign. I don't see why that is relevant. A Roman of good family living in Spain is somehow less than a Roman of inferior family living in Italy?

But you think it is important, Fair enough. I can't argue that Trajan was from an Italian family that had moved to Spain generations earlier. Trajan was the first aristocrat whose family was not based in Italy to become emperor. So you would have a break point in AD 98 when he becomes emperor reflecting this change. But you don't. You downpedal Trajan's Spanishness and play up Hadrian's so you can break a bit later when it fits better. This is not bias?

But then you apparently use other indicators to pick the other dates. It's like you step forward at ~80 year intervals and pick a criterion that provides a break point for a crisis around that time. It all makes sense and hangs together, but it is subjective.

Another person using a similar politically-flavored S&H-type model, would find different break points using other criteria. For example I would see crisis points in BC31, AD 69, 193, 284, 378 and 476, spaced about 100 years apart on average.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Nobody bothered to collect and preserve this sort of information about pagan religion back when it could be collected. Thus before the time of the Church, the record gets pretty sparse.

I think we basically agree here about the sparse records. You've done an admirable job compiling early Church history and it is a shame that a similar density of records does not exist for, say, the identities of Vestal Virgins.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

But to look for break points one has to pick a crisis era. For example, you interpret where an emperor was from as important and use that to provide a crisis during Hadrian's reign. I don't see why that is relevant.

Actually, that was just a side note on Hadrian that I pointed out earlier. Hadrian's reign seemed right for other reasons, notably:
1) His reign is marked by considerable reform and refinement of Imperial policy.
2) He was and still is considered to be the Emperor at the "peak" of the Empire even though Trajan's Empire was technically larger.
3) There was very nearly a succession crisis after Trajan's death forestalled by the fact that Hadrian's four biggest critics were arrested and executed -- an action that made Hadrian some new critics but also cemented his power. (This is the "break point.")

In general, Hadrian has all the markings of a Crisis ruler during a relatively stable Crisis -- an FDR-like figure. I know it's simply interpretive but the attempt to prevent Hadrian's deification after his death sounds oddly similar to the Republican congress limiting Presidential terms after FDR's tenure. It is, after all, the type of conservative reaction that one would expect after the reign of a popular reformer.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Another person using a similar politically-flavored S&H-type model, would find different break points using other criteria. For example I would see crisis points in BC31, AD 69, 193, 284, 378 and 476, spaced about 100 years apart on average.

But how convincing are these? By my scheme you've picked one crisis break-point (193) and two crisis climaxes (31BC, 284), two High era calamities (69, 378) and one Awakening disaster (476). Now, to clarify, I use the term break-point to denote the power shift that occurs in the beginning of a Crisis.

To be break-points there would have to be a substantial cultural shift following it and long-term policy changes. Now I realize that through the fog of the centuries, a break-point and a climax to a Crisis can look the same (since a climax often brings a policy shift as well) -- so when we have a strong break-point candidate it is possible that we've actually noted a climax instead. It is telling that half of your proposed dates do fall in my crises.

As for the ones that don't -- there are significant problems of historical context that have to be dealt with.

The sucession crisis caused by Nero (69) concerns no significant issue nor does anyone think that restarting the Republic is possible in the time of Crisis (contrast with Caligula's death where the Senate tried to restore the Republic). Does Vespasian make any significant policy changes? Not really.

Adrianople (378) is a bad day for the Empire, but it doesn't appear to be a great shift. In fact, the Western Empire failed to even show up (thus the loss). Much more significant would be the Battle of Mursa (351) the bloodiest battle of the 4th century which decisively marks the Eastern Empire as the more powerful half of the Empire. True, Adrianople is considered a "beginning of the end" event to later historians but that's because the division of the Empire had failed to make the Empire any more defensible.

And 476? The Empire dies with a whimper not a bang. Romulus Augustus wasn't even recognized by the East and when he finally gives power to Odoacer it's just a recognition of reality. No titanic battle, just an assent to Odoacer's superior might. The Battle of Chalons (451) -- that's a break point. Attila's advance is blunted in a titanic battle that leaves, by some estimates as many as 200,000 dead. However, to do it, Rome must call upon the Visigoths. Rome could no longer defend itself, the barbarians were powers in their own right.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Actually, that was just a side note on Hadrian that I pointed out earlier. Hadrian's reign seemed right for other reasons, notably:
1) His reign is marked by considerable reform and refinement of Imperial policy.
2) He was and still is considered to be the Emperor at the "peak" of the Empire even though Trajan's Empire was technically larger.
3) There was very nearly a succession crisis after Trajan's death forestalled by the fact that Hadrian's four biggest critics were arrested and executed -- an action that made Hadrian some new critics but also cemented his power. (This is the "break point.")

There was a change in the nature of succession over AD 69-96 that provides a break point.

I see the ~45-15 BC period as a crisis that changed the Republic to the Principate. You see this too. Caesar was a military strongman, like Vespasian. In my view both of these strongmen seized power at the beginning of a Crisis and were succeeded by their heirs. Each heir had a problem: how to handle succession in what essentially a Monarchy, but was not called one. The solution adopted by Octavian (perhaps not consciously) was to link the name of Caesar, which was potent in its day, with the oldest and most distinguished Roman family, the Claudians, by marrying Livia. The next four emperors were direct descendents of Livia and thus all Claudians.

You see the attempt to re-establish the Republic in the aftermath of Caligula's death as a breakpoint for the next crisis. I see the actual succession by yet another Claudian as evidence of continuity. I see the attempt at republic as simply some of the sturm and drang of an Awakening.

I see the breakpoint as coming in AD 69 when the Claudian line ended creating a new succession crisis. Vespasion and his sons attempted to deal with the succession problem by establishing a new dynasty, like Caesar did. But Domitian alienated the Senate by treating them as the toadies that they were, whereas Octavian had been careful to preserve Senatorial dignity. So Domitian was assassinated and replaced by a senator, while Octavian was successfully replaced by Livia's son Tiberius, a middle-aged man from the illustrious Claudian familty who had proven his worth long before he had been named successor. This successful transition prevented a civil war, unlike what happened after Nero. It also provided a rule for future successions (the Claudian line), like that established by Nerva. Hence when Caligula was assassinated, he was succeeded by his uncle Claudius, who in turn was succeeded by Caligula's nephew (and Claudius's son by adoption). Thus, Nero was Claudian on both sides and heir to the Caesar name.

Nerva, the senator who replaced Domitian, began a new tradition of appointive succession. These appointees were selected based on their qualifications, not blood. This method produced four good emperors in succession. This solution to the succession problem is what makes 96 AD a climax breakpoint. Hadrian's reign simply does not strike me as a Crisis era at all. I see the critics of Hadrian as Awakening unrest.

Marcus Aurelius broke this tradition by trying to establish a dynasty like Vespasian did. It did not survive beyond the next generation, just like Vespasian's effort. So I could put the next crisis in 175-197. The 193 date is simply a convenient date saying a Crisis occurs somewhere around here. You have 193 as a crisis breakpoint.

Septimus Severus did succeed in creating a dynasty that lasted through Alexander Severus (with interuptions). I see Egadabalus and Alexander as Awakening figures with 197-218 a High. After Alexander the empire fell into crisis (small c). This period does not immediately qualify as a Crisis because no solution emerged, just lots of sturm and drang. Thus the Awakening deeped into an Unraveling and finally Crisis, at the end of which the succession problem was again successfully addressed by Diocletian--for a time. I too see Aurelian as a crisis figure and see the crisis ending around 287 as do you.

I see 476 as a break point. When Odovacar deposed Romulus Augustulus, he did not declare himself emperor. Instead he sent the crown to the Eastern emperor with the message there was no more need for it. And there wasn't. By 500 AD the Western empire had been replaced by a chain of German kingdoms. Although the empire had largely disintegrated before 476, it was not dead until some new nonimperial authority was imposed upon the chaos that resulted from the collapse of the old regime. This occurred with the establishment of the Frankish Kingdom.

The vast majority of the populations ruled by these German kings were culturally Roman. A legitimate emperor would command more respect than a barbarian upstart. Theodoric did invoke a continuity with imperial tradition by ruling technically as a viceregent of the Empire. He admired the Roman tradition and stove to preserve it. He was hampered by his Arian faith, however, which put him in opposition to Roman Catholics, which ultimately caused the failure of his project.

The actions of Clovis in Gaul also put a nail in the Imperial coffin. Clovis became Catholic and so eliminated the religious problems Theodoric faced. He created a kingdom of Franks by making everyone a "Frank" rather declare himself as emperor of the Romans (which would alienate Theodoric). Unlike the other Germanic kingdoms, Clovis's regime established absolute equality between the Romans and Germans, all shared the same privileges. All the free men in the kingdom of Clovis, whether they were of Roman or of Germanic origin, called themselves Franks. In other words, he created a nation, Frankia (France), to replace the empire.

My model does not distinguish the Awakening from the Crisis in terms of intensity. Both are periods of unrest. The difference is Awakenings show more religious events and a lack of effective secular action. Crisies are the reverse. Thus, the ineffective action by the Senate after Caligula is Awakening unrest. The effective action taken by the Senate after Domitian is what makes the 69-96 period a Crisis.

Similarly Septimus's success at establishing a dynasty solved the succesion problem for a while. When it failed it took 50 years for a solution to emerge under Diocletian. I have the latter portion of this period a Crisis and the first part mostly an Unraveling. I lose the thread at this point and pick it up again in the late 5th century when a set of new kingdoms replace the Empire which is clearly a major breakpoint. The battle of Adrianople is simply a major event that is conveniently placed.

The point I am trying to making by constructing an alternate saeculum is that I can draw turnings that seem more plausible to me than yours do. But you probably see your turnings as more plausible than mine.

The reason, of course, is we both have differing opinions on what is important, and differing interpretations of what events mean. We get different results even though both of us focus on primarily political analysis, which is itself a bias.

Unless there is some sort of method that allows one to evaluate the "rightness" of a particular scheme, it is difficult to proceed. Without such a method, outlining saecula is an artistic expression rather than development of a workable model for history. The appeal is to aesthetics, which scheme seems beautiful or true intuitively, as opposed to a procedure that anyone can use to assess the "goodness of fit" to reality.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The point I am trying to making by constructing an alternate saeculum is that I can draw turnings that seem more plausible to me than yours do. But you probably see your turnings as more plausible than mine.

The reason, of course, is we both have differing opinions on what is important, and differing interpretations of what events mean. We get different results even though both of us focus on primarily political analysis, which is itself a bias.

I don't think this problem is something that can be overcome (except maybe in the case of massive amounts of data, and even then the data selection process can be disputed on the same grounds that an intuitive method is). What we're running into is the fact that the social sciences aren't like the physical sciences -- "reproducibility" is a phantom because you're dealing with human decisions.

We can never experiment on these theories, because to do so would require time travel and a distinct lack of morals. As a practical matter, your method will be slightly more convincing to some people -- those fond of statistics -- but to "test" the theory is going to be, to some extent, impossible.

If we are to run statistical tests, which seem like a good idea, we need to be specific as to what we are testing for. This is where I think our real dispute lies -- because we seem to disagree on the underlying cause of the cycle.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Unless there is some sort of method that allows one to evaluate the "rightness" of a particular scheme, it is difficult to proceed. Without such a method, outlining saecula is an artistic expression rather than development of a workable model for history. The appeal is to aesthetics, which scheme seems beautiful or true intuitively, as opposed to a procedure that anyone can use to assess the "goodness of fit" to reality.

But, as I pointed out, your selection as to what constitutes a religious event, a labor unrest event, etc. is also aesthetic and to use established historians to generate your data set is probably sound, but logically using that data and claiming it "objective" is little more than an appeal to authority. It would be comforting to be able to analyze human events the same way an engineer calculates the strength of a beam, but due to human volition such analysis is impossible on philosophical grounds.

I don't want to get too bogged down in minutiae but there's a few things I should point out with reagard to your "break-point" explanations. Although, I think that a discussion of the Western saeculum is more in order (since you have more data to work with to do statistical tests). And since that will definitely stray from Rome, I'm going to attempt to breathe life into the "Origins of the Saeculum" thread . . .

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

There was a change in the nature of succession over AD 69-96 that provides a break point.

I see the ~45-15 BC period as a crisis that changed the Republic to the Principate. You see this too. Caesar was a military strongman, like Vespasian. In my view both of these strongmen seized power at the beginning of a Crisis and were succeeded by their heirs. Each heir had a problem: how to handle succession in what essentially a Monarchy, but was not called one. The solution adopted by Octavian (perhaps not consciously) was to link the name of Caesar, which was potent in its day, with the oldest and most distinguished Roman family, the Claudians, by marrying Livia. The next four emperors were direct descendents of Livia and thus all Claudians.

You see the attempt to re-establish the Republic in the aftermath of Caligula's death as a breakpoint for the next crisis. I see the actual succession by yet another Claudian as evidence of continuity. I see the attempt at republic as simply some of the sturm and drang of an Awakening.

I see the breakpoint as coming in AD 69 when the Claudian line ended creating a new succession crisis. Vespasion and his sons attempted to deal with the succession problem by establishing a new dynasty, like Caesar did. But Domitian alienated the Senate by treating them as the toadies that they were, whereas Octavian had been careful to preserve Senatorial dignity. So Domitian was assassinated and replaced by a senator, while Octavian was successfully replaced by Livia's son Tiberius, a middle-aged man from the illustrious Claudian familty who had proven his worth long before he had been named successor. This successful transition prevented a civil war, unlike what happened after Nero. It also provided a rule for future successions (the Claudian line), like that established by Nerva. Hence when Caligula was assassinated, he was succeeded by his uncle Claudius, who in turn was succeeded by Caligula's nephew (and Claudius's son by adoption). Thus, Nero was Claudian on both sides and heir to the Caesar name.

Nerva, the senator who replaced Domitian, began a new tradition of appointive succession. These appointees were selected based on their qualifications, not blood. This method produced four good emperors in succession. This solution to the succession problem is what makes 96 AD a climax breakpoint. Hadrian's reign simply does not strike me as a Crisis era at all. I see the critics of Hadrian as Awakening unrest.

This all sounds good on the face of it, but see below. However, you have done what I did the first time I tried to to look for a saecular pattern in Roman history -- mistook Sir Edward Gibbon's personal assessment of the "Five Good Emperors" as the identification of a Crisis-through- Awakening set of rulers. However, that assessment is not the Roman view -- it is Gibbon's.

We appear to agree from Severus through Aurelian and Diocletian.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

I see 476 as a break point. When Odovacar deposed Romulus Augustulus, he did not declare himself emperor. Instead he sent the crown to the Eastern emperor with the message there was no more need for it. And there wasn't. By 500 AD the Western empire had been replaced by a chain of German kingdoms. Although the empire had largely disintegrated before 476, it was not dead until some new nonimperial authority was imposed upon the chaos that resulted from the collapse of the old regime. This occurred with the establishment of the Frankish Kingdom.

Seems like a big change, but . . .

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The vast majority of the populations ruled by these German kings were culturally Roman. A legitimate emperor would command more respect than a barbarian upstart. Theodoric did invoke a continuity with imperial tradition by ruling technically as a viceregent of the Empire. He admired the Roman tradition and stove to preserve it. He was hampered by his Arian faith, however, which put him in opposition to Roman Catholics, which ultimately caused the failure of his project.

. . . as you point out, while Roman government was hardly extant post-Attila, the culture was still there. This is the fade out of the Classical saeculum soon to be replaced by the Frankish saeculum which is, of course, the Western saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

My model does not distinguish the Awakening from the Crisis in terms of intensity. Both are periods of unrest. The difference is Awakenings show more religious events and a lack of effective secular action. Crisies are the reverse. Thus, the ineffective action by the Senate after Caligula is Awakening unrest. The effective action taken by the Senate after Domitian is what makes the 69-96 period a Crisis.

Why is the Senate the important determinant of secular action? I see the effective action of the military with Claudius and it's ineffectiveness in early unravelling with Domitian's death. Which is more important? Almost certainly the military -- since it was the populist force in Roman politics that increasingly dominated through Roman history.