Age of Empire: 1875-1914 (Vintage) [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

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.

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.