02-24-2017, 03:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-24-2017, 03:14 PM by Eric the Green.)
That is an interesting idea, mikebert, that seaculum II was shorter because the (Average Length) of those in power was shorter in the 19th century, or at least most of it, because of shorter lifespans. The transition from seaculum I to II makes some sense. It is hard to make a 100-year plus cycle out of Saeculum I, since this only creates an alternate pendulum swing between two dominant generations that each live about 50+ years.
The dates don't fit for me though, because it is clear that an Awakening was going on starting in 1885-86. And you can't start the Crisis in 1932; 1929 was clearly the start of it. Later dates for an ending of the civil war and depression/WWII crises are plausible though, for those who subscribe to them. These eras which S&H call 1Ts are very similar to the aftermath of the Revolution that S&H included in that 4T.
The dates don't fit for me though, because it is clear that an Awakening was going on starting in 1885-86. And you can't start the Crisis in 1932; 1929 was clearly the start of it. Later dates for an ending of the civil war and depression/WWII crises are plausible though, for those who subscribe to them. These eras which S&H call 1Ts are very similar to the aftermath of the Revolution that S&H included in that 4T.