Uploaded February 2026 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
I take on the recently popular (revivial) of the Strauss & Howe book, The Fourth Turning, and explain the problems with this sort of programmatic history. Yes, I realize the title of the book specifically addresses American history, but I've seen this applied, especially recently, to a wide variety of historical periods including antiquity.
The book has a number of methodological problems, especially from a historian's point of view. It's overly deterministic, even gimmicky, and the opposite of what history actually does--which is to seek to explain, not to *predict*. History isn't neat, and trying to force patterns onto it inevitably does violence to the discipline. I'm also aware the authors themselves said the timing shouldn't be regarded as exact. Ergo, it's the pattern I take aim at.
Here, I select a time-period in Greek history (which does include Philip and Alexander) in order to demonstrate how the theory falls apart. Programmatic history tends to cherry pick their examples, or to elevate events that match while ignoring or downplaying events that don't--even when historians object to their choices. The PATTERN reigns over the evidence. That's bad history, folks. Follow the evidence. Start with that: the key events. Don't select your patterns then hunt for events to match it. That's back-asswards.
Terminology mentioned: programmatic history, evolutionary history
Books mentioned:
THE FOURTH TURNING, William Strauss and Neil Howe
I take on the recently popular (revivial) of the Strauss & Howe book, The Fourth Turning, and explain the problems with this sort of programmatic history. Yes, I realize the title of the book specifically addresses American history, but I've seen this applied, especially recently, to a wide variety of historical periods including antiquity.
The book has a number of methodological problems, especially from a historian's point of view. It's overly deterministic, even gimmicky, and the opposite of what history actually does--which is to seek to explain, not to *predict*. History isn't neat, and trying to force patterns onto it inevitably does violence to the discipline. I'm also aware the authors themselves said the timing shouldn't be regarded as exact. Ergo, it's the pattern I take aim at.
Here, I select a time-period in Greek history (which does include Philip and Alexander) in order to demonstrate how the theory falls apart. Programmatic history tends to cherry pick their examples, or to elevate events that match while ignoring or downplaying events that don't--even when historians object to their choices. The PATTERN reigns over the evidence. That's bad history, folks. Follow the evidence. Start with that: the key events. Don't select your patterns then hunt for events to match it. That's back-asswards.
Terminology mentioned: programmatic history, evolutionary history
Books mentioned:
THE FOURTH TURNING, William Strauss and Neil Howe
