Cultural Centuries in European History
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 05:06:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Cultural Centuries in European History
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Cultural Centuries in European History  (Read 2111 times)
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,205


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 18, 2018, 10:28:13 PM »

Inspired by Beet's thread about cultural decades in US history, I thought it would be interesting to make one about European centuries beginning in the Early Modern Period and lasting through the present day.

1517-1618: The Sixteenth Century. This century began when Luther and the Reformation brought the idea of a united Catholic Christendom and the whole medieval world crashing down. The years of the 1500s were dominated by the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Wars of Religion. The century ended with the start of the Thirty Years' War, a defining conflict of the 17th century. Additionally, all of Shakespeare's career in this timeline is included in the 16th century, which seems fitting as he is truly more of an Elizabethan figure than Jacobean.

1618-1715: The Seventeenth Century. This century began with the Defenestration of Prague in 1618. The first half of the century was dominated by the Thirty Years' War and its aftermath, while the second half featured Louis XIV and his wars of expansion. 1715 was the year of Louis's death, and it marked the end of the old seventeenth century style "Grand Alliance" wars against France and the beginning of the new "Stately quadrille" wars. Additionally, in the early 18th century the older, more austere baroque was replaced by the more frivolous rococo. This century also saw the Scientific Revolution make a huge impact.

1715-1815: The Eighteenth Century. This century featured the Enlightenment, shifting alliances, and revolution. Music, first through the late Baroque/Galant styles and later during the Classical era, flourished like never before. Artistic styles changed from rococo at the beginning of the century to neoclassical by the end. Voltaire and other leading philosophes challenged religion and the conventions of society. The end of the century saw an outburst of Revolution in France, followed by Napoleon's conquests through Europe. The century finally came to an end with Napoleon's defeat in 1815.

1815-1914: The Nineteenth Century. This century saw the industrial revolution occur on a massive scale, the emergence of romanticism, and a commitment to maintaining the balance of power. The century began with Napoleon's defeat and the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Compared to previous centuries, there were very few major wars. The beginning of the century saw conservative repression, the middle saw the 1848 revolutions spark a wave of reform, and the end led to a buildup of unifications, alliances, and rivalries that would eventually lead to World War I.

1914-2014: The Twentieth Century. This century would see devastation on a massive scale followed by rebuilding and unification. The century began with the outbreak of World War I, and a few decades later World War II occurred. Both wars were definitely the two most impactful events of the century, but both occurred only in the first half. The second half saw Europe stunningly reemerge from the brink of destruction and the Cold War emerge. While economic and political integration occurred in Western Europe, the East remained under Communist control until 1989-1991. The century would not end, however, until 2014.

2014-Present: The Twenty-First Century. This century began in 2014 with the Russian invasion of Crimea and the subsequent return of the Cold War. A rising backlash also began against the European integration that had occurred in the second half of the 20th century, with many Eurosceptic and other Right-wing populist parties feeling emboldened and in some cases even outright succeeding, such as with the Brexit referendum in 2016. It remains to be seen whether this century will result in the disintegration of the Union binding Europe and whether all the work done since World War II will amount to nothing.
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2018, 06:30:40 AM »

Interesting. I would alter the last three to:

19th: 1789-1914
20th: 1914-1991
21st: 1991-present.

The fall of the Soviet Union is a much more significant milestone than 2014, and historians already talk about the 'long 19th century' with those dates.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,279
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2018, 07:40:57 AM »

So you reject the “Long Nineteenth” and “Short Twentieth” century models of Hobsbawm, et al?

EDIT: I see Товарищ Karpatsky has beat me to it.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2018, 10:14:16 AM »

So you reject the “Long Nineteenth” and “Short Twentieth” century models of Hobsbawm, et al?

EDIT: I see Товарищ Karpatsky has beat me to it.

Yeah, if you're going to do this then you have to abandon also the idea that each 'century' must last exactly one hundred years.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,205


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2018, 11:13:52 AM »

So you reject the “Long Nineteenth” and “Short Twentieth” century models of Hobsbawm, et al?

EDIT: I see Товарищ Karpatsky has beat me to it.

Yeah, if you're going to do this then you have to abandon also the idea that each 'century' must last exactly one hundred years.

Yes, my idea was that each century should be about 100 years, so I decided against using the "Long Nineteenth" and "Short Twentieth" models.
Interesting. I would alter the last three to:

19th: 1789-1914
20th: 1914-1991
21st: 1991-present.

The fall of the Soviet Union is a much more significant milestone than 2014, and historians already talk about the 'long 19th century' with those dates.

It is, but since I decided to keep my centuries at about 100 years, that wouldn't have worked for my model. However, 2014 may still have not been a good choice, as it is still too early to tell what will happen and how significant that year will end up in hindsight.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,946
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2018, 08:17:10 PM »

Interesting. I would alter the last three to:

19th: 1789-1914
20th: 1914-1991
21st: 1991-present.

I definitely agree with you about the 20th and 21st centuries. However, I think one could reasonably place 1789-1815 in either the 18th or 19th centuries.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,630


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2018, 11:22:08 AM »

If you want a year that isn't 1989 or 1991, how about 1999 (launch of the Euro) or 2004 (accession of much of Eastern Europe to the EU)?
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2018, 04:02:47 PM »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.

Which leads to 1815-1914 as the cultural Nineteenth Century, marked by an era of general peace along with the unification of Germany, followed by a shorter Twentieth Century, 1914-hard to say, an era in which Europe was repeatedly riven by rival wars (first hot, then cold) between first empires, then ideologies; hard to say when exactly the end was, though I would put it around 1999 or so, when the euro was introduced, pan-European governance started to become more of a reality, and the final ethnic wars (to date) ethnic wars in the Balkans which had set off the whole conflagration were concluded. The era of the Yugoslav Wars and the ethnic balkanization of Eastern Europe, along with the collapse of economies followed by their restructuring in the 1990s, seems to meaningfully be part of the 20th century for me.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2018, 07:31:57 PM »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.
P.HAZARD, France's greatest historian in the XXth, also saw 1680-1715 more as the beginning of the XVIIIth century (cf. "La Crise de la Conscience Europeenne 1680-1715").
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,205


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2018, 09:51:16 PM »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.

Louis XIV just seems like such a defining figure of the 17th century though. It feels wrong to put any of his life in the 18th. His death and the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is the last truly 17th century war in many ways, just feels like a better endpoint to the 17th than any earlier date. Maybe for England the Long 18th works, considering the idea of the "Second Hundred Years' War", but for the Continent I don't like it. Also, I know this isn't very important for defining centuries, but men's whig styles didn't really change until after the King's death either. Men often continued to wear the curly, long, and distinctive brown, blonde, or black whigs of the 17th century up until the King's death. The short, white powdered whig of the 18th didn't really come into fashion until then. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the King's death is also a good marking point for the replacement of the austere 17th century baroque style with the more frivolous 18th century rococo style. The first great rococo painter, Watteau, didn't flourish until the last few years of his life after the death of the King.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,772


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2018, 01:52:37 AM »

Interesting. I would alter the last three to:

19th: 1789-1914
20th: 1914-1991
21st: 1991-present.

The fall of the Soviet Union is a much more significant milestone than 2014, and historians already talk about the 'long 19th century' with those dates.

I would agree with this take completely.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2018, 05:15:41 PM »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.

Louis XIV just seems like such a defining figure of the 17th century though. It feels wrong to put any of his life in the 18th. His death and the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is the last truly 17th century war in many ways, just feels like a better endpoint to the 17th than any earlier date. Maybe for England the Long 18th works, considering the idea of the "Second Hundred Years' War", but for the Continent I don't like it. Also, I know this isn't very important for defining centuries, but men's whig styles didn't really change until after the King's death either. Men often continued to wear the curly, long, and distinctive brown, blonde, or black whigs of the 17th century up until the King's death. The short, white powdered whig of the 18th didn't really come into fashion until then. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the King's death is also a good marking point for the replacement of the austere 17th century baroque style with the more frivolous 18th century rococo style. The first great rococo painter, Watteau, didn't flourish until the last few years of his life after the death of the King.
There existed 2 Louis XIV: The gloriously shining monarch of French classicism, who is commonly known. And the diminishing sun since ~Nantes, reigning too long, being defeated outside, hated inside France.

While in politics and economy, religion and arts a stagnation was generally indeed the case, it was at the same time a period of incubation for new ideas: When the Baroque's mechanistical aristotelic NeoScholasticism crashed with the InertiaLaw in a broader philosophical discours de la methode, the XVIIIth century's "Enlightenment" was born.
Logged
HenryWallaceVP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,205


Political Matrix
E: -7.48, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2018, 10:34:22 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2018, 10:01:26 AM by HenryWallaceVP »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.

Louis XIV just seems like such a defining figure of the 17th century though. It feels wrong to put any of his life in the 18th. His death and the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is the last truly 17th century war in many ways, just feels like a better endpoint to the 17th than any earlier date. Maybe for England the Long 18th works, considering the idea of the "Second Hundred Years' War", but for the Continent I don't like it. Also, I know this isn't very important for defining centuries, but men's whig styles didn't really change until after the King's death either. Men often continued to wear the curly, long, and distinctive brown, blonde, or black whigs of the 17th century up until the King's death. The short, white powdered whig of the 18th didn't really come into fashion until then. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the King's death is also a good marking point for the replacement of the austere 17th century baroque style with the more frivolous 18th century rococo style. The first great rococo painter, Watteau, didn't flourish until the last few years of his life after the death of the King.
There existed 2 Louis XIV: The gloriously shining monarch of French classicism, who is commonly known. And the diminishing sun since ~Nantes, reigning too long, being defeated outside, hated inside France.

While in politics and economy, religion and arts a stagnation was generally indeed the case, it was at the same time a period of incubation for new ideas: When the Baroque's mechanistical aristotelic NeoScholasticism crashed with the InertiaLaw in a broader philosophical discours de la methode, the XVIIIth century's "Enlightenment" was born.

I agree that there existed two Louis XIV. However, I fail to see how Louis in decline is more 18th and less 17th century than Louis at his apex. In fact, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which you mentioned as the start of his decline, fits in much better with the bigoted and intolerant atmosphere of the 17th century than with the more open and secular 18th century.

Something else I forgot to mention when I defined the 17th century was the Great Northern War. In my timeline, the majority of the war goes inside of the 17th century, as I think it ought to. The Swedish Empire was a uniquely 17th century phenomenon, and the end of the Great Northern War and the ensuing Age of Liberty was the real beginning of the 18th century for Sweden.

There are also a couple of other interesting points I would like to explore regarding the centuries. One of those is the most important head of state for each century. Here is what I have decided upon:

16th Century (1517-1618): Charles V
17th Century (1618-1715): Louis XIV
18th Century (1715-1815): Napoleon Bonaparte
19th Century (1815-1914): Otto von Bismarck (I know he was Chancellor, but he was way more important than either of the Wilhelm emperors).
20th Century (1914-1991?): Adolf Hitler
21st Century (1991?-present): Either Vladimir Putin or Angela Merkel

I also came up with a list of the most powerful country for each century, using military, economic, and cultural factors:

16th Century (1517-1618): Spain
17th Century (1618-1715): First Half Spain, Second Half France
18th Century (1715-1815): France, although between the Seven Years' War and the Revolution, Britain
19th Century (1815-1914): First Half Britain, Second Half Germany
20th Century (1914-1991?): Before 1945 Britain, after 1945 USSR
21st Century (1991?-present): Probably Germany
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,562
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2018, 12:03:20 AM »

I'd always thought the idea of a Long Eighteenth (1688-1815), starting with the Glorious Revolution/Siege of Vienna/discovery of calculus/ascension of Peter the Great and ending with the ultimate defeat of Napoleon, made significantly more sense than the idea of a Long Nineteenth; the Long Eighteenth began after the era of large-scale religious wars in Europe effectively ended and were replaced with a struggle against French dominance of the European continent, which did not come to an end until the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars.

Louis XIV just seems like such a defining figure of the 17th century though. It feels wrong to put any of his life in the 18th. His death and the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is the last truly 17th century war in many ways, just feels like a better endpoint to the 17th than any earlier date. Maybe for England the Long 18th works, considering the idea of the "Second Hundred Years' War", but for the Continent I don't like it. Also, I know this isn't very important for defining centuries, but men's whig styles didn't really change until after the King's death either. Men often continued to wear the curly, long, and distinctive brown, blonde, or black whigs of the 17th century up until the King's death. The short, white powdered whig of the 18th didn't really come into fashion until then. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the King's death is also a good marking point for the replacement of the austere 17th century baroque style with the more frivolous 18th century rococo style. The first great rococo painter, Watteau, didn't flourish until the last few years of his life after the death of the King.
There existed 2 Louis XIV: The gloriously shining monarch of French classicism, who is commonly known. And the diminishing sun since ~Nantes, reigning too long, being defeated outside, hated inside France.

While in politics and economy, religion and arts a stagnation was generally indeed the case, it was at the same time a period of incubation for new ideas: When the Baroque's mechanistical aristotelic NeoScholasticism crashed with the InertiaLaw in a broader philosophical discours de la methode, the XVIIIth century's "Enlightenment" was born.

I agree that there existed two Louis XIV. However, I fail to see how Louis in decline is more 18th and less 17th century than Louis at his apex. In fact, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which you mentioned as the start of his decline, fits in much better with the bigoted and intolerant atmosphere of the 17th century than with the more open and secular 18th century.

Something else I forgot to mention when I defined the 17th century was the Great Northern War. In my timeline, the majority of the war goes inside of the 17th century, as I think it ought to. The Swedish Empire was a uniquely 17th century phenomenon, and the end of the Great Northern War and the ensuing Age of Liberty was the real beginning of the 18th century for Sweden.

As a Russophone American who sometimes looks at European history predominantly through the prisms of Russian and English history, it's impossible to overstate just how significant turning points the (nearly-simultaneous) ascensions of Peter the Great and William of Orange were; both countries, but Russia especially, saw entirely new definitions of what it means to be Russian and English emerge. The Great Northern War, from the viewpoint of Russian history, is therefore the first in a sequence of 18th-century European wars that Russia became intimately involved in, and which ended with either Catherine the Great's war against the Ottomans (which essentially brought the Russosphere to its modern boundaries) or the war against Napoleon (which saw the first peak of Russian power in Europe at its conclusion, before Russia declined during the 19th century, especially after the Decembrist Uprising in 1825).
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2018, 11:24:15 AM »

1789-1918. Napoleon, Garibaldi, and Bismarck shaped the very future of Europe, and that cannot be overstated.

16th Century (1469-1618): Ferdinand II/Isabella I
17th Century (1618-1715): Louis XIV
18th Century (1715-1789): Frederick the Great
19th Century (1789-1914): Napoleon I/Wilhelm I
20th Century (1914-1991): Joseph Stalin/Adolf Hitler
21st Century (1991-present): Boris Yeltsin
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2018, 01:13:37 PM »


21st Century (1991-present): Boris Yeltsin


If this is meant to be people who most fundamentally changed the course of history, I would go with OBL/Putin.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2018, 08:24:03 PM »

Louis XIV just seems like such a defining figure of the 17th century though. It feels wrong to put any of his life in the 18th. His death and the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, which is the last truly 17th century war in many ways, just feels like a better endpoint to the 17th than any earlier date. Maybe for England the Long 18th works, considering the idea of the "Second Hundred Years' War", but for the Continent I don't like it. Also, I know this isn't very important for defining centuries, but men's whig styles didn't really change until after the King's death either. Men often continued to wear the curly, long, and distinctive brown, blonde, or black whigs of the 17th century up until the King's death. The short, white powdered whig of the 18th didn't really come into fashion until then. Also, as I mentioned earlier, the King's death is also a good marking point for the replacement of the austere 17th century baroque style with the more frivolous 18th century rococo style. The first great rococo painter, Watteau, didn't flourish until the last few years of his life after the death of the King.
There existed 2 Louis XIV: The gloriously shining monarch of French classicism, who is commonly known. And the diminishing sun since ~Nantes, reigning too long, being defeated outside, hated inside France.

While in politics and economy, religion and arts a stagnation was generally indeed the case, it was at the same time a period of incubation for new ideas: When the Baroque's mechanistical aristotelic NeoScholasticism crashed with the InertiaLaw in a broader philosophical discours de la methode, the XVIIIth century's "Enlightenment" was born.

I agree that there existed two Louis XIV. However, I fail to see how Louis in decline is more 18th and less 17th century than Louis at his apex. In fact, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which you mentioned as the start of his decline, fits in much better with the bigoted and intolerant atmosphere of the 17th century than with the more open and secular 18th century.
Because "Louis XIV" (i.e. what stands behind Him: the mechanistical absolutism of BODIN or HOBBES) was outdated in the era of LOCKE and BAYLE - it would have been even without a shift towards Jesuitism.
Perhaps His mistress moved towards religiosity, when having aged too much; perhaps the same applies for the SunKing Himself, too.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2018, 10:05:11 PM »


21st Century (1991-present): Boris Yeltsin


If this is meant to be people who most fundamentally changed the course of history, I would go with OBL/Putin.

Yeltsin:
1) Set up the possibility of future conflicts in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Baltics
2) Encouraged a semi-rivalry with both China and the United States, ensuring Russia never aligned too closely with either and established it’s own post-1991 Sphere of Influence
3) Established the Russian oligarchs and criminal organizations, which gives the Russian President a great degree of power
4) Reformed and expanded the Russian military + intelligence service post-KGB
5) Placed Putin and the Kadyrov family on the road to dominance
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 28, 2018, 05:58:00 AM »


21st Century (1991-present): Boris Yeltsin


If this is meant to be people who most fundamentally changed the course of history, I would go with OBL/Putin.

Yeltsin:
1) Set up the possibility of future conflicts in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and the Baltics
2) Encouraged a semi-rivalry with both China and the United States, ensuring Russia never aligned too closely with either and established it’s own post-1991 Sphere of Influence
3) Established the Russian oligarchs and criminal organizations, which gives the Russian President a great degree of power
4) Reformed and expanded the Russian military + intelligence service post-KGB
5) Placed Putin and the Kadyrov family on the road to dominance

By those standards, you might replace Hitler with Hindenburg for the 20thc.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.238 seconds with 12 queries.