Modelling History Through Cycles

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

For ex, one of several reasons for the periodicity of large nasty wars (about a lifetime apart, often) could very likely just be that this is long enough for memory of had nasty the last one was to pass away, making society more receptive to the possibility of engaging in one.

Is there a convincing case for the idea that large, nasty wars come in periodic cycles? I'd be really interested to find out.

When I first hear the idea, it strikes me as pretty far-fetched - I guess because I think of human societies as being extraordinarily complex things, meaning that their history is extraordinarily complex, too; and it's so very, very easy to see patterns in any complex data if you're just willing to squint a bit.

But I could totally be wrong!

[combatmedic]

Originally Posted by Joe

Is there a convincing case for the idea that large, nasty wars come in periodic cycles? I'd be really interested to find out.

When I first hear the idea, it strikes me as pretty far-fetched - I guess because I think of human societies as being extraordinarily complex things, meaning that their history is extraordinarily complex, too; and it's so very, very easy to see patterns in any complex data if you're just willing to squint a bit.

But I could totally be wrong!

There's nearly always a war on someplace.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Joe

Is there a convincing case for the idea that large, nasty wars come in periodic cycles? I'd be really interested to find out.

When I first hear the idea, it strikes me as pretty far-fetched - I guess because I think of human societies as being extraordinarily complex things, meaning that their history is extraordinarily complex, too; and it's so very, very easy to see patterns in any complex data if you're just willing to squint a bit.

But I could totally be wrong!

The problem, of course, is definitional in part. What constitutes a 'large, nasty' war? As Combatmedic notes, there's always a war on somewhere.

But S&H were talking about Anglo-American history over the last few centuries. For this purpose, a 'big' war is one that involves a heavy commitment from the entire society, mass moblization or the equivalent in terms of resources, and mass commitment.

As they observed, if you start with the last big war (i.e. World War II), it reached its height in 1943. OK, if you go back 80 years from 1943, you find yourself in 1863, with the American Civil War raging at its height. Go back another 80 years, and you're in 1783, in the end of the American Revolution.

Go back another 80 years, and you're in the period immediately after the Glorious Revolution (at that time, America was part of the British demesne).

Go back another approximately 80 years, and you're in the aftermath of the Armada Crisis, as the authors call it, the period when England triumphed over Spain, marked by the Spanish Armada and the time of Queen Elizabeth I and her 'seadogs'.

Now, obviously this is very, very approximate, and Strauss and Howe are not tracking big wars so much as the social crisis periods during which they believed big wars become especially likely. But these periods of time are roughly one long lifetime (~78-85) years apart. Furthermore, the earlier periods, such as the Glorious Revolution Crisis period or the Armada Crisis period, were rather more violent than is sometimes remembered in North America. But there is an approximate periodicity to be observed.

One common criticism of S&H is that they draw parellels between events that are very different in detail. This is fair. They do make more of the parallels than the matters justify. But that said, the periodicities they observe, and parallels between certain times, are visible if looked at in terms of loose comparison.

Now, if that pattern holds, we can project roughly a lifetime forward from the early 1940s, and we come up with...the near future.

[Rocket Man]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

(S&H call the Great Depression/World War II period a Crisis, and the social upheavels of the 1970s an Awakening. They predict another Crisis around 2010-2025. They see the 1890s as an Awakening, and the U.S. Civil War and the unsettled years prior to it as a Crisis period.)

Although given that the Civil War itself was seen as "a Crisis too soon," it's not impossible that the Crisis period was kicked off a decade early by the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the subsequent "War on Terror."

[Pomphis]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

As they observed, if you start with the last big war (i.e. World War II), it reached its height in 1943. OK, if you go back 80 years from 1943, you find yourself in 1863, with the American Civil War raging at its height. Go back another 80 years, and you're in 1783, in the end of the American Revolution.

Do I understand correctly that for this line of reasoning the napoleonic wars, the crimean war and world war I do not count as large and nasty ?

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It helps that about 20-30 years gives time to replace the losses from the last war.

It probably helps more than 20-30 years gives time for a sizable portion of the adult population not to have lived through the last war.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Johnny1A.2

One common criticism of S&H is that they draw parellels between events that are very different in detail. This is fair. They do make more of the parallels than the matters justify. But that said, the periodicities they observe, and parallels between certain times, are visible if looked at in terms of loose comparison.

With a loose enough comparison and toleration for a few exceptions, any facts can fit any pattern you want.

[smurf]

You see war when you look through that part of the prism. Previously a 20-30 year break would have been good but since 1823 when the global population topped a billion we have seen massive armies never witnessed before. Topped off with WW1 with several million dead and they could still throw more bodies on top of the pile but those being thrown into the proverbial breech said no.

If I look at English History I can see one of a litany of riots... Do I conclude that it is English to riot. From the 17th Century on England has probably had more riots than any other country.

History is the interplay of social forces. I'm sure we can find cycles from various epochs but not from epoch to epoch.

One infamous cycle over the last 100+years has been the golden rule - do not invade Afghanistan. Britain Lost (several times), Russia Lost and now the NATO coalition forces are about to lose, ie cut their losses and get out of Dodge.

Do we count the national liberation struggles of anti colonialism as a cycle? It went on for about 40 years.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Do I understand correctly that for this line of reasoning the napoleonic wars, the crimean war and world war I do not count as large and nasty ?

My thoughts exactly. Which leads to me feel that this is a pretty clear case of...

Originally Posted by cmdicely

With a loose enough comparison and toleration for a few [glaring!] exceptions, any facts can fit any pattern you want.

It's for these kinds of reasons that this idea of wars (or crisis periods) coming in relatively regular periodic cycles just doesn't strike me as a plausible kind of historical theory.

But again, there may be something convincing about the idea that I can't yet see. I just... well... can't see it yet!

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Do I understand correctly that for this line of reasoning the napoleonic wars, the crimean war and world war I do not count as large and nasty ?

For the United States? Not particularly, by comparison. Strauss and Howe were basing their analysis on the history of the USA and its pre-Independence colonial incarnation as part of Britain.

Remember, even if we assume that the theory is sound, different parts of the world and different societies can be in different stages of it.

World War I was a nasty war, though America came in late and got off very lightly by comparison with Russia, Britain, and France and Italy and Austria-Hungary and Germany and on and on. But America's entire psychology was different in its approach to the Great War compared to World War II, and S&H believe they know why.

S&H don't posit that big wars only come in their proposed Crisis periods, they maintain that they get more likely then. They can also happen in the 'Awakening' stage at the opposite pole of the cycle, as S&H characterize the English Civil War. I partly disagree with their analysis there, I think the ECW was part of a larger Europe/Western Civilization wide religious upheaval that transcended generational dynamics.