<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Cause of Progress
Review: So, why did the industrial revolution first happened in Britain, and not somewhere else? This is a hotly debated topic among a subset of historians, and has puzzled me for a long time. Is it due to the geography and natural resources of the Isles, the character of its people, or was it just one of those accidents of history? More than that, how do you properly formulate such a question, and what methods can be used to arrive at a sensible answer? Hobsbawm is probably as well equipped as anyone to try to answer this question, and does a pretty good job of it, I think. At least his method, to concentrate on the antecedent macro-economic setting, and to compare its more or less unique features with other competing regions, rather than such vague and elusive possibilities of a superior political system or a certain theological proclivity toward work or something, appears to be sound. His focus seldom refers to personalities, nor, surprisingly, the technological inventions that were so important--he seems to assumes that they were made as a matter of course, given the business climate of the times. The book covers much more than the industrial revolution-- it carries the narrative into the last half of the twentieth century, and covers the same ground in Wales and Scotland, too. His writing style is a pleasure to read and the book is accompanied by 52 graphs in an appendix that brings some additional meat to the table. This is quite possibly the best book around for understanding this critical period in the progress of man, and rewards time well spent.
Rating:
Summary: The Cause of Progress
Review: So, why did the industrial revolution first happened in Britain, and not somewhere else? This is a hotly debated topic among a subset of historians, and has puzzled me for a long time. Is it due to the geography and natural resources of the Isles, the character of its people, or was it just one of those accidents of history? More than that, how do you properly formulate such a question, and what methods can be used to arrive at a sensible answer? Hobsbawm is probably as well equipped as anyone to try to answer this question, and does a pretty good job of it, I think. At least his method, to concentrate on the antecedent macro-economic setting, and to compare its more or less unique features with other competing regions, rather than such vague and elusive possibilities of a superior political system or a certain theological proclivity toward work or something, appears to be sound. His focus seldom refers to personalities, nor, surprisingly, the technological inventions that were so important--he seems to assumes that they were made as a matter of course, given the business climate of the times. The book covers much more than the industrial revolution-- it carries the narrative into the last half of the twentieth century, and covers the same ground in Wales and Scotland, too. His writing style is a pleasure to read and the book is accompanied by 52 graphs in an appendix that brings some additional meat to the table. This is quite possibly the best book around for understanding this critical period in the progress of man, and rewards time well spent.
<< 1 >>
| 
