Europe's Golden age? 1890-1914

[Razgovory]

It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless. It's everybody's golden age right now. Or nobody's has come yet.

I was thinking along the lines of of the peak of power and influence along with a flowering of cultural expression.  Reading the stuff from the time period I was talking about there was a great deal of optimism and self-confidence.  I am struck how so much of that Disappeared in Flanders fields and Verdun.  I keep feeling that the Europeans were certainly far from perfect before the war, but they sure as hell didn't deserve that.

[Siege]

I think we should not confuse Hegemony with Golden Age.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.

AR's definition was "the height of its political and cultural power". Relative military capabilities are quite relevant when trying to ascertain this point. The Americas were increasing their share of power throughout the 19th century, though that shortfall could be made up elsewhere. Asia was clearly declining vs Europe in the first half of the century, but Japan at least and possibly China as well was playing catch up by the 1870s. Africa was as weak and helpless as ever. Only the Mideast and India were really losing ground substantially vs. Europe in this period. It may just be my Americentric world view, but I think Europe was stronger in 1860 than 1900.

[dps]

This is all well worth reading up on, the lead of the USA in 1914 was quite staggering. Looking at the Europeans, their retreat from power in the 1945-75 period coincided with an unprecedented rise in material comfort, this, I think, is the root cause of Euro-weenyism; who cares about power.......what does the ordinary citizen get from it?

Or, cynically it could be looked at that European governments quit trying to distract their populations with foreign adventures and decided to start buying them off with bread and circuses instead.

Yeah sure, but I don't think military capability in and of itself qualifies, or relative changes in military capability, is a good measure of whether a culture is experiencing a golden age. The Japanese may have modernized and gotten more capable militarily, but while it may be setting the stage for the punctuation of a putative European golden age, it's not really a factor in determining whether Europe was experiencing a golden age at that time. Once Japan acted to end European thoughts of being the masters of the globe, yes then clearly any European golden age is over; but simply getting ready for a scrap and getting your house in order is not enough invalidate arguments of someone's golden age.

AR's definition was "the height of its political and cultural power". Relative military capabilities are quite relevant when trying to ascertain this point. The Americas were increasing their share of power throughout the 19th century, though that shortfall could be made up elsewhere. Asia was clearly declining vs Europe in the first half of the century, but Japan at least and possibly China as well was playing catch up by the 1870s. Africa was as weak and helpless as ever. Only the Mideast and India were really losing ground substantially vs. Europe in this period. It may just be my Americentric world view, but I think Europe was stronger in 1860 than 1900.

Well, it we're talking about the "height of... ...political and cultural power", then military power certainly enters into the political power part of it.  And from between the ACW and the Spanish-American War and beyond that, America's military power was negligible.  A weak military plus a lot of isolationism meant that the US wasn't considered a world power, and barely a regional power.  The lack of military/political power tends to obscure America's economic power in the period.

[Queequeg]

The Greek version of the "Golden Age" was exactly the opposite of "having a high standard of living for the average person" - it was a primitive Arcadia, without private property or technology.

Greek love of simplicity blinded them to endemic disease and poverty of the Peloponnesean hinterland. The Athenians were wealthy enough to import grain from the Black Sea and Sicily, and were generally smart enough to have excessive urban population leave for colonies.  I'm willing to bet the average Athenian had it about as well as anyone in the Greek world. 

[The Minsky Moment]

It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless.

As already alluded to, the original concept of a Golden Age was entirely mythical - the notion that sometime in the past, our ancestors were better and wiser but that we have since degenerated.

But in reality, all of human history prior to the late 19th century/20th centuries involved the vast majority of people ("the 99%") living short average lifespans and enjoying a standard of living at or just above subsistence.  The modern era is such a profound break with that past that anything before cannot be compared to anything after. 

[jimmy olsen]

 

If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.

[alfred russel]

It has to be possible to have a golden age in a low-tech environment. Otherwise, the meaning is useless.

As already alluded to, the original concept of a Golden Age was entirely mythical - the notion that sometime in the past, our ancestors were better and wiser but that we have since degenerated.

But in reality, all of human history prior to the late 19th century/20th centuries involved the vast majority of people ("the 99%") living short average lifespans and enjoying a standard of living at or just above subsistence.  The modern era is such a profound break with that past that anything before cannot be compared to anything after.

You are focused on things in materialistic terms. You would make a good propaganda minister in a Player Piano world. I'm not saying that is an invalid, but it isn't the only way to look at things.