Monday, January 28, 2019

What Made Britain so Different from the Rest of Europe Before 1850

What made Britain so disparate from the rest of atomic make sense 63 before 1850? By 1850, Britain had changed in a f each of social and economic ways, for a variety of reasons, in the beginning the industrial renewal as the historians OBrien and Quinault conclude that Britain represented a potent specimen for Western europium and the United States of what could be achieved play up British high quality and influence. The consequences of this momentous event can unchanging be seen in Britain and round the world today due to the technological and scientific disc all all overies and innovations of the eighteenth and 19th centuries.The development of British industry consequently led to meaningful differences betwixt Britain and opposite europiuman countries some(prenominal)(prenominal) as France and Portugal, however, the industrial revolution was non the single contributing factor to these differences. The expansion of the British Empire changed British society a nd ultimately led to greater power and influence over europium, a giganticside important events such as the Napoleonic Wars, which in braid led to nautical and military supremacy, as Britain were affected little negatively in comparison to another(prenominal) European countries.This essay entrust argue that Britain was diverse to Europe before 1850 as a result of the industrial revolution and its consequences, the expansion of the imperium and the Napoleonic Wars. It can be argued that Britain was different from the rest of Europe before 1850 as a result of the industrial revolution however, one may argue that this was the case before the approaching of industrialization.This can be attributed to the fact that the industrial variation occurred primarily in Britain, rather than in any other European country, emphasising that there were significant differences in order for this to occur. Many historians will argue that Britain was the ideal land for the events of the industr ial rotary motion to occur in as the Agricultural renewal had preceded it, wherefore, productivity of the land and the labour draw and quarter had increase, unlike in Europe.Furtherto a greater extent, historians will argue that Britain initiated the revolution due to the fact that they were already a long way ahead of her chief potential competitor in per capita outfit and trade, which arguably can be attributed to their naval supremacy over Europe. Additionally, although debatable, it is suggested by the historian Mokyr that before 1780 Britain was comparatively peaceful as the domain was politically and socially stable, as people respected institutions and the laissez faire government worked effectively, resulting in a suitable nvironment for industrial and economic growth . Moreover, Mokyr suggests that there were a number of other British advantold ages such as the large number of iron and coal available to them, alongside the geography of being an island, which reduced the likelihood of foreign invasions. Therefore, it is clear that Britain was different from Europe before the industrial renewing occurred as they possessed significant political, social and economic advantages.Moreover, the industrial Revolution is certainly a monumental event in causing substantial social, economic and political change, resulting in differences in the midst of Britain and Europe. In cost of positive social change, there was an overwhelming transformation of social feeling in both industry and agriculture as the industrial Revolution was extremely profitable for the middle class, in comparison to that of the nobility, as galore(postnominal) workers gained employment in factories as new technology resulted in less need for labour in agriculture.Furthermore, urbanisation transformed cities such as Manchester, by dramatically increasing population from 40,000 in the 1780s to 142,000 by 1831. Additionally, the biography expectancy of children increased-the percen tage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74. 5% in 17301749 to 31. 8% in 18101829, highlighting that wellnesscare in Britain had improved more so than in Europe. non all social consequences of the Industrial Revolution were positive however.Child labour during this expiration was a serious problem-children as young as 4 were expect to work in factories in dangerous conditions with low pay. Working conditions were not only problematic for children, but also for adults, illustrated by Engels, who argues that the industrial period had created filth, ruin and uninhabitableness, the defiance of all considerations of cleanliness, ventilation, and health highlighting the unsanitary and vulnerable surroundings. However, the government attempted to solve this problem with the Factory Acts of 1833.Housing also became a problem as some(prenominal) poor people lived in minute houses, with extremely bad sanitation, which in turn led to tuberculosis, ch olera, typhoid and lung disease. However, part this is true, in the context of the time, the workers and middle class did benefit greatly from the Industrial Revolution in some way, as wages increased and general poverty and constant threat of mass starvationlessened, and overall health and material conditions of the populace clearly improved.Therefore it is clear that Britain was different in social terms as a result of the Industrial Revolution to Europe due to urbanisation, more jobs, a population increase and let out health care. Additionally, Britain can be seen to be different from Europe in 1850 as a result of the economic consequences of the Industrial Revolution, which brought about a modern miserliness. The economy had already been transformed by the clownish revolution as the labour force had grown, which in turn had increased productivity creating larger profits, highlighted by the fact that the male labour force in industry in Britain in 1840 was 47. % in compariso n to Europes 25. 3%. Moreover, the creation of the factory had improved production takes and therefore decreased production costs, which rectifyed the economy, unlike in Europe where agriculture still played a dominant role. While it is true that the British economy did improve during the Industrial Revolution, the extent of it is often exaggerated. The rate of growth of income per capita between 1760 and 1800 was at 0. 2% a year and from 1800 to 1830 increased only to 0. 5%.However, while this is true, the economic effects of the Industrial Revolution meant that Britain in 1850 had the highest income level in the world and became the leading economic and technological nationwith all the political prestige and power that came with that. Therefore, it is clear that there were distinct economic differences between Britain and Europe as a result of the Industrial Revolution, as Britains economy was based on industry, whereas many European countries such as France had not industrialis ed their economy effectively and were still reliant on agriculture.In addition to this, a fundamental difference between Europe and Britain even before 1850, was the expanding British conglomerate. The strength and scale of the empire meant that Britain had better trade cerebrate with America, the West Indies and India. Thus, they had the advantage of having access to a number of raw materials and exports from these countries that were not readily available to the rest of Europe.Although it can be argued that other European countries such as France, Spain and Portugal had colonies within America and so could therefore also trade with their colonies, it is evident that that the global trade profit was dominated by British shipping as Britains naval supremacy made importing and exporting manufactured goods much easier and more profitable, bettering their own economy in comparison to that of Europe. Moreover, Britain were able to expand their empire and their trade links as they did not engage in wars commonly, on a scale that France and other European countries did, such as in the case of the Napoleonic Wars.Although Britain did involve themselves in the Napoleonic Wars, their military resources were much better than those in Europe and so they were less affected by its Therefore, it is clear that the scale of Britains empire in comparison to that of other European nations was much larger, which in turn led to greater differences in trade, whilst their military supremacy made recovering from wars much easier. In conclusion, it is certainly clear that there were fundamental differences between Britain and Europe before 1850, many primarily as a result of the industrial revolution.Whilst Britain were different to Europe before the beginning of industrialization, shown by the fact that the revolution occurred primarily in Britain, rather than in any other European country, it is clear that the consequences of the industrial revolution shaped British society, and the world, with its effects still being seen today. Although the empire and Napoleonic Wars were advantageous to Britain before 1850 in improving trade links and maintaining naval and military supremacy, the effects of the revolution made Britain superior to other European nations in political, social and economic terms.Therefore, it is clear that the differences between Britain and Europe occurred as a result of the expanding empire, effects of the Napoleonic Wars, but primarily was due to the social and economic effects of the industrial revolution. Bibliography * Asa Briggs, Manchester, Symbol of a New Age, strait-laced Cities. (New York and Evanston Harper and Row, 1970) pp. 88-138. * N. F. R. Crafts, The Industrial Revolution economical Growth in Britain, 1700-1860. * Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, (Cosimo Inc. , 2009) * Valerie Hansen, Kenneth Curtis, Kenneth R.Curtis, Voyages in World History, Volume 2, (Cengage Learning, 2003) * E ric Hobsbawm, History of Civilisation The Age of Revolution, Europe 1789-1848 (London, 1969) p. 29. * Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. * Patrick OBrien and Roland Quinault, The Industrial Revolution and British Society (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p. 231. * Glenn Porter, Industrial Revolution. , Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. (Microsoft Corporation, 1999) &8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212&8212 1 .Patrick OBrien and Roland Quinault, The Industrial Revolution and British Society (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p. 3. 2 . Eric Hobsbawm, History of Civilisation The Age of Revolution, Europe 1789-1848 (London, 1969) p. 29. 3 . Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 4 . Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic Hi story, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 5 . Patrick OBrien and Roland Quinault, The Industrial Revolution and British Society (Cambridge University Press, 1993) p. 31. 6 . Asa Briggs, Manchester, Symbol of a New Age, Victorian Cities. (New York and Evanston Harper and Row, 1970) pp. 88-138. 7 . Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844, (Cosimo, Inc. , 2009) 8 . Glenn Porter, Industrial Revolution. , Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. (Microsoft Corporation, 1999) 9 . Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 10 . N. F. R. Crafts, The Industrial Revolution Economic Growth in Britain, 1700-1860 11 .Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 12 . Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 13 . N. F. R. Crafts, The Industrial Revolution Economic Growth in Britain, 1700-1860. 14 . Joel Mokyr, The Industrial Revolution, The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Economic History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. 15 . Valerie Hansen, Kenneth Curtis, Kenneth R Curtis, Voyages in World History, Volume 2, (Cengage Learning, 2003) p. 664.

No comments:

Post a Comment