The Modern Period, c. 1750 to c. 1914: 5.3: The First Industrial Revolution (Sources 1–7)

Tradition describes a roaring take-off between 1770 and 1830, driven by a handful of technological innovations, such as textile machinery and James Watt’s improved steam engines; and, hey presto, Britain is “the workshop of the world”. (Source 3)

They depended on earlier advances in iron technology that enabled that industry to produce, in quantity, better and cheaper iron goods such as components for the new machines or for structural use. (Source 3)

They depended on earlier advances in iron technology that enabled that industry to produce, in quantity, better and cheaper iron goods such as components for the new machines or for structural use. (Source 3)

Next, the growth of thriving rural industries, supplementing farm incomes, which laid the basis for a skilled industrial workforce. (Source 3)

Next, the growth of thriving rural industries, supplementing farm incomes, which laid the basis for a skilled industrial workforce. (Source 3)

Next, the growth of thriving rural industries, supplementing farm incomes, which laid the basis for a skilled industrial workforce. (Source 3)

It also developed a highly specialised workforce, speeding up the development of new products and processes. (Source 3)

Why did the same conditions not lead to an Industrial Revolution at the same time, or even earlier, in Japan, in the Yangzi Delta, or in Bengal? (Source 6)

Why did tiny England, with a population of around 6 million in 1760, achieve an Industrial Revolution, when Japan alone had about 31 million people living in a sophisticated market economy, and China had nearly 270 million? (Source 6)

Why did tiny England, with a population of around 6 million in 1760, achieve an Industrial Revolution, when Japan alone had about 31 million people living in a sophisticated market economy, and China had nearly 270 million? (Source 6)

In addition, it had the massive, largely empty land area of the Americas relatively close at hand, to lift for a time the ecological constraint with a continent-sized flood of food and raw materials. (Source 6)

In addition, it had the massive, largely empty land area of the Americas relatively close at hand, to lift for a time the ecological constraint with a continent-sized flood of food and raw materials. (Source 6)

These geographic advantages, rather than differences in innovative potential, explain English success and Asian failure. (Source 6)

[A]lthough both China and Europe experienced long periods of unification and fragmentation, empire was the norm in China, while division prevailed more often in Europe. (Source 7)

[A]lthough both China and Europe experienced long periods of unification and fragmentation, empire was the norm in China, while division prevailed more often in Europe. (Source 7)

The rise of capital-intensive methods of production in Europe was the unintended consequence of persistent political strife. (Source 7)

The rise of capital-intensive methods of production in Europe was the unintended consequence of persistent political strife. (Source 7)

It was only after 1750 that the advantages of machine-based, capital-intensive methods of production became apparent. (Source 7)

Before that time the recipes for growth of the Qing emperors were commonsense everywhere: promote the expansion of agriculture, keep taxes low, and do not interfere with internal commerce. (Source 7)

Before that time the recipes for growth of the Qing emperors were commonsense everywhere: promote the expansion of agriculture, keep taxes low, and do not interfere with internal commerce. (Source 7)

China’s vast and stable empire was the source of its millennium-long prosperity, a linkage presented in Chinese historical texts in terms of the state promoting prosperity in order to sustain a vast and stable empire. (Source 7)

China’s vast and stable empire was the source of its millennium-long prosperity, a linkage presented in Chinese historical texts in terms of the state promoting prosperity in order to sustain a vast and stable empire. (Source 7)

China’s vast and stable empire was the source of its millennium-long prosperity, a linkage presented in Chinese historical texts in terms of the state promoting prosperity in order to sustain a vast and stable empire. (Source 7)

Together these two observations make it impossible to presume that China failed either because its economic system was incapable of development or because it was hobbled by overarching cultural, environmental, or political factors. (Source 7)

Together these two observations make it impossible to presume that China failed either because its economic system was incapable of development or because it was hobbled by overarching cultural, environmental, or political factors. (Source 7)