Customer Reviews

The Age of Empire, 1875-1914 (History of Civilization)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is the third book in Hobsbawm's economic history of the "long" 19th Century (1789-1914). The other two books are "The Age of Revolution" and "The Age of Capitalism."

Like the other two books, this is an economic history, so it presumes the reader already has some knowledge of the major historical events of the period. For a more conventional European history, I'd refer the reader to "Europe: 1815-1914" by Gordon Craig.

One hears so much about "Imperialism" -- always in a negative sense -- that's it's interesting to read about a period in which Europeans were unabashedly imperialistic. I had read elsewhere that the main reason imperialism failed was that it was uneconomical, but this is the only serious treatment of it I've read.

One big surprise for me was that the European Imperial period was so short. The Imperial posessions were relatively few and unimportant before this period, and were essentially snuffed out by World War I (taking until World War II to entirely disappear).

Although I have enjoyed Hobsbawm's books, there are two warnings for the would-be reader. First, Hobsbawm is an unapologetic Marxist, so his economics all come from a Marxist angle. That's actually not as much of a problem as it might seem, and it helps shed a lot of light on what the earlier followers of communism were thinking. Second, this is not an easy read. The material is difficult to begin with, and Hobsbawm's writing style makes it more so.

Still, I found it worthwhile, I learned a lot, and I'm glad I read it. If the combination of history and economics interests you, just take it slowly and it will reward your efforts.

This book, along with the two previous in the trilogy (Age of Revolution, Age of Capital) ranks as probably the best history books (among many) I have read. Hobsbawm assumes a basic knowledge of what happened during the period in question, so avoid this book if you are looking for a simple narrative. The prospective reader should also know that Hobsbawm is a Marxist and will analyze and argue as one. Having said that, I find the emphasis on the economic aspects of history to be very enlightening. If you have some idea of what happened in the 19th century and would like some serious and astute analysis of why, this book fits the bill admirably.

Eric Hobsbawm concludes his series on the nineteenth century with The Age of Empire. This sequel to The Age of Capital and The Age of Revolution covers the period from the mid 1870s until the outbreak of the First World War.

This series is not a general survey of the period or a textbook. Instead, it is intended by the author to be "an argument" for his basic premise. This thesis is the unifying theme of the trilogy and, as stated in the book, it is: "The triumph of and transformation of capitalism in the historically specific forms of bourgeoisie society in its liberal version." In this final volume the theme is the contradiction and instability of the bourgeois class when they were at their most successful.

The paradoxes and conflicts were increasingly evident in the economy, society, natural sciences, politics and international relations. Eventually they would crack the fabric of the comfortable bourgeois world with the start of the First World War. This conflict was the end of "the age of empire," and the upheavals caused by the war (and subsequent peace settlement) shaped the world of the twentieth century.

The very title of the work, "The Age of Empire," shows that internationalism and colonialism are a central theme of the period. The elite nations of the world were able, it seemed at first glance, to spread their flags and their trade across the globe with impunity. In a short span of time the Great Powers were able to conquer much of the less developed world. To many, this seemed to prove the inherent justice of the imperialist cause. The confidence of the major powers increased with each new colony and triumph.

Problematically, imperial powers found it easier to get an empire than to get a profit from it. Even more unsettling was the fact that not all nations would be willing to give up their sovereignty. The defeat of Italy by the Ethiopians, of Russia by Japan, and the long drawn-out Boer War all challenged the status quo. The late nineteenth century was a time of mass politics. Most of the industrialized nations of Europe had granted the franchise to a large portion of the male population. This necessitated a change in tactics for governments even as their strategic goals remained much the same.

A central paradox here was the use of mass politics to protect the rights and privileges of the elite few. Marxist theorists had expected that wider participation in the election processes would prove to energize the masses and serve as a precursor to the eventual revolution of the proletariat. In this hope, the social revolutionaries would be disappointed. Enlargement of the electorate proved to be a way to control the outbursts of the working classes that had previously lead to revolution or riots. On the whole, the electorate proved to be more conservative and interested in slow, steady enhancement of rights and benefits than desirous of revolutionary change.

In addition to economic and political change during the period, there were many social changes as well. Women entered the workforce in large numbers in the newly developed jobs of office workers and nurses. For the first time, primary education was available to almost all of a nation's citizens. Education was not only a means to increase the productivity of the future workforce, it also was able to inculcate a sense of nationalism and national pride in the population.

Hobsbawm ends the main body of the work with a review of the causes behind the First World War. He quickly dismisses the notion of war guilt or concerns over the immediate causes of the conflict. Instead, the author looks at the whole of the period and the pressures which led to the outbreak of war when it did as opposed to any of the other numerous crises which had occurred in the preceding years. The author places much blame for those pressures on the capitalist system which had powered most of the nineteenth century: "The development of capitalism inevitably pushed the world in the direction of state rivalry."

Hobsbawm is not able to be optimistic in his conclusions, but he does at least manage to be sanguine. The plan so clearly and precisely mapped by Marx and his theories has not occurred according to schedule. The author seems now unwilling to predict when or if it will. As Hobsbawm himself writes, "The only certain thing about the future is that it will surprise even those who have seen furthest into it."

Hobsbawm's work is never without its supporters and detractors. Reviewers of The Age of Empire reflect this pattern: in general, reviewers of the book were impressed with the scholarship and breadth of this ambitious book. Some reviewers were less concerned with the political beliefs of the author while others found them to be central to the work.

The Age of Empire has many strong parts. Hobsbawm is able to draw together events from around the world and relate them to his core thesis. The argument that Hobsbawm tries to make is less enjoyable than the delightful breadth of the work. One can sense the disappointment that the author has time and time again when the classes fail to revolt (as they should) or when capitalists fail to place profit above all else (as they must). The failure of history to proceed according to the wishes of the author is too intrusive to the reader and seriously detracts from the work.

The Age of Empire is best enjoyed by a niche readership rather than a general one. A reader with a strong interest in the social history of the nineteenth century will find this book an invaluable look into the period. Others readers who simply hope to find out who shot whom in June 1914 are apt to be very disappointed.

I just finished reading this book. Knowing little more than what the average person knows about the nineteenth century, I closed the book feeling enlightened and intrigued. Hobsbawm writes well, and he manages to bring together very complex concepts and mechanisms into simple sentences. It is a daunting experience trying to compress forty years of world history into four hundred pages, but Hobsbawm manages to pull it off in most places.

There is enough primer material in this book for a lifetime of further study. Hobsbawm instills a sense of curiosity in the reader, and I spent much time oodling over reference books and online sources trying to patch together the facts and events referred to in "Age of Empire: 1875-1914".

What can I say? I wanted to know more about colonialism, industrialisation and economic progress in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, and "Age of Empire: 1875-1914" fit the bill very well indeed.

3.5 stars.

This is a history that focuses on the economic and social forces that shaped the "Age of Empire" from 1875-1914. It is often rather dry (as economics tends to be) but there were some parts that I thought were especially interesting. I liked the (brief) discussions on the rise of Nationalism, Socialism, and the Women's Movement. The book, as a whole, seems a bit disjointed. There's no grand narrative; this is not a general history of the period. The book is more academic in nature. If you're looking for a general history, then this is probably not what you want.

Also: the prose is fine. The review giving TAoE 1 star because the author writes worse than a "Japanese Engineer" is ridiculous. (I am surprise that no idiot has yet attacked the book simply because the author is a Marxist...)

Not bad but not recommended.

This is an excellent multifaceted analysis of the long 19th century that is so significant not only to European but to world history. Flowing freely between critical political, economic, and cultural analysis, Hobsbawm clearly connects the complex developments of the period and enlightens the reader on their significance. A must read for anyone studying European and world history.

El mundo burgués generó desarrollos muy importantes para los habitantes de Europa Occidental particularmente; incrementó de manera importante los niveles de vida de una porción significativa de la sociedad, introdujo innovaciones claras en las ciencias, en lo educativo, en el comercio global y en el intercambio entre diferentes culturas. Mejoró la productividad, las comunicaciones, la alimentación......Pero también incorporó consigo tendencias negativas y difíciles que cambiaron para siempre la interrelación entre pares al crearse una diferencia significativa de clases, la alta, burguesa y la trabajadora y proletaria, continuó la discriminación sobre la campesina, estableció el concepto forzado de nacionalismo, transformó a los países mas desarrollados en imperios con ansias de crecimiento y de dominio de los menos preparados, se evidenció la explotación del tercer mundo, se inició el armamentismo y la instigación a la guerra que culminó con la desastrosa confrontación de 1914. El mundo, a partir de ese momento no volverá a ser igual.

Todos estos conceptos, esta historia, están amenamente descritos por el autor, con un gran conocimiento de la época y con una inteligente asociación de los acontecimientos para hacer entender al lector sus grandes transformaciones e implicaciones.

Como los otros tres libros de la serie, lo recomiendo ampliamente. Permite entender todo la evolución de nuestra civilización en los dos últimos siglos así como la influencia generada por los grandes imperios de la época y sus pensadores

In THE AGE OF EMPIRE, Eric Hobsbawm completes his trilogy of 19th century European history, and as with his many other works, with a Marxist view. In his books that deal with 20th century Western history, Hobsbawm's socialist leanings are obtrusive and contradictory. His overarching theme is that socialism is good and capitalism is bad. When he looks at Russian communism, he always excuses its many failures by attributing those failures of tyrants like Stalin and Kruschev, who misapplied or worse, misused Marx's original premise that the world's proletariat was destined to emerge triumphant as a universal socialist state. When he considers the decades that preceded the Russian Revolution, as he does here, his Marxist tilt is still present but is not ubiquitous. Hobsbawm focuses on the gradual erosion of Western empires as he notes that the sun was indeed setting on the Union Jack. By the time that the First World War began, the British Empire was clearly in the descendent. He correctly notes that there is an inverse correlation between the fall of democratic empires like Britain's and the rise of technology and education, which collectively empower colonialized subjects to first seek, then demand, independence. I would add that such a correlation does not hold in the case of fascist empires, like German National Socialism, which had to be overthrown by force. Hobsbawm could not hide his animus toward the United States as he can never resist taking a cheap shot at areas well covered by other America haters like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. For Hobsbawm, American Empire was born in evil, lives in evil, and is fated to die in evil. However, his main focus is not on America, but on Europe, and if one can accept his analyses of economic and social trends of pre-Marxist thought with more than a few grains of salt, then AGE OF EMPIRE has its moments.

The real surprise is that the European Imperial period was so short. The Imperial posessions were relatively few and unimportant before this period, and were essentially snuffed out by World War I (taking until World War II to entirely disappear).

As with the two earlier books, this is primarily an economic history, so don't expect him to explain who Gladstone was or anything like that. And, also as with the earlier books, the reading can be slow going.

This book is, without doubt, the worst example of English prose I have ever read. The gentleman is probably an outstanding scholar. But one must diagram each and every sentence to force his ideas into some sort of order. (But as a caveat, I only got half-way through it before my patience ran out.)

Then again, I'm not a historian, my Ph.D. is in applied psychology. In my career(Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University), I've had many opportunities to see what engineers, psychologists, and especially engineers for whom English is a third for fourth language do to mangle English prose. This gentleman's writing style is worse than anything I've ever seen. His English prose is worse than that of a Japanese engineer.

Was it Dorothy Parker who said, "This is not a book to be lightly put down. It is a book to be thrown away with vehemence"? Or some such.