Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
My claim is that Roman history follows similar patterns to modern western history led by the USA, and that this reveals a scientific cosmic cycle with period 2147 years. Of course modern history has very different factors, not least the scale issue noted by Tusenfem. However, as Aristotle said, each winter is different, but they still follow the same general pattern.
|
Do you really not see the contradiction there? If the cycle is exactly 2147 years, it cannot follow a general pattern. The events must be directly analagous. It's not enough to say "stuff happened in this vague 200-year time period"; you must, for example, find an analagous event that happened in 358 BC to compare to the Constitution in 1789. If you cannot, even for that one date, your pattern is seriously damaged. Or at least your chosen comparison is.
Quote:
|
I acknowledge not all the comparisons I listed are exact, and was quite aware of the date issues you mention, but still claim that within this room for error the continuity with the previous precessional cycle is clear. I have sketched broad periods, and as I noted previously there is much room for refinement and debate, so I welcome your request for further explanation.
|
Nonsense. If it's exact enough to use 2147 as a "cycle," you must be able to be exact and
not require room for error. If not, your cycle isn't 2147 years. If enough events fall off your cycle, it should become obvious to you that you don't have one.
Quote:
|
As I have said, the basic method I am using is scientific, looking at the overall historical shape of events in ancient Rome and seeing how this is replicated 2147 years later. The discovery phase is quite murky; as I noted the Roman claims are shrouded in myth, and beginnings are a gradual process. In this context I suggested the beginnings of discovery of the Americas can be dated to when the Portuguese began to explore the Atlantic in ships in the early 1400s. Your comment about the 1500s is valid and I can see that the date I gave of 650BC=1500AD should be changed to 500BC=1650AD, with the subsequent 300 year period correspondingly shortened.
|
If the beginnings are "shrouded in myth," isn't it logical to assume that you cannot compare them to anything? That you cannot date anything based on them? Further, Portugese exploration of the Atlantic didn't begin until the mid-1400s, so you're
still wrong. The Madeiras, which had been known to the Romans, were rediscovered circa 1420; the Azores were discovered in 1427. At minimum, that still makes you 20 years off; in a more practical sense, since the Portugese were more interested in eastward exploration than westward, it's an invalid part of your "pattern."
Quote:
|
These are absolutely nitpicky complaints. In this example I have divided time into periods where the basic shape of events was the same in ancient and modern times, so of course there are specific differences. The fact the frontier was “considered” closed does not mean that in actual historical fact it was closed, in terms of a broader understanding of frontier than the narrow legal definition. As well, in this period there wasa broader global frontier process underway with the Scramble for Africa and the settlement of Australia where the frontier was very much alive.
|
Further nonsense. The reason the frontier was declared closed was that there was nowhere to draw the line between "settled" and "unsettled." Further, if you are comparing the US to Rome, wider global events cannot enter into it. The US was isolationist, for the most part, for most of that time. Even during the Spanish-American War, it wasn't so much settling as conquering. Few Americans moved to Guam. But to compare the "Scramble for Africa," participated in solely by the European powers, to actual Roman expansion would then mean that we could compare Mayan civilization to Rome. Make up your mind--just the US or a broader world perspective? If it's a broader world perspective, shall we start throwing in significant moments in Zulu or Chinese or Incan history?
Quote:
|
And your comments that after Versailles ‘there was no reason to assume there would be another war’ completely misses the point and confuses perceptions with reality. My point is that there are underlying causal drivers of events which occur despite prevailing knowledge and belief. In the period between the Punic Wars (ie roughly analogous to the 1920s) Rome may well have believed it could live at peace with Carthage, but war exploded again in 218BC because the underlying material and cultural drivers of the competition to dominate the Mediterranean were so strong. The same argument can apply to the rise of Hitler, and perhaps Japan and Italy.
|
During the 1920s, Germany couldn't afford to make war on anybody. You are still ignoring that, even assuming Europe is somehow included in your US comparison, that there was
no defensive war against Germany until 1914. If you are not including Europe, there was
never a defensive war against Germany. Only Japan launched a full-scale attack against the US, and it's doubtful they could have managed an invasion. One way or another, your claim of a fifty-year "defensive war against Germany" is bogus.
Quote:
|
I don't think that. My point was that key Republican institutions such as the American Constitution and system of government were largely established in the period leading up to and soon after Independence in 1776. Of course these have grown and adapted since then, just as did those of Ancient Rome.
|
How long is "soon after"? What "key Republican institutions" (you want a lowercase "r" there) are you referring to? Have you perhaps not considered the sheer number of Cabinet positions added since 1789? George W. Bush's Cabinet contains
eleven positions that George Washington's did not.