A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

The Silent Generation, the Baby Boomer Generation, Generation-X, the Millennial Generation (or Generation-Y) and the Pivotal Generation (Generation Z)
FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1074
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby FishbellykanakaDude » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:56 pm

falopex wrote:
John wrote:A generational crisis war is always bad, no matter who's in charge.


I concur. The generational makeup at the beginning of a Crisis may color how it begins, but those distinctions become increasingly irrelevant as the Climax of the Crisis approaches. In the end, all generational roads eventually lead to the same saecular Rome.


That's why it is a "reset".

It's the "burn in" point, that sears the awfulness of the time into all those alive. And people, being people, are actually pretty predictable as to how they react to that "burn in", which is the whole point of GD Theory,.. so being the eternal "Capt'n Obvious", I must wonder why I post replies like this?

Aloha! :) <shaka nui!>

jmm1184
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 pm

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby jmm1184 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 11:18 am

I admit, when it comes to Colonial America, it does seem that not all the colonies were on the same timeline, though I haven't been able to deduce specifics. I believe that the New England were farthest into a crisis era, since they were the first to rebel.


I've done a little bit of research on this, though a lot more research still needs to be done, especially regarding the generational timelines of Indian tribes.

But this is what I've gotten so far. It might not be fully accurate, but its a start.

As far as the colonies are concerned, I've identified four different timelines that converge into the American Revolutionary War.

Virginia Crisis Wars
1607-1622: Initial Settlement and Powhatan's first sack of Jamestown - this one is the most shaky since there were later wars between Powhatan and the colonists, but this sacking of Jamestown seems to have been the most destructive.

1676-1676: Bacon's Rebellion - a short but bloody war that is the closest America's come to genuine poor vs rich crisis war. One of the rules put into place following this crisis war was the start of institutional oppression of blacks and conscious attempts by the rich plantation owners to pit poor whites against poor blacks so they could not unite against them as they had in Bacon's rebellion. This war also ended for good any remaining power of the Powhatan Confederation.

New England Crisis Wars
1619-1630 or 1619-1621 & 1629-1630: The Initial Settlement of New England. Though a war was not involved, entire populations with families moved enmass and a first-turning reset occurred as they had to build a completely new society in a new world.

1675-1678: King Philip's War - the bloodiest war by per capita casualties ever fought in the USA. The native American tribes of New England were crushed and soon assimilated into the Puritan population.

Middle Colonies Crisis Wars

1702-1709: The War of the Spanish Succession - I choose this one because the Middle Colonies did not engage in many (if any) wars with the Indians outside of Britain's instigation. In fact the treaty William Penn made with the Indians is the only treaty that was never broken. So it seems that the Middle Colonies continued to follow Britain's timeline - there was little mass population emigration, and the populations that did come close to mass population shifts (the Germans and Scots-Irish), were on a similar timeline (The German crisis war ending in 1712 or 1714).

Carolina/Anglo-Caribbean Crisis Wars

1702-1717: The War of the Spanish Succession & The Yamassee War - The Carolina/Caribbean timeline is hard to figure out, but it appears that the initial colonists did not deviate from the British timeline - most of them being former Royalists whose last crisis war was the English Civil War. This crisis war started with the War of the Spanish Succession, but very quickly the war coincided with devastating wars against the Indian tribes of what is now South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida that climaxed with the bloody Yamassee War.

CH86
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby CH86 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:33 pm

John wrote:One problem with your analysis is that it doesn't take into account
that the US in World War II was triggered by Japan, not be the US.
How would your analysis be affected if Japan had bombed Pearl Harbor
in 1935 or 1945?


Japan Bombing Pearl Harbor in 1935 was an impossibility because Japan's war Plans in 1935 Assumed that the USSR, Not the US was japan's main adversary. It was only with the oil Embargo Crisis in 1940 and 1941 that Japanese leaders considered the US as Japan's primary adversary. Pearl Harbor was selected as the target only in 1941 When Yamamoto convinced Japan's high Command that any hope of victory required attacking it. Under the circumstances that existed Japan could not have waited until 1945 because Japan's fuel supplies would have ran out by 1943. Had their Been No Embargo Crisis Japan would have remained bogged down in China throughout the 1940s and the US would have declared war on Germany in 1942, The US navy Had already been actively deployed and was assisting British Convoys by Late 1941. Also the 1929 Crash Started the US 4T, nothing significant whatsoever occurred in 1923.

jmm1184
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 pm

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby jmm1184 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:10 pm

Japan Bombing Pearl Harbor in 1935 was an impossibility because Japan's war Plans in 1935 Assumed that the USSR, Not the US was japan's main adversary. It was only with the oil Embargo Crisis in 1940 and 1941 that Japanese leaders considered the US as Japan's primary adversary. Pearl Harbor was selected as the target only in 1941 When Yamamoto convinced Japan's high Command that any hope of victory required attacking it. Under the circumstances that existed Japan could not have waited until 1945 because Japan's fuel supplies would have ran out by 1943. Had their Been No Embargo Crisis Japan would have remained bogged down in China throughout the 1940s and the US would have declared war on Germany in 1942, The US navy Had already been actively deployed and was assisting British Convoys by Late 1941. Also the 1929 Crash Started the US 4T, nothing significant whatsoever occurred in 1923.


This may be true, but it still doesn't account for the fact that all of the above is irrelevant to the timing of the United States's crisis war. The point is that the US was initially pulled into a crisis war, instead of directly causing it.

What's actually more interesting to consider is the timing of the Japanese attack. I would argue that the Japanese would not have attacked earlier than 1935 because that was 58 years after the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, the final civil war of Japan. Again, that's due strictly to generational concerns, not logistics of supplies or politics.

John
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby John » Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:05 pm

jmm1184 wrote:> I've done a little bit of research on this, though a lot more
> research still needs to be done, especially regarding the
> generational timelines of Indian tribes.

> But this is what I've gotten so far. It might not be fully
> accurate, but its a start.

> As far as the colonies are concerned, I've identified four
> different timelines that converge into the American Revolutionary
> War.

> Virginia Crisis Wars 1607-1622: Initial Settlement and Powhatan's
> first sack of Jamestown - this one is the most shaky since there
> were later wars between Powhatan and the colonists, but this
> sacking of Jamestown seems to have been the most destructive.

> 1676-1676: Bacon's Rebellion - a short but bloody war that is the
> closest America's come to genuine poor vs rich crisis war. One of
> the rules put into place following this crisis war was the start
> of institutional oppression of blacks and conscious attempts by
> the rich plantation owners to pit poor whites against poor blacks
> so they could not unite against them as they had in Bacon's
> rebellion. This war also ended for good any remaining power of the
> Powhatan Confederation.

> New England Crisis Wars

> 1619-1630 or 1619-1621 & 1629-1630: The Initial Settlement of New
> England. Though a war was not involved, entire populations with
> families moved enmass and a first-turning reset occurred as they
> had to build a completely new society in a new world.

> 1675-1678: King Philip's War - the bloodiest war by per capita
> casualties ever fought in the USA. The native American tribes of
> New England were crushed and soon assimilated into the Puritan
> population.

> Middle Colonies Crisis Wars

> 1702-1709: The War of the Spanish Succession - I choose this one
> because the Middle Colonies did not engage in many (if any) wars
> with the Indians outside of Britain's instigation. In fact the
> treaty William Penn made with the Indians is the only treaty that
> was never broken. So it seems that the Middle Colonies continued
> to follow Britain's timeline - there was little mass population
> emigration, and the populations that did come close to mass
> population shifts (the Germans and Scots-Irish), were on a similar
> timeline (The German crisis war ending in 1712 or 1714).

> Carolina/Anglo-Caribbean Crisis Wars

> 1702-1717: The War of the Spanish Succession & The Yamassee War -
> The Carolina/Caribbean timeline is hard to figure out, but it
> appears that the initial colonists did not deviate from the
> British timeline - most of them being former Royalists whose last
> crisis war was the English Civil War. This crisis war started with
> the War of the Spanish Succession, but very quickly the war
> coincided with devastating wars against the Indian tribes of what
> is now South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida that climaxed with the
> bloody Yamassee War.


Thanks for doing that research. It's a very interesting approach.
Years ago, Matt Ignal did some research on colonial wars, but I lost
track of it, and I don't remember what he found. So your work is like
starting from scratch.

I have a couple of notes on Virginia.

Bacon's rebellion does not read like a crisis war.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h521.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p274.html

https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyc ... ellion.htm

It actually reads like an Awakening era war, or at least a
non-crisis war, especially from the fact that the rebellion fizzled
completely when Bacon died. If it had been a crisis war, then
the people would have continued fighting until a crisis climax
was reached.


King Philip's war was clearly a crisis war for both the Indian
tribes and the New England colonists. It's hard to identify anything
like King Philip's war in the middle colonies or the south.
The War of the Spanish Succession was known as Queen Anne's war
in the colonies, and was fought between France and England,
but seems to be a non-crisis war for the colonists.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h846.html

It's possible that there were no other special crisis wars for
the colonists, and that their crisis wars were fought between
other enemies, just as World War II was a crisis war for
Switzerland and Kansas.

It's possible that the colonist crisis wars were related to crisis
wars among the Indians. Here's a web site that you may already have
seen that seems to have a lot of information on Indian wars and
confederations:

https://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/

https://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/nat ... deracy.htm

https://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/nat ... deracy.htm

My guess is that it's best to focus on the Indian wars first, and then
try to fit the colonists' wars into the Indian wars.

CH86
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby CH86 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:34 pm

jmm1184 wrote:
Japan Bombing Pearl Harbor in 1935 was an impossibility because Japan's war Plans in 1935 Assumed that the USSR, Not the US was japan's main adversary. It was only with the oil Embargo Crisis in 1940 and 1941 that Japanese leaders considered the US as Japan's primary adversary. Pearl Harbor was selected as the target only in 1941 When Yamamoto convinced Japan's high Command that any hope of victory required attacking it. Under the circumstances that existed Japan could not have waited until 1945 because Japan's fuel supplies would have ran out by 1943. Had their Been No Embargo Crisis Japan would have remained bogged down in China throughout the 1940s and the US would have declared war on Germany in 1942, The US navy Had already been actively deployed and was assisting British Convoys by Late 1941. Also the 1929 Crash Started the US 4T, nothing significant whatsoever occurred in 1923.


This may be true, but it still doesn't account for the fact that all of the above is irrelevant to the timing of the United States's crisis war. The point is that the US was initially pulled into a crisis war, instead of directly causing it.

What's actually more interesting to consider is the timing of the Japanese attack. I would argue that the Japanese would not have attacked earlier than 1935 because that was 58 years after the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, the final civil war of Japan. Again, that's due strictly to generational concerns, not logistics of supplies or politics.


The Satsuma Rebellion was Not Part of the 4T though, the Meiji System was already in place for almost a decade since the 1868 Civil war ended. Japan Nearly went to war with the USSR several times in the late 1930s, notably at lake Khasan in 1938 and Khalkin-Gol in 1939. Japan's crisis war could have easily been against Russia rather than the US.

CH86
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:51 am

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby CH86 » Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:37 pm

John wrote:It's possible that there were no other special crisis wars for
the colonists, and that their crisis wars were fought between
other enemies, just as World War II was a crisis war for
Switzerland and Kansas..


Kansas was and is Part of the United States, WW2 was a crisis war for the United states. Kansas like all parts of the US had Mass conscription to Provide soldiers for WW2, therefore WW2 was a crisis war for Kansas.

Trevor
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby Trevor » Thu Apr 26, 2018 6:32 am

Actually, I'd say that the Civil War was the bloodiest war per person that the United States ever fought. Some modern estimates state that close to a million people died, when you take freed slaves and civilians into account. If you focus on just the South, assuming that most of the civilian deaths were in their territory,... around 6% of their population died just taking soldiers into account. With all the casualties, it could be around 8% or so. This is just an estimate, of course, but it does seem to fit.

I really don't buy that Bacon's rebellion was a crisis war. It reads far more like a political conflict than a life and death struggle.

I've spent some time looking at colonial timelines. For the Carolinas, the best candidate for a crisis war is the Yamasee War. It reads like the classic generational pattern: being able to work together for a while, but economic pressures and being pushed off their land ultimately boiled over into a war. It's also considered the end of the early Colonial era for the Southern colonies. That being said, while it appears to be a good candidate, I don't want to add it as a crisis war just because it appears to fit the generational timeline.

For Georgia, I would say its foundation in 1732, when they all had to band together to survive. It helps explain why they were so reluctant to join in the Revolution until they were directly invaded, since they were still in an unraveling.

About the only definite conclusion I've come to with the Colonial timelines is that the New England colonies were deepest into a crisis era, since much of the protest against Britain started there. The first few years of the war took place over there as well.

jmm1184
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 11:02 pm

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby jmm1184 » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:11 pm

Bacon's rebellion does not read like a crisis war.


I really don't buy that Bacon's rebellion was a crisis war. It reads far more like a political conflict than a life and death struggle.


Hmm, that could be. But I dont' know what the crisis war between the Powhatan Wars of the early/mid 1600s to the Revolutionary War would be for Virginia...maybe the War of the Spanish Succession??

It's possible that there were no other special crisis wars for
the colonists, and that their crisis wars were fought between
other enemies, just as World War II was a crisis war for
Switzerland and Kansas.


That may be, I suspect that with the definite exceptions of New England and the Carolinas (which is really on the British timeline to a degree), the colonies may have remained on or re-synced into the British timeline.

It's possible that the colonist crisis wars were related to crisis
wars among the Indians.


Maybe, but unless the colonists instigated the wars or faced possible devastation or extinction, they strike me more as non-crisis wars the colonists were drawn into. Nevertheless, I'd say you're right to start first with the Indian Wars and work your way outward so to speak. I suspect that some of the frontier areas remained on a different timeline than the Revolutionary War until they synced during the American Civil War.

The Satsuma Rebellion was Not Part of the 4T though, the Meiji System was already in place for almost a decade since the 1868 Civil war ended. Japan Nearly went to war with the USSR several times in the late 1930s, notably at lake Khasan in 1938 and Khalkin-Gol in 1939. Japan's crisis war could have easily been against Russia rather than the US.


I don't see how this disproves my point, since Japan would have entered a crisis war at latest in 1935. However, while I'm not totally certain the Satsuma Rebellion was a crisis war, everything I've read on Japanese so far leads me to believe that it was final climactic chapter of what could be called "The Japanese Revolution" beginning in 1863 and climaxing in 1877. Even though the Meiji reforms began in 1868 they were not necessarily popular and there was still internal conflict until the Satsuma Rebellion, after which Japan has never re-fought a civil war.

Actually, I'd say that the Civil War was the bloodiest war per person that the United States ever fought. Some modern estimates state that close to a million people died, when you take freed slaves and civilians into account. If you focus on just the South, assuming that most of the civilian deaths were in their territory,... around 6% of their population died just taking soldiers into account. With all the casualties, it could be around 8% or so. This is just an estimate, of course, but it does seem to fit.


Perhaps, but if you look at the per capita losses of the New England colonists during King Philip's War, the colonies were truly in danger of total annihilation - it was not a forgone conclusion that the colonists would win - that is not the case for the American Civil War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Phil ... #Aftermath

I've spent some time looking at colonial timelines. For the Carolinas, the best candidate for a crisis war is the Yamasee War. It reads like the classic generational pattern: being able to work together for a while, but economic pressures and being pushed off their land ultimately boiled over into a war. It's also considered the end of the early Colonial era for the Southern colonies. That being said, while it appears to be a good candidate, I don't want to add it as a crisis war just because it appears to fit the generational timeline.


I'm not sure why you're hesitant to call The Yamassee War a crisis war. From the little I have read on the war it certainly reads as a crisis war. The war threatened the Carolinas with annihilation, and the Yamassee War was also a crisis war fought between Indian tribes. It broke the power of the Yamassee Tribe, scattering them into the Tuscarora to the north and later the Seminole and Creek to the South, and the war lifted the Cherokee in the new Indian power in the Southeast, though the Cherokee and Creek continued to fight several non-crisis wars for supremacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamasee_War

Trevor
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:43 am

Re: A crisis war with the Nomads in charge instead of the Prophets?

Postby Trevor » Fri Apr 27, 2018 9:10 pm

I'm pretty sure the Yamasee War was a crisis war, at least from what I read about it. I'm just concerned about avoiding confirmation bias. The prospect of annihilation usually means a crisis war. If we take that as the crisis for the region, that would mean in 1776, they would be at year 59, in contrast to year 98 in the New England colonies. The South didn't really get heavily involved in the revolution until the last couple years.

From what I've seen of the main 100 wars originally studied, plus the Country studies, it does seem like the risk of another crisis war is pretty low until about year 55.


Return to “Generations”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests