We know that there are periods in history which are considered "in decline" - where morals, education, and crime are considered to be at poor levels relative to their era. This implies that there are also high points in between, where morals, education, and crime are at better levels. Very often we hear about the "fall" of empires. We pick apart the reasons and factors why things collapsed from one era to another. But what I have never have never heard talked about in history, are the periods of improvement - where we take any period of ethical, education, and economic prosperity and then look at the period before it, and discuss what factors brought about improvement. Maybe there's a common thread between them? I say this because it's easy to imagine society in decline, but it's hard to see things like this ever getting better. By looking at periods of improvement, maybe it could give a better idea of how we might improve from this point on (a sort of applied history). Does anyone know anything about periods of improvement in these areas and factors leading to them? Thanks much Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That would be a start. You might also want to consider the industrial evolution and the Victorian era. Then, for ease of intellectualising, you can split things up into various classes of influence. I suggest economic, philosophical, religious, technological/ scientific, political, and sheer luck. Political, because for such a "good" era to come about usually takes some kind of stability, political and ecnoomic, which in turn rest in part upon random chance, such as epidemics of disease, and technological change. The 1950's and 60's were a golden age for "the west" mainly because of huge technological changes and comparative political stability, which underpinned and were underpinned by advantageous economics.
Thanks but I'm not asking for examples of high points. I know what they are and when they are, that's not really my point. What I'm saying is that there seems to always be a focus on the high point itself, or the falling of the high point. Very seldom does it seem history texts ever go to just before a high point, and then look in detail at the factors that gave birth to it. Simply "looking at the Renaissance or victorian era" isn't what I mean, but I do appreciate the input. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Guthrie, you started to hit on it in the last half of your post when you wrote about stability and economics. Would any of you say that economic well being would be an element? What about the roaring 20's? Here we seem to have an era that is economically like the 50's but opposite in terms of morality and education. Thanks all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Roaring Twenties was a golden age. Some of the best music of the century was written then. Industry was in fine fettle. Don't judge an era by anecdotes about its morality. Adultery and casual sex was just as rampant in the 1950s as it was in the 1920s, and sex among teenagers was far more prevalent. It just wasn't as well documented because it was out of favor. Eras of greatness generally follow the creation of a great new nation. The foundation of the Greek Empire engendered an explosion of reason and science, as did the founding of the United States. The Romans didn't do as much for science, but Europe under their rule was as peaceful and lawful as it's ever been in history.
Unfortunately for Rome, whilst Europe was kind of peaceful, its borders frequently werent, and once you get onto the Imperial succession...... So, swings and roundabouts. The thing you have to remember, Tiberius, is that "Would any of you say that economic well being would be an element?" is that, yes, economic wellbeing is an element, but the real times when things were going well, are underpinned by solid advances. Not by easy money, because easy money drys up, a la 1929, 2001, the 1980's, etc etc. By the Victorian era, railways were coming online, followed by telegraphs, better metallurgy, science in general, huge leaps forwards in productive capacity, which is all material goods, and related to economics. Actually, going off on another tangent, material goods and productivity is more of a modern concern. My historical knowledge is poor, but exxentially it looks like a lot of the earlier periods didnt need such advances to be "great" because they were to a large extent based upon a subsistence economy. What they needed was stable and effective government, stable trade, and and influlx of new ideas. Dont underestimate the new ideas thing. Nor the "new nation" thing. What I think fraggle rocker really means is that a ne nation has new land to expand into, as well as an advantageous position relative to everywhere else, sue to greater freedom. To sum up what i think right now, without much other thought, its that economic well beign is an element of a golden age and also an important precursor, since a golden age almost certainly involves a greter concentration of resources in a place which then disburses these resources to build and create more than anywhere else at that time.
Most of the periods you call perods of improvement weren't in the opinion of the people who lived through them. The agricultural revolution meant people had to work harder, were more prone to epidemic diseases, suffered more from crop failure, had a higher death rate. The one advantage was that agricultural societies can support much larger populations than hunter-gatherers. Similarly the industrial revolution meant mass clearances from agricultural land, much harder unskilled work, a grossly inferior diet and earler deaths. It's only the people who come after and benefit who approve of them.
I believe an era has to last longer than a decade or two to be in the running for this award. A lot of us are betting that the EU is going to be destroyed by an Islamic revolution within ten years. That will take it out of the running.
Yes indeed. Anthropologists hypothesize that the Neolithic hunter-gatherers worked an average twenty-hour week maximum, and perhaps as few as twelve. Remember that they did most of their hunting and almost all of their gathering during warm weather, and didn't have very much to do at all during the winter.
Good point. I never lived under the Red Threat, so I sort of forgot about all those communists amd revolutions in Eastern Europe, and the IRA. Perhaps it's the way social paradigms work. Technological change is always occuring (seemingly towards the more advanced), and it's up to societies to decide how to adapt to the change. Eventually, the pressure just builds up until there's a revolution of some kind. I think it's happening with economic shifts, too. It's like technology and economics move along (or maybe those are just consequences from constant population growth?), but societies either don't pay attention or don't want it. Then one day the difference between what could be and what isn't, that's been brought forth by new ideology, technology and redistribution of wealth, becomes too great, and the society splits between those who want change and those who don't. Typically there are more have nots than haves, so revolution occurs. These would be seen as the 'high points,' where there's revolution and change.
Which "us" is this? Some European countries are already makign it harder for muslims, since the more extreme kind are causing trouble. And, just to make it all more entertaining, the opposite is nearly happening in Iran. Most of what I read about Iran says that its poor, has lots of youngsters who chafe under the theocracy and desire some freedom. So wouldnt it be funny if Iran went moderate at the same time as some kind of Islamic revolution happened in Europe? (That is of course assuming the rest of the world leaves Iran mostly alone, rather than threatening it, since that would tend to consolidate the theocracy.)
