Introduction

The Industrial Revolution was a period of profound change between c.1750 and 1850, in which
new inventions and manufacturing processes transformed the economy and wider society. The
Industrial Revolution began in Britain with the mechanization of the textile industry, but would
eventually transform almost every aspect of life from transport to agriculture. It changed where
people lived, how they worked and what they bought. In short, the Industrial Revolution created
the modern world. (Deane and Cole, 1967)

The expression ‘industrial revolution’, as a generic term, refers to the emergence, during
the transition from a pre-industrial to an industrial society, of modern economic growth, i.e. a
sustained and substantial increase of GDP per capita in real terms. Talking about
‘revolution’ does not mean that this process would necessarily be sudden and fast. It
primarily indicates it was deep and pervasive. The first industrial nation was Britain. Here the
transition took roughly from the 1750s to the 1850s. Real per capita income only really
started growing after the 1840s, when it rose to over one per cent per year. Various new
industrial sectors had already been showing substantial increases in productivity earlier on.
But bad harvests, frequent wars, a high population increase, and the fact that structural
economic change always, but especially in a pioneer country, takes its time, had the combined
effect of dampening total growth figures. (Crafts, 1985a)

Countries industrializing later, overall, had a faster pace of development and a higher rate of
growth. Industrialization is an ongoing process. In literature one often comes across
references to a first ‘classic’, industrial revolution in Britain, of coal, iron, and cotton, and later
on steam and railways; a second one, from the 1870s onwards, in which steel, the chemical
industry and electricity became more prominent, and a third one, already well into the
twentieth century, of automobiles and motorisation. (Deane and Cole, 1967)

Between 1760 and 1830 the Industrial Revolution was mainly confined to Britain. Being aware
of its head start on other countries, Britain forbade the export of machinery, skilled workers and
manufacturing techniques. This could not last, as many Britons saw profitable industrial
opportunities abroad and continental European businessmen were keen to lure British know-how
to their countries. Belgium became the first country in continental Europe to be transformed
economically, having machine shops set up in Liège (c.1807) by two Englishmen, William and
John Cockerill.

Like Britain, the Belgian Industrial Revolution centred on iron, coal and textiles.

The industrialization of France was slower and less thorough than that of Britain and Belgium.
At the time that Britain was establishing her industrial leadership, France was immersed in its
Revolution, the uncertain political situation discouraging investments in industrial innovations.
By 1848 France, now an industrial power, was still behind England, despite great growth under
the Second Empire.

Other European countries were far behind. These countries lacked the wealth, power and
opportunities of the French, British and Belgians. In other nations industrial expansion was held
back by political conditions.

Germany, for example did not begin its industrial expansion until after national unity in 1870,
despite vast resources of coal and iron. Once begun, Germany’s industrial production grew so
rapidly that by the turn of the century they were producing more steel than Britain and led the
world in the chemical industries. The rise of U.S. industrial power in the 19th and 20th centuries
left the Europeans way behind. The Japanese too joined the Industrial Revolution with great
success.

The eastern European countries were even further behind in the 20 th century. The Soviet Union
became a major industrial power after the fiveyear plans, condensing into a few decades the
industrialization that had taken Britain a century and a half. In the mid 20th century the Industrial
revolution spread to countries such as China and India.

The Second Industrial Revolution

Despite overlapping with the “old”, there was evidence of a “new” Industrial Revolution in the
late 19th and 20th centuries. As far as basic materials were concerned, modern industry had
begun to exploit many natural and synthetic resources not used before: lighter metals, new alloys
and synthetic products such as plastics, as well as new energy sources.
There had also been great developments in machines, tools and computers, giving rise to
automatic factories. By the mid-19th century some sectors of industry were almost completely
mechanized, but automatic operation, not to be confused with the assembly line, did not become
significant until the second half of the 20th century. The ownership of factories and businesses
by small groups of people, which was characteristic of the means of production in the early mid-
19th century gave way to ownership through the purchase of common stocks by individuals and
institutions such as insurance companies. In the 20 th century, many European countries socialised
basic sectors of their economies. Political theories also changed: governments moved into social
and economic areas to meet the needs of their more complex industrial societies.

The Major Causes of the Industrial Revolution Include

The first waves of studies on the industrial revolution mainly sought to identify its social and
economic effects: industrial production growth, development of cities, rise of the factory system,
emergence of new social classes, etc. They highlighted the crucial role of technical progress in
destabilizing the preindustrial societies but did not take a lot of effort to analyze the conditions
underlying the appearance of the industrial revolution. The work of Mantoux (1906), one of the
first historical syntheses of the British industrial revolution, was typical of this approach (Rioux,
1971). By contrast, the economic historian Ashton (1948) relegated the technological inventions
to a lower level of priority, arguing that they were essential but could not emerge, bloom, and
launch a process of modernization and sustained efficiency advance out of a favorable
environment.

Capitalism

This was an essential component leading to the rise of industrialization. The standard form of the
same during the revolution is known as laissez-faire capitalism. This translates to “leave us
alone,” wherein the government was asked to stay out of the economy and allow the people to
carry out their economic activities. At the time, the economic system which followed was
mercantilism. This system favored the government and allowed them to control all aspects of the
economy. As capitalism required more work as well as investment from the people instead of the
government, it is one of the critical factors leading to the Industrial Revolution. For instance, in
Britain, it was the wealthy entrepreneurs who invested and set up factories as well as mines.
These moves were backed with the motive of profits, which originated due to capitalism.
(Boserup, 1981)

European Imperialism

By the mid-18th century, many European states were rising in colonial powers. Their next focus
was on having authority globally. Britain had only a small part of the population in France and
Spain. Thus, it had been fighting against these powerful and more significant states always.
(Jacobs, 1969) It put a lot of pressure on the country to produce less labor-intensive products.
This was a crucial part of the revolution. European Imperialism had a crucial role in the
revolution; first, it had access to a large number of raw materials, which could then be used to
produce goods.

This was because the European countries had a reach in North as well as South America from
where they could get their resources. Thus, European Imperialism could provide the funds which
were necessary for the production of goods. Second, it also created a substantial market for
products. The countries had well-established trade routes. Thus, they could sell the products they
manufactured around the world.

Modern science, technology, and human capital

Addressing the European aspect of economic development - European miracle - that led to the
emergence of a “convergence club” at dawn of the 20th century, a number of scholars have
stressed the role of modern science in producing the British and European industrial revolution
(Musson and Robinson, 1969, Jacob and Stewart, 2004; Bekar, Carlaw and Lipsey, 2005;). In
line with this view, the industrial revolution would owe much to the European scientific
revolution. Although broader in scope, the term “scientific revolution” is nowadays traditionally
used to describe the changes in the scientific thought that progressively took place in Europe in
the 16th and 17th centuries, leading all the scientific disciplines to reorganize around new
principles/axioms (Cohen, 2010).

Mining of Resources

Resources, including coal and iron, were vital to the Industrial Revolution. Britain had vast
reserves of these, thereby, aiding to the growth of industries and factories. Moreover, with the
invention of coal-powered steam engines, the increased demand for coal resulted in the
improvement of the techniques used for the mining of coal. Coal was also required for other
means of transportation and smelting of iron ores, among other activities. (1984; Bairoch)

Furthermore, with the rising efforts to refine iron and thereby, reducing its cost, England
managed to reduce its dependency on Northern Europe for iron. It also ended up becoming the
biggest iron industry globally. They used their iron in several industries, such as railroads, steam
engines, textile inventions, tools, construction, and shipbuilding.

Impact of the Steam Power on the Revolution

The steam engine was used to power various industries across Britain, such as cotton mills,
distilleries, flour, waterworks, paper, ironworks, and canals. Just like how steam engines required
coal, steam power made way for miners to go even deeper, and thus, extract a larger quantity of
the energy source. (Glaeser et al., 1992;; Glaeser, 1994, 2010;) During the Industrial Revolution,
the demand for coal rose tremendously. Not only were the factories requiring it to manufacture
different goods, steamships, as well as railroads, also needed coal to transport the goods and raw
materials.

Agricultural Revolution

Britain Agricultural Revolution talks about the tremendous growth of the agricultural sector of
Britain from the 17th to the mid-19th century. (Audretsch and Feldman, 1996). The methods of
intensive farming were revolutionized, including selective breeding as well as heavy manuring,
crop rotation, enclosed fields, and the improved versions of Chinese Ploughing.

The Agricultural Revolution also included an increase in land ownership. This further augmented
the population of the country. This is why the workforce in mines and factories increased. As the
methods of farming got better, and farmers started using machinery in the farms as well, the food
production grew. Owing to the use of machinery; the same work could be done with a reduced
workforce as well. This allowed people to shift from farms to mines and factories, and thus,
cities and towns grew.

Another push was the Enclosure Movement. Here, owing to the increase in private ownership of
lands, such as farms, small farmers could not gain control over their lands. Thus, as they lost
their traditional lands, they migrated to towns and cities in search of wages. Factory and mine
owners could then exploit the large workforce. Hence, the Agricultural Revolution was an
important cause of the Industrial Revolution.

Scientific Revolution

There is a conflict among historians regarding the period of the Scientific Revolution. Some
believe it was during the times of Nicolaus Copernicus, 1473 to 1543, while some believe it was
during the times of Isaac Newton, 1642 to 1727. The revolution happened in European countries.
It refers to developments in the cultural, conceptual, institutional as well as social constructs
related to belief, knowledge, and nature. (Hall, 2000; Duranton and Puga, 2001, 2002 and 2004)
As Europe became more accepting of scientific ideas, the road for creation and development of
ideas and innovations became wider.

Governmental Policies

Britain was typically a constitutional monarchy during the 18th century. It was much more stable
as compared to Spain and France. There were better policies in practice. Moreover, the
government gave patents and exclusive rights to inventors for control over their innovations for a
specific number of years. Brunt and GarciaPenalosa, 2012; This helped with the financing of
innovative ideas as well. Capitalism was further encouraged through the enclosure system
(discussed earlier under Agricultural Revolution). As the private ownership of farmlands was
allowed, the industrial class formed easily.

Another significant policy in place was allowing incoming immigrants. This helped in enhancing
the development as well as the skills of various industries. This further led to the weakening of
the guilds. These policies helped Britain develop rapidly during the Industrial Revolution as
compared to other European countries.

Technological Innovations

One of the major factors which helped the Industrial Revolution succeed was the advancement in
technology. In terms of the textile industry, Britain could not grow cotton themselves owing to
their cold climate and lack of manpower, which could meet the demand. It was only known for
its woolen industry. (Jacob, 1988, 1997, 2007, 2014) However, after having control over India’s
cotton industry, Britain could start gaining power. The innovations in the weaving techniques
finally helped push the growth of Britain’s textile industry. In 1733, James Kay improved the
traditional handloom and introduced a simple flying shuttle. This doubled the productivity of its
previous version. In 1764, James Hargreaves invented the Spinning Jenny, which solved the
challenge of developing a mechanical device that simplified and automated the process of
pulling and twisting of the cotton fibers, which then resulted in a strong thread. This helped
increase productivity eightfold. In 1769, with the invention of the water frame, an entire factory
could complete the process of manufacturing a finished cloth from its raw material at a single
point. The water wheel was an improvisation of the Jenny with a water wheel and was
introduced by Richard Arkwright. Another defining invention in the Industrial Revolution was
the steam engine. It also powered the textile industry of Britain along with numerous others. It
allowed industries to reduce their dependence on water. It also facilitated the easy transportation
of goods.

British industrial revolution

According to traditional historiography, the industrial revolution first started in Britain in the
second half of the 18th century. The annus mirabilis year 1769, as Cardwell (1972) has called it,
during which James Watt and Richard Arkwright patented respectively the separate condenser
for the steam engine and the water frame, has often been considered as the symbolic starting
point of the British industrialization. The industrial revolution then swept through Europe - first
in Belgium and France - and the USA, before reaching Japan and Russia.

Broadberry highlights the role of the long trade distance, especially through its interaction with
the institutions, the pastoral farming, and more generally the agricultural changes, the consumer
preferences, the attitudes to work, and some demographic factors, in particular the European
Marriage Pattern, which would have contributed to reducing fertility below the biological
maximum, thus increasing the opportunities of investment in human capital (Greif, 2006a;
Foreman-Peck, 2011) and improving women’s participation in the labor force (see e.g. de Moor,
2008)

Voigtlander and Voth (2009) thus claimed that two European “inventions”, namely a peculiar
marriage pattern and a specific mortality regime, might account for the increase in incomes
observed between 1300 and 1800. Reasserting that productivity growth played only a little role
in the evolution of the British and European GDP per capita between 1350 and 1700,
Voigtlander and Voth (2013b) later developed a neo-Malthusian model with two sectors and
multiple steady states to explain the rise in income per capita and urbanization during this period
in Europe.

Geography and natural resources

Britain’s geography and geological conditions have often been highlighted to explain British
economic success after 1750. Surrounded by sea, crisscrossed by rivers and penetrated by large
estuaries, Britain, whose territory is characterized by the fact that no one place is more than 120
km far away from the nearest coast, benefited from advantageous geographical conditions for
water transport. In addition to giving easy access to a relatively cheap and convenient
transportation mode, which early stimulated the exchanges between the main British ports and
coastal regions, the sea moreover constituted a natural barrier that likely dissuaded potential
enemies from invading the country, thus contributing to maintain some relative peace and
stability on the British ground. By the late 18th century, Britain had not been successfully
attacked since 1066 and the great Norman invasion (Mokyr, 1999).

Demography

An original feature of the 18th century is the evolution of the number of men in Britain and
Europe (Habakkuk, 1953). Indeed, a sustained growth of the European population started as from
the beginning of what Michelet called the “Great century”. Many authors have seen in this
demographic expansion the signs of the final victory of life. Between 1000 and 1700, the
European population (including Russia) rose from 43 million to 125 million of individuals
(Biraben, 2003). This evolution corresponded to an average annual growth rate of around 0.15%.
Over this period, different phases of demographic crisis and growth followed each other.

Agricultural progress

According to converging estimates, agricultural productivity would have more than doubled in
Britain between 1700 and 1850, just at the time of the industrial revolution (Deane and Cole,
1967; Crafts, 1985a) (Clark, 2005b). Over the same period, the British population was multiplied
by approximatively three. The estimates of agricultural productivity however vary in where
exactly they place the productivity growth, reflecting a huge debate in the literature concerning
the true timing of the British or English agricultural revolution.

Demand-side factors

Some part of the literature devoted to identifying the causes of the industrial revolution has
suggested that the technological inventions of the late 18th century Britain were driven by
demand, both domestic and foreign. In a pioneer work, Gilboy (1932) already highlighted the
parallel role that demand should have played at the time of the industrial revolution. In a more
recent paper, O’Brien and Engerman (1991) showed that even small variations in demand could
potentially move a country from one economic track to another, thus giving credit to the
demand-side factors (Mokyr, 1999). The demand-driven approach implicitly assumes that the
aggregate supply curve shifted because of a rise in the aggregate demand. Technological change
would so have constituted the original entrepreneurs’ response to the rising demand for British
manufactured products.

Political Influence

Britain, by the mid-18th century, also had immense power overseas. Owing to the victories in the
battles of Buxar and Plassey, Britain had a significant political influence over India.

India was the manufacturing hub for cotton across the world. Britain especially had control over
Bengal, which was the trade hub. Through control over India and its cotton industry, cotton
spinning machines were invested in Britain. (Hartwick, 2015) Various resources of India,
including mineral, human, agricultural, and natural, formed a solid foundation for Britain. This
helped Britain further become a global power.

Communication

In the latter side of the Industrial Revolution, communication methods played a key role in
changing the world around the globe. William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone, two British
inventors, invented the very first commercial telegraphy system. Also, Samuel Morse and many
other inventors channelized the industrial revolution in the USA. Different systems for railroad
signaling were created by Wheatstone and Cooke that ensured a sophisticated mean for the train
communications. Mokyr (1999:41)

Banking

Various advancements in Banking Systems along with industrial financiers also were quite
prominent for the industrial revolution on the global front. In the 1770s, London welcomed its
first Stock Exchange, and in the 1790s, the New York Stock Exchange established. Adam Smith,
a Scottish Social Philosopher, published Wealth of Nations in 1776, in which he spoke about an
economic system with free enterprise alongside a lack of government interference and the private
ownership of means of production. Mokyr (1999:41)

Trade and empire

On the eve of its industrial revolution, Britain was a country characterized by a relatively high
degree of openness. People, both emigrants and tourists, and capital moved in and out of the
country with ease. British Intellectuals were free to correspond and exchange their ideas with
colleagues over the Channel and across the Atlantic (Mokyr, 1999). The share of foreign trade in
British NNI - net national income - amounted to around 9% in the mid-18th century, making
Britain one of the world’s greatest trading nation, then rose to around 16% by 1800 (Clark,
2010a). Enjoying privileged access to sea and the most powerful navy in the world, Britain,
which was guided by a pronounced colonial spirit, increased the level of its exports and imports
all over the 17th and 18th centuries (see e.g. Cain and Hopkins, 1993; Morgan, 2000; Harley,
2004; Daudin et al., 2010).

Institutional and political factors

The role of the institutional and political environment has also been the object of growing
interest in the literature. Thus, according to some scholars, the reason why the industrial
revolution started in Britain is because the country had the “right institutions”, notably the right
political institutions. The idea that institutions matter for economic development has reflected a
rising consensus in the economic literature ( North, 1989, 1990)

Growth in Population
In the early 1700, Britain had a small population. It was very small compared to the population
of France, India, and China, which were leading economies at the time. As to the lack of
workforce, there was an increased need to develop and produce machines that required lesser
human intervention. The Agricultural Revolution helped the population growth as it helped
provide enough food to feed everyone. This led to Britain eventually having enough population
and, thus, enough labor to augment its industrial growth.

Financial Innovations

Since the early 18th century, Britain has sturdy financial institutions in place. These included
central and country banks.

It also had a stock exchange which helped finance new ventures. Britain could enjoy profits since
the 1760s owing to the rise in its economic, commercial as well as political influence in the
world. The growth in cotton and the trade industries made way for more wealth. Moreover, with
capitalism, the need for financial institutions grew. It also created a plethora of opportunities for
new investments and growth. Specialist banks, i.e., banks having industry-specific knowledge or
even for areas, also grew in number. Financial institutions made their profits by keeping cash
reserves and lending money and applying interests on their return. Early users of the banks were
entrepreneurs who were investors, capitalists, merchants, sales associates, financiers, and
capitalists. The businesses were primarily small and individually based. Over time, joint-stock
companies and shareholders emerged, and with which the future of the way businesses run has
changed.

Transportation

Britain’s transportation systems were quite rudimentary until the early 18th century. As the
economy was flourishing, there was an increased need for developing the roads. In the 1750s, a
group of people who took care of the streets, called the Turnpike trusts, emerged. They took a
toll in return for their services. However, soon after the government took control. Afterward, the
canal systems were built and soon gained popularity owing to their reliability and economic
features. Furthermore, with the invention of steam engines as well as the technologies related to
the iron, the transportation industry grew significantly. The challenges about the transportation
industry, which until then were hampering the Industrial Revolution, were finally overcome with
the emergence of the technologies mentioned above.

Conclusion

The British industrial revolution is still home to great mysteries. In particular, the causes of the
British industrialization are still heatedly debated in the literature. As Clark (2012b:1) recently
noted: “The British Industrial Revolution is the key break in world history, the event that defines
our lives. No episode is more important. Yet the timing, location, and cause of this Revolution
are unsolved puzzles”. The difficulty partially arises from the fact that a broad spectrum of
theories, both economic and non-economic ones, can potentially explain the industrial revolution
and, more generally, the Great Divergence between some economically successful nations and
the rest of the world.

The Vienna Settlement

Postulating the emergence of a European security culture, in the broadest sense of the word, from
1815 onwards may seem counterintuitive. Scholars in the history of international relations
usually acknowledge the emergence of a European ‘conscience juridique du monde civilisé’ and
the corresponding peace and international rights movement in the course of the nineteenth
century.9 Yet they frequently situate the beginnings of European security cooperation only after
1918 with the establishment of the League of Nations and Interpol. In their view, the nineteenth
century should be interpreted as an era characterised by the realist paradigm of a balance of
power, the so-called Concert of Europe where states pursuing their own interests were the main
actors. Simon & Schuster, 1994), Current historical literature often views the first half of
the nineteenth century through this lens as well – despite the obvious element of cooperative
diplomacy implied in the term ‘concert’ – and sees the second half as shaped by bellicose
nationalism rather than by collective security. J. Leonhard, (2008) And although a growing body
of work on nongovernmental transnational social movements exists, concrete forms and practices
of international and supranational security cooperation in the nineteenth century have been
largely overlooked. J. Boli and G.M. Thomas (1999) Over the last few years, however, more
sophisticated narratives about the Congress of Vienna have begun to replace the ‘balance of
power’ concept with terms like ‘hegemony’, ‘political equilibrium’, or ‘influence politics’.

The Vienna Settlement, also known as the Congress of Vienna, was a diplomatic conference held
in 1814-1815 to reorganize Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. It aimed to restore stability and
establish a balance of power among the major European powers.

One of the key goals of the Vienna Settlement was to prevent future conflicts by redrawing the
map of Europe and restoring the pre-Napoleonic order. The settlement accomplished this by
reinstating legitimate monarchs and royal families that had been overthrown by Napoleon, such
as the Bourbon dynasty in France and the Habsburg dynasty in Austria. By restoring these
traditional rulers, the settlement sought to maintain stability by returning to the pre-revolutionary
status quo. J. Paulmann, (2000)

The performance of the Vienna Settlement of 1815:

Balance of Power: The Vienna Settlement aimed to establish a balance of power among the
major European powers to prevent any single nation from dominating the continent. The
settlement achieved this by redistributing territories and adjusting borders. The goal was to create
a system where no one power could become too strong and threaten the stability of Europe.

Legitimacy and Stability: The settlement emphasized the principle of legitimacy, which meant
restoring the legitimate rulers who had been displaced by Napoleon's conquests. The idea was
that by reinstating these legitimate monarchs, stability and order would be restored. However,
this emphasis on legitimacy ignored the aspirations of people who desired greater political
participation and national self-determination. J. Paulmann, (2000)

Territorial Adjustments: The territorial adjustments made at the Vienna Settlement were
significant. France, despite its defeat, retained its borders, although it lost some territories it had
gained under Napoleon. Austria expanded its influence and acquired territories in Italy and
Central Europe. Prussia gained territories in Germany and Poland, while Russia acquired parts of
Poland and Finland. These territorial changes aimed to maintain a balance of power and prevent
any one nation from becoming too dominant.
The Concert of Europe: One of the major outcomes of the Vienna Settlement was the
establishment of the Concert of Europe. This system involved regular diplomatic consultations
among the major powers to discuss and resolve issues that could potentially disrupt the European
balance of power. The Concert of Europe was intended to serve as a mechanism for crisis
management and the preservation of peace. However, it had limitations in terms of effectiveness
and could not prevent all conflicts. A. Zamoyski,(2015)

Long-Term Impact: The Vienna Settlement had a mixed long-term impact. It succeeded in
maintaining relative peace in Europe for several decades, with no major continental wars
occurring until the Crimean War in 1853. However, the settlement's conservative nature and
failure to address the rising forces of industrialization and nationalism eventually led to the
revolutionary wave of the mid-19th century. Nationalist aspirations and demands for political
reforms could not be suppressed indefinitely, and they eventually led to significant upheavals
and the redrawing of borders.

Legacy: The Vienna Settlement's legacy is complex. On one hand, it helped restore stability and
prevent immediate conflicts, and the Concert of Europe provided a platform for ongoing
diplomatic engagement. On the other hand, its conservative nature and disregard for popular
aspirations set the stage for future challenges to the established order. The settlement's impact on
the balance of power and the dynamics of European politics continued to be felt throughout the
19th century and beyond.

It's important to note that the Vienna Settlement was a complex and multifaceted event, and its
performance and outcomes have been the subject of ongoing debate among historians. Different
perspectives exist regarding its successes, failures, and long-term implications.

In terms of territorial adjustments, the Vienna Settlement aimed to balance power by distributing
territories among the major European powers. This was done through negotiations and
diplomatic agreements. For example, France was allowed to retain its borders, but it lost some
territories it had gained under Napoleon. The Austrian Empire expanded its influence and
acquired new territories, while Prussia, Russia, and other powers also gained lands.

One of the significant achievements of the Vienna Settlement was the establishment of the
Concert of Europe, which was a system of regular diplomatic consultation among the major
powers. This forum provided a platform for ongoing negotiations and helped prevent major
conflicts for several decades. A. Zamoyski,(2015

However, the performance of the Vienna Settlement was not without its criticisms. Some argue
that the settlement was conservative, as it aimed to restore the old order and suppress liberal and
nationalist movements that emerged during the Napoleonic era. This suppression of popular
aspirations for self-determination and national identity eventually led to nationalist uprisings and
revolutions in the 19th century.

Additionally, the Vienna Settlement failed to address the rising forces of industrialization and
nationalism, which would transform Europe in the following decades. The settlement's emphasis
on maintaining the balance of power and preserving the old aristocratic order became
increasingly outdated as social and economic changes accelerated.

In conclusion, the Vienna Settlement of 1815 sought to restore stability and establish a balance
of power in Europe after the Napoleonic Wars. While it achieved short-term stability and
prevented immediate major conflicts, its conservative nature and failure to address underlying
social and economic changes limited its long-term effectiveness. The settlement's impact on
European politics and its performance in maintaining peace and stability continue to be topics of
historical debate and analysis.

The Congress of Vienna heralded an age in which this guild of diplomats, experts and other
professional agents steadily grew. Through informal or institutionalised meetings (conferences),
international courts, treaties, instances of arbitration, exchanges of letters, reports and
negotiations, a body of ius europaeum publicum was forged. These instances of transnational
exchange also facilitated social learning processes, e.g. social participation leading to a shared
knowledge and understanding of the world and a common set of practices and way of
comporting oneself, amounting to a ‘habitus’. As a result, collective threat discourses emerged
and mutually shared norms and attitudes became instilled regarding the appropriate use of force,
the ways and means to handle conflicts and disputes and the settlement and defence of shared
interests. Through these expansive means of communication, the aggregate of ideas and concepts
and the intensity of their circulation also increased.
Sick Man of Europe

"Sick man of Europe" is a label given to a nation located in Europe experiencing economic
difficulties, social unrest or impoverishment.

Emperor Nicholas I of the Russian Empire is considered to be the first to use the term "Sick
Man" to describe the Ottoman Empire in the mid-19th century Karaian, Jason; Sonnad, Nikhil
(2019). The characterization existed during the "Eastern question" in diplomatic history, which
also referred to the decline of the Ottoman Empire in terms of the balance of power in Europe.
Badem, Candan (2010). After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century,
the term has been applied to other nations. In modern usage, the term has faced criticism due to
its origins and arguable over-usage.

In the 19th century, the term "Sick Man of Europe" was commonly used to refer to the declining
Ottoman Empire. The phrase reflected the perception that the empire was weak, unstable, and
experiencing severe internal and external challenges. I can outline ten views on the state of the
Ottoman Empire during that period:

The Ottoman Empire was one of the most important non-Western states to survive from
medieval to modern times, and played a vital role in European and global history. It continues to
affect the peoples of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Central and Western Europe to the
present day. This new survey examines the major trends during the latter years of the empire; it
pays attention to gender issues and to hotly debated topics such as the treatment of minorities.
Coşgel, M. M., Miceli, T. J., and Rubin, J. (2012a)

After the peak of Ottoman rule under Süleyman the Magnificent in the 16th century, the Ottoman
Empire struggled to maintain its bloated bureaucracy and decentralized political structure.
Several attempts at reform kept the empire afloat but mostly addressed immediate issues, and
any success was short-lived. The most far-reaching of these reforms, the Tanzimat, contributed
to a debt crisis in the 1870s. Its fragile state left it unable to withstand defeat in World War I, and
most of its territories were divided as spoils as the empire disintegrated. Coşgel, M. M., Miceli,
T. J., and Rubin, J. (2012a)
Political Instability: The Ottoman Empire experienced a series of internal power struggles,
revolts, and coups, contributing to its image as a politically unstable entity.

Territorial Losses: The empire suffered significant territorial losses throughout the 19th century,
including the Greek War of Independence (1821-1832), the Russo-Turkish War (1828-1829),
and the Balkan Wars (1912-1913).

Economic Decline: The empire faced economic challenges, including a deteriorating fiscal
situation, high levels of debt, and a decline in trade and industry. These factors weakened its
overall economic power.

Nationalism and Independence Movements: The 19th century witnessed the rise of nationalist
movements within the empire, as various ethnic and religious communities sought greater
autonomy or outright independence. Buttar, Prit (2014).

External Intervention: European powers, particularly Russia, exerted influence in the Ottoman
Empire, taking advantage of its weaknesses and territorial disputes. This further weakened the
empire's sovereignty.

Reforms and Modernization Efforts: Recognizing the empire's decline, the Ottoman government
implemented a series of reforms, known as the Tanzimat reforms, aiming to modernize
administrative, legal, and educational systems. However, the reforms faced challenges and were
not fully successful in reversing the empire's decline. Buttar, Prit (2014).

Inter-communal Tensions: The empire was characterized by inter-communal tensions between

different ethnic and religious groups, such as Muslims, Christians, and Jews. These tensions
often led to conflicts and further destabilized the empire.

International Treaties and Loss of Sovereignty: The empire was forced to sign several
international treaties, such as the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) and the Treaty of Berlin (1878),
which imposed limitations on its sovereignty and resulted in further territorial losses.

Military Weakness: The Ottoman Empire faced military weaknesses, including outdated tactics
and technology, which were exposed during conflicts with European powers and nationalist
movements.
Legacy and Dissolution: The challenges faced by the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century set the
stage for its eventual dissolution in the early 20th century, following World War I.

Signs of a Revolution

Revolution is one of the most importantevents in the history of human society (Amman,
1962, Pettee, 1938). Revolutionis: “change, effected by the use of violence, in government,
and/or regime, and/or society. By society is meant the consciousness and the mechanics of
communal solidarity, which may be tribal, peasant, kinship, national, and so on; by regime is
meant the constitutional structure-democracy, oligarchy, monarchy; and by government is meant
specific political and administrative institutions” (Stone, 1966, p.159, original Italics).This
definition allows to distinguish between the seizure of power that leads to a major
restructuring of government or society with the replacement of the former elite by a new one,
and the coup d’état involving no more than a change of ruling personnel by violence or threat
of violence. In the 1960s, social scientists at Princeton Universityhave changed the word
"revolution" with the concept of "internal war"that is defined as any attempt to alter state
policy, rulers, or institutions by the use of violence in society, where violent competition is not
the norm and where well-defined institutional patterns exist (Paret, 1961; Rosenau, 1964).

Determinants of revolution can be:

 preconditions (long-run underlying causes), which create a potentially explosive situation.

 precipitants (immediate, incidental factors), which trigger the outbreak and may be
nonrecurrent, personal, and accidental. Brinton (1938) proposes a series of universals to
explain the great Western revolutions (English, French, American, and Russian), such as:
economically advancing society, growing class and status antagonisms, alienated intelligent,
psychologically insecure and politically inept ruling class, and governmental financial crisis.
Eckstein (1964, 1965) arguessome conditions of revolution, moving from intellectual, to
economic (increasing poverty, rapid growth, imbalance between production and
distribution, etc.), to social (resentment, conflict due to the rise of new social classes, etc.)
and to political factors (bad government, oppressive government, etc.).

Indicators that might suggest the possibility of a revolution:

Social Unrest: Increasing levels of social unrest, including protests, demonstrations, and civil
disobedience, can be an early sign of a potential revolution.

Economic Inequality: Widening wealth gaps, high levels of poverty, and limited economic
opportunities can create a sense of injustice and discontent, which can fuel revolutionary
sentiments.

Political Corruption: Rampant corruption, lack of transparency, and perceived illegitimacy of the
ruling government can erode public trust and spark revolutionary movements.

Repressive Government Response: A government responding to dissent with repression,

censorship, or violence may escalate tensions and push the community closer to a revolutionary
breaking point.

Mass Mobilization: The emergence of organized opposition groups, unions, or grassroots

movements mobilizing large numbers of people around shared grievances and demands.

Loss of Faith in Institutions: Widespread disillusionment with political, judicial, and social
institutions can undermine the stability of a community and fuel revolutionary sentiments.

Radicalization and Militancy: The rise of radical ideologies, armed resistance groups, or violent
movements advocating for revolutionary change.

International Influence: External actors providing support, resources, or ideological inspiration to

revolutionary movements within the community.

Fragmentation of Loyalties: Deep divisions and conflicts along ideological, ethnic, religious, or
socioeconomic lines, leading to the disintegration of social cohesion and the potential for
revolutionary movements.

Failure of Reforms: Repeated attempts at reform by the ruling government that fall short of
addressing fundamental grievances and demands, leading to a loss of faith in the reform process
and potential for revolutionary change.
It is important to note that these signs do not guarantee a revolution will occur, and the specific
dynamics of each community can vary significantly.

Conclusion

Revolution is a systematic process in society that can generate a structural change over
time and space. A current and distinct form of revolution, not included in previous
studies, is terrorism: “an attractive strategy to groups of different ideological persuasions
who challenge a nation's authority. …to dramatize a cause… to gain popular support, to
provoke regime violence, to inspire followers” (Crenshaw, 1981, p.389)

Brief overview

The 18th century in Europe was a transformative period marked by significant social, economic,
and political conditions that set the stage for two major revolutions—the French Revolution and
the Industrial Revolution. In this analysis, I have explored perspectives on the social, economic,
and political landscape of 18th-century Europe on the eve of these dual revolutions. By
examining these views, we can gain insights into the prevailing social hierarchies, the influence
of Enlightenment ideas, economic inequalities, the agrarian society, the rise of urbanization,
mercantilism and colonialism, the prevalence of absolutist monarchies, growing political
dissatisfaction, intellectual and cultural developments, and the impact of Enlightenment salons.
Understanding these conditions is crucial for comprehending the catalysts and dynamics that
propelled Europe into an era of revolutionary change.

Social Hierarchies: European society in the 18th century was characterized by a hierarchical
structure, with nobility and clergy comprising the privileged classes, while the majority of the
population, including peasants and urban workers, faced social and economic challenges (Hunt,
2004).

Enlightenment Ideas: The Enlightenment era greatly influenced European thought during the
18th century, emphasizing reason, individual rights, and political and social reforms (Israel,
2011).
Economic Inequality: Europe experienced significant economic disparities, with the nobility and
wealthy bourgeoisie controlling wealth and power, while the majority faced poverty and limited
opportunities (Mokyr, 2009).

Agricultural Society: The majority of Europeans lived in rural areas and were engaged in
subsistence agriculture, utilizing traditional farming methods that hindered productivity and
economic development (Clark, 2007).

Urbanization: The growth of cities and the rise of urban centers played a pivotal role in the social
and economic changes of the 18th century. Urban areas became hubs of trade, manufacturing,
and intellectual exchange (Le Roy Ladurie, 1994).

Mercantilism and Colonialism: European nations pursued mercantilist policies, seeking wealth
through overseas colonies and trade. Colonialism contributed to capital accumulation and
resource exploitation (Inikori, 2003).

Absolutist Monarchies: Many European countries were governed by absolutist monarchies,

where monarchs held significant power and controlled political and economic systems.
Dissatisfaction with this system laid the groundwork for revolutionary movements (Doyle,
2002).

Political Dissatisfaction: The 18th century witnessed growing discontent with absolute
monarchies, as people sought political participation, civil liberties, and constitutional reforms
(Hampson, 1992).

Intellectual and Cultural Developments: The Enlightenment era fostered critical thinking,
scientific progress, and the questioning of traditional authority, contributing to the revolutionary
spirit (Gay, 1964).

Prevalence of Enlightenment Salons: Intellectual and social gatherings known as salons provided
a platform for the exchange of ideas among the educated elite. Salons played a crucial role in
disseminating Enlightenment ideals and fostering revolutionary sentiment (Goodman, 1995).

Conclusion
In conclusion, the 18th century in Europe was characterized by a complex interplay of social,
economic, and political factors that laid the groundwork for the French Revolution and the
Industrial Revolution. The existing social hierarchies, economic disparities, and political
dissatisfaction created a fertile ground for revolutionary ideas to take root. The Enlightenment
movement played a pivotal role in challenging traditional authority and advocating for political
and social reforms. These multifaceted conditions and dynamics set the stage for the
transformative revolutions that would reshape Europe and have lasting global consequences.
Understanding the social, economic, and political conditions of the 18th century provides
valuable insights into the forces that drove these revolutions and their profound impact on
European history.

REFERENCES

H. Kissinger, Simon & Schuster, 1994), Diplomacy (New York: 78–102

Clark G. (2014). “The Industrial Revolution.” In: Aghion P. and Durlauf S. (eds.), Handbook of
Economic Growth, Volume 2, North-Holland, pp. 217-262.

North D.C. and Weingast B.R. (1989). “Constitutions and Commitment: Evolution of Institutions
Governing Public Choice in Seventeenth Century England.” In: Journal of Economic History,
49(4), pp. 803-832.

Mokyr J. (1974). “The Industrial Revolution in the Low Countries in the first half of the
nineteenth century: a comparative case study.” In: The Journal of Economic History, 34(2), pp.
365–391.

J. Leonhard, (2008) Bellizismus und Nation: Kriegsdeutung und Nationsbestimmung in Europa

und den Vereinigten Staaten 1750–1914 (Munich: Oldenbourg,

Mokyr J. (1976). “Growing up and the industrial revolution in Europe”. In: Explorations in
Economic history, 13(4), pp. 371-396.

Buttar, Prit (2014). Collision of Empires: The War on the Eastern Front in 1914. Bloomsbury
Publishing. p. 67
Mokyr J. (1977). “Demand vs. Supply in the Industrial Revolution.” In: Journal of Economic
History, 37(4), pp. 981–1008. Reprinted in Mokyr J. (ed.) (1985), pp.97-118.

J. Boli and G.M. Thomas (1999)(eds.), Constructing World Culture: International

Nongovernmental Organizations since 1875 (Stanford: Stanford University Press

Mokyr J. (1980). “Industrialization and poverty in Ireland and the Netherlands.” In: Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 10(3), pp.429–458.

J. Paulmann, (2000) Pomp und Politik. Monarchenbegegnungen in Europa zwischen Ancien

Régime und Erstem Weltkrieg (Paderborn: Schöningh.

Mokyr J. (ed.) (1985). The economics of the industrial revolution. London: Allen and Unwin.

A. Zamoyski,(2015) Phantom Terror: Political Paranoia and the Creation of the Modern State
(New York: Basic Books.

Mokyr J. (1987). “Has the Industrial Revolution been crowded out? Some reflections on Crafts
and Williamson.” In: Explorations in Economic History, 24(3), pp.293–319

Daudin G. O'Rourke K.H. and Prados de la Escosura L. (2010). “Trade and empire.” In:
Broadberry S. and O’Rourke K.H. (eds.), The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe,
Volume 1: 1700–1870, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96-121.

Coşgel, M. M., Miceli, T. J., and Rubin, J. (2012a) “The political economy of massprinting:
legitimacy and technological change in the Ottoman Empire,”Journal of Comparative Economics
40:357–71

Karaian, Jason; Sonnad, Nikhil (2019). "All the people, places, and things called the 'sick man of
Europe' over the past 160 years". Quartz.

Badem, Candan (2010). The Ottoman Crimean War, 1853-1856. citing Eckstädt, 1887. Boston:
Brill. pp. 68–69.