Several commenters proposed adding Victorian Britain to Belle Époque France; Vienna of that period is already included, and the U.S. was a fairly contented place then as well, just before we all got together and tore the world up. One commenter proposed Solomon's reign. Another suggested 14th-century Mali.
- Rome under the Antonines, from roughly 160 AD to 220 AD.
- Baghdad under the Caliphate, from roughly 800 to 1000 AD.
- Western Europe under the peace of Innocent III, from roughly 1200 to 1300.
- France during the Belle Époque, from say 1880 to 1914.
- Vienna under the Emperor Franz Joseph, from 1865 to 1914.
- The United States under Dwight Eisenhower, from 1952 until 1963.
Good times
David Foster refers us to a Ricochet post asking for suggestions about the happiest times in history. Claire Berlinski proposes the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
On personal note, I was happiest in the period surrounding 1989-1991, but with increasing frustration as it became clearer that we weren't going to exploit our victory.
Eric Hines
Depends on what makes you happy. Henry V's England was very happy for a while. Edward III's, as well.
I mention them because they managed a high degree of peace and flourishing culture at home, combined with victories abroad. Now more famous kings like Alfred the Great were beloved, but their realms had war at home, and that does not portend happiness.
Mr. Hines mentions a similar time of victory abroad combined with a flourishing peace at home. Looking back to those days, it's amazing how much our culture has changed in just those few years.
There has to be an understanding of defeat in order to recover from it, turn it to advantage.
There also has to be an understanding of victory, also to be able to recover from it, turn it to advantage.
Absent that understanding, either is destructive.
Eric Hines
I don't know that I'd include the US from 1865-1914. There was substantial labor unrest, the Progressive movement, and the Indian wars in that period.
Yeah, and whoever suggested Rome under the Antonines, got their dates totally wrong.
160 Marcus Aurelius had to fight the Marcommanic Wars, then followed by his unliked son Commodus, who threw away the ground gained, followed by his assassination, and civil wars that ended with the victory by Septimus Severus, but he had several wars, plus his sons couldn't get along, with one evenutally murdering the other, and in turn he, Caracalla was murdered by his Praetorians, who then had another round of civil wars, and more not liked Emperors like Elgabalus, until Alexander Severus (as a child) was made Emperor in 220 or so. AND, Alexander was assassinated by his troops in 235 for basically telling them to behave.
Yeah, not really happy.
I think they meant the period that Gibbon was referring to, the "5 good Emperors", Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius--roughly AD98 to AD180.
As for the rest, there was plenty of unhappiness in all those periods, the writers not remembering the Austro-Prussian War in 1866, (gory loss for Austria) And frankly I'm getting bored now just mentioning all the unhappy stuff going on in those periods.
What can be said is that late 19th century Europe produced a lot of art and music and theater that we still find relevant today, nearly all the other periods listed.
I meant more than all the other periods listed.
http://www.amazon.com/Betrayal-Negro-Rutherford-Woodrow-Wilson/dp/0306807580
Something interesting happened in 1877.
With the removal of security forces, blacks were prey to the KKK. ISIL could't have had an easier time in Iraq, in contrast.
The Democrats gave up the Presidency, which they ostensibly fought a war over due to Tyrant Lincoln. Guess it wasn't worth much this time around.
The blacks that supported the Union might have felt betrayed. It took awhile to completely subvert their loyalty to 95% Democrat votes though.
Even though the South regained Democrat patronage and industrial control, it didn't produce economic prosperity for the region. Most of the wealth was consolidated at the top, for a few Democrats with connections and patrons.
It will be very funny to see US Civil War II caused by the unfinished business of US Civil War I. Sort of like Iraq.
If 4 and 5 are considered happy times, I'm not sure I want to live in happy times. Using her definition of happy times, people are content and optimistic. Sounds like a bunch of lotus eaters to me, and they'll ignore the problems till they get to be too big to handle relatively easily.
Hmm, sounds like today...
Ymar:
The South in that period was an economic colony, run as other colonial economies in the age were -- as an agricultural monoculture. So it's not that wealth was concentrated at the top, although a small amount of the wealth generated was allowed to concentrate among those who were willing to keep order in the economic colony. It's that system was run in a way that was ruinous to the soil in order to create wealth that was extracted to the Northern banks, for use building things like railroads and factories outside the South, just as the British Raj produced cotton to fuel economic growth in England.
Sometimes people look at the Redemption period as a kind of defeat for the North in the South, but it's not that at all. It was just a period of time when the North's principle agents were allowed to clothe themselves in certain symbols of independence, as a way of masking their real service. What the North's leadership really wanted was cotton for its mills at competitive prices, and control of the Mississippi river and it's chief port. Letting the Bourbon Democrats put on an empty show of defiance once in a while was a small price they were very willing to pay.
Eric--I thought those Roman dates sounded funny. I think you must be right that she meant to refer to Gibbons' five good emperors.
It's that system was run in a way that was ruinous to the soil in order to create wealth that was extracted to the Northern banks
That means the Democrat overseers would still have a large chunk of capital to invest, so where did they invest it? Not all of it went into Northern banks ala carpetbaggers, after all. The Democrat aristocracy was relatively untouched by Sherman in terms of lives, although their property was looted or burned in a very specific part of Georgia only. Due to the draft and service exemptions large land owners got, they still had their human resources. The ones that had steel in their spine volunteered, and obviously probably died on the front lines. Then their land was either consolidated, sold off, or used for some other purpose.
So the people who were getting capital off the land, were the ones who didn't volunteer for war, the ones who got most of their land back and started re using it, if only on a patronage or subsistence farming system. So if all the Republican and black leaders sent off money to the North, that's one thing, but after 1877, what did the Democrats do with their fair share of the income?
They rebuilt Atlanta, of course.
That's only for Georgia. Where did the funding of the other states go to?
The person that funds an operation controls that operation. So who controlled Atlanta's funding and thus operation for the next 90 years?
Post a Comment