What vision of the 19th century is more accurate?

[Gukpard]

There are two main visions of the 19th century nowadays, both are very romanticized visions with a lot of ideology on it, and so I wanted to know your opinions of what vision is the closest to the reality.

The first is that basically the 19th century sucked, it started as a reactionary century with the restoration of the absolute monarchies, followed by a series of revolutions that were led not by the people, but by the bourgeisie that installed a series of constitutional monarchies or bourgeisie dictatorships that paved the way for the brutal industrial revolution that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands in europe and america while asian was exploited to the brink of the collapse, the standart of living collapsed and combined with the massive pollution caused by the industrialization the cities turned into something dystopic with plagues of rats, massive black clouds of pollution while Pollio and Tuberculosis spreaded like wildfire.

The second is that it was the century of the light, it began with the end of the napoleonic wars, being followed by the cultural explosion all over europe and the consolidation of the values of the enlightment, thus ending the absolute monarchies and resulting in new republics an constitutional monarchies, the consolidation of the bourgeisie and the industrial revolution, that in one hand caused the massive wave of pollution and the explosion of sickness in urban areas, but also created massive wealth and with the adoption of the worker's rights in the end of the 19th century the situation began to improve considerably.

Which version makes more sense? And which article or book do you suggest for me to build my vision on that century? Thanks.

 

[Reydan]

I think its hard to really see either of those as visions of the reality of the c19th. Interestingly, both stem from how people in the period wrote about events themselves.

When I talk about this period with students, and why it appealed enough to me to pursue a doctorate in it, the main point I come back to is the turbulence of the period. Not just in terms of politics, although there was enough of that, but in all aspects. Culture, society, technology, the environment, health, science, the arts, etc etc. All of these were in flux in the period.

One of the important things, I always think, is to be careful with how you treat people in the period. Its very tempting to see certain groups, particularly reformers, as the ''goodies'' of history, because they are often striving for something which we ourselves today recognise as a core tenet of our societies. But you have to think about the period in context and see that, just like today, people and ideas were three dimensional. Just like today there were industrial pioneers who believed in improving society through technology but were perfectly happy to put thousands out of work with their inventions and endanger others in the making of them. Just like today there were ardent reformers who believed in social improvements but were overly dismissive and combative towards the feelings and traditions of those whose lives they sought to change. Just like today there were people who were completely fine with holding back others whilst pursuing their own advancement.

The key thing about the period is to appreciate its nuance and that, for all its looks like us, it isn't us. I like to think of the c19th like a mass of puzzle pieces thrown into the air - all the building blocks for what was to come in the c20th are there but it isn't clear how they will land and in what order and there are plenty of pieces that will get lost or discarded in the process.

In terms of reading, I'd really recommend a couple of classics:

I've always liked Eric Hobsbawm's various Age of... texts. Age of Revolution 1789-1848, Age of Capital, 1848-1875, and Age of Empire 1875-1914 gives you already a pretty good sense of how he saw the period.

C. A. Bayly's The Birth of the Modern World 1789-1914 is a bit more recent and very readable. And more global than Hobsbawm's was.

 

[CelticTwilight]

I would also recommend the Hobsbawm books. His trilogy on the long 19th century is very well done.

His take on the 20th in The Age of Extremes...eh not so much, at least in my opinion.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I would say it is a mix of the two to a certain extent. Honestly, I look at the 19th century being a bit similar to Rome. You see Europe powers rise to a point of great power and wealth but at a cost. This era had its positives and flaws like any time period. These pros and cons could vary by country and great powers. But like Rome i think much of the era's potential was wasted. I think many of the gains and success of the century was destroyed by the great wars in the next century. The world wars era tainted or taboo many things from the previous century that was arguably more noble and innocent ideas at their start.