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

What made Britain so different from the rest of Europe before 1850? – By 1850, Britain had changed in a number of social and economic ways, for a variety of reasons, primarily the industrial revolution as the historians O’Brien and Quinault argue that Britain ‘represented a potent â€Å"example† for Western Europe and the United States of what could be achieved’ highlighting British superiority and influence. The consequences of this momentous event can still be seen in Britain and around the world today due to the technological and scientific discoveries and innovations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.The development of British industry consequently led to significant differences between Britain and other European countries such as France and Portugal, however, the industrial revolution was not the single contributing factor to these differences. The expansion of the British Empire changed British society and ultimately led to greater pow er and influence over Europe, alongside important events such as the Napoleonic Wars, which in turn led to naval and military supremacy, as Britain were affected less negatively in comparison to other European countries.This essay will argue that Britain was different to Europe before 1850 as a result of the industrial revolution and its consequences, the expansion of the empire 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 advent of industrialization.This can be attributed to the fact that the Industrial Revolution 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 nation for the events of the Industrial Revolution to occur in as the Agricultural Revolution had preceded it , therefore, productivity of the land and the labour force had increased, unlike in Europe.Furthermore, 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 output 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 nation 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 advantages’ such as the large amount of iron and coal available to them, alongside the geography of being an island, which decreased the likelihood of foreign invasions. Therefore, it is clear th at Britain was different from Europe before the Industrial Revolution 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 between Britain and Europe. In terms of positive social change, there was an ‘overwhelming transformation of social life in both industry and agriculture’ as the Industrial Revolution was extremely profitable for the middle class, in comparison to that of the nobility, as many 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 life expectancy of children increased-the percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five de creased from 74. 5% in 1730–1749 to 31. 8% in 1810–1829, highlighting that healthcare in Britain had improved more so than in Europe. Not all social consequences of the Industrial Revolution were positive however.Child labour during this period was a serious problem-children as young as 4 were expected 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 epoch’ had created ‘filth, ruin and uninhabitableness, the defiance of all considerations of cleanliness, ventilation, and health’ highlighting the unsanitary and unsafe surroundings. However, the government attempted to solve this problem with the Factory Acts of 1833.Housing also became a problem as many poor people lived in tiny houses, with extremely bad sanitation, which in turn led to tuberculosis, cholera, typhoid and lung disease. However, while t his 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 ‘widespread poverty and constant threat of mass starvation†¦lessened, [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 better 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 economy’. The economy had already been transformed by the agricultural 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 comparison to Europeà ¢â‚¬â„¢s 25. 3%. Moreover, the creation of the factory had improved production levels and therefore decreased production costs, which bettered 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 nation†¦with 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 Britain’s economy was based on industry , whereas many European countries such as France had not industrialised 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 empire. The strength and scale of the empire meant that Britain had better trade links 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 network [was] dominated by British shipping’ as Britain’s naval supremacy made importing and exporting manufactured goods much easier and more profitable, bettering their own economy in comparison to that of Europe. Mo reover, 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 Britain’s 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’, Victorian Cities. (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1970) pp. 88-138. * N. F. R. Crafts, The Industrial Revolution: Economic 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) * Eric 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 O’Brien 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) ——————————————– [ 1 ].Patrick O’Brien 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, â₠¬ËœThe 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 History, (Oxford University Press, 2003) vol. 3, pp. 49-56. [ 5 ]. Patrick O’Brien 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.