The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914: Global Connections and Comparisons

Blackwell History of the World

by C.A. Bayly

This thematic history of the world from 1780 to the onset of the First World War reveals that the world was far more ‘globalised’ at this time than is commonly thought.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World History, Politics, The World, 19th Century, European History

568 pages, Hardcover

First published December 2, 2003

About the author

Christopher Alan Bayly was a British historian specializing in British Imperial, Indian, and global history. A graduate of the University of Oxford, he was the Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial and Naval History at the University of Cambridge. He was knighted in 2007 for achievements as a historian.

Reviews

[Sense of History]

Impressive study by its erudition and its global view on the very extended 19th century: there's a lot of attention to the evolutions on different continents and their interaction, so this is indeed a global history. But at the same time it's the major weakness of the book: the interaction is pushed forward as the innovative element, but not convincingly demonstrated.

Almost every chapter begins with a rather radical critique on earlier historical studies about this period, a reference to recent literature that indicates a shift in view, an elaboration of a new look on things, but not very convincing, to end up with curiously relativist remarks. For instance: the thesis of the Western lead is systematically undermined but then suddenly put forward as a conclusion.
There's limited attention to culture, the focus is on economic and above all institutional factors (the development of the Nation-state). But strikingly: several times the military-technological argument is put forward as decisive in Western dominance. Only the chapter on change and continuity can really convince: the 19th century was not as revolutionary as it is assumed!

This is definitely not a standard work. It's primarily an academic study in which the state of the historiography is discussed. Of course that's a merit on its own. (rating 2.5 stars)

[Alexander Theofanidis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Βιβλίο δύσκολο και απαιτητικό (διαβάζοντάς το συνειδητοποιείς ότι δεν γνωρίζεις πόσα... δεν γνωρίζεις) που ζητά απο τον αναγνώστη να ανατρέχει συνεχώς σε πηγές, αλλά ανταμείβει με την εμβριθή του (αν και... συνεπτυγμένη) ανάλυση του μακρού 19ου αιώνα (1780-1914). Συστήνεται ανεπιφύλακτα, αλλά πριν το ξεκινήσετε, καλού κακού, διαβάστε αρκετή παγκόσμια ιστορία...

Το δυνατό σημείο του βιβλίου είναι η "παγκόσμια" άποψή του για τον "μακρύ 19ο" αιώνα: δίνεται μεγάλη προσοχή στις εξελίξεις σε διαφορετικές ηπείρους και στην αλληλεπίδρασή τους, κάτι που συνιστά όντως "παγκοσμιοποιημένη" αντιμετώπιση της ιστορίας, ωστόσο το κατά πόσο πείθεται ο αναγνώστης για την αλληλεπίδραση ως καινοτομία στην ιστορία είναι άλλο ζήτημα...

Κυριαρχεί η σχετικά... επικριτική κριτική της αναθεωρητικής ματιάς του Bayly σε προηγούμενες ιστορικές μελέτες για την περίοδο, δεν λείπουν και σχετικιστικά σχόλια που όμως περιέργως επέχουν συμπερασματικό ρόλο, ενώ η κύρια εστίαση είναι στο οικονομικό και θεσμικό στοιχείο της αναλυόμενης εποχής και πώς οι τάξεις της ελίτ ανά τον κόσμο πέτυχαν με την αξιοποίηση των αλλαγών/προόδων στην τεχνολογία και την κοινωνική οργάνωση να αναδιαμορφώσουν τις ιεραρχίες, χωρίς να να υποκύψουν στις δυνάμεις της τεχνολογικής/οικονομικής (και απαίτησης για κοινωνική) αλλαγής, χωρίς την παγκόσμια επανάσταση που ευαγγελίζονταν/περίμεναν/υπόσχονταν οι θεωρητικοί κάθε μορφής κοινωνικής αλλαγής/ανατροπής. Πειστικότερο όλων, το κεφάλαιο για την αλλαγή και τη συνέχεια:

(drumrolls)

... ο 19ος αιώνας δεν ήταν τόσο επαναστατικός όσο θεωρείτο!

[Marc Lamot · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a book that is a must-read when you're interested in the debate on the "Great Divergence", the discussion about how and why Europe succeeded in dominating the world from the 18th Century on. Bayly is very revisionist, often rightly so, but this work also has many flaws.
See my review in my Sense-of-History-account: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Thomas Ray]

D295 .B28 2004 Memorial Library

[Geoffrey Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

The last 30 or 40 years resemble the late 19th Century in that barriers to trade and movements of people and capital have diminished because of technological change and political initiatives by global powers. With this similarity in mind, C.A. Bayly's The Birth of the Modern World makes for fascinating reading. In this wide-reaching history of impressive geographical and theoretical scope, Bayly synthesizes the latest research on such topics as the causes of the industrial revolution and the rise of nationalism, weighing in authoritatively with cross-cultural comparisons to support his arguments.

One of the most interesting themes of the book was how elite classes in many parts of the world managed to use changes in technology and social organization to refashion new hierarchies, rather than succumbing to the forces of technological and economic change that many contemporaries expected to revolutionize the world. The pundits who tell us that technological change and market competition are "flattening" the world and threatening the global distribution of wealth and power would do well to consider how this theme applies to the process of globalization today. While innovations in areas like social media may have made it easier for social movements to coordinate resistance, technological change has also reduced the cost of surveillance, coercion, and power projection in important ways - then as now.

As previous readers have said, this book is somewhat dense. If you aren't familiar with some of the debates that Bayly addresses, you might find much of this book to be esoteric and boring. But if you're interested in globalization, economic and social history, and international relations, I would definitely recommend it.

[Joshua · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing read. Bayly synthesizes an astounding amount of information. There's an interesting emphasis on warfare and it seems like throughout the book he emphasizes the strength of ideas (he sees the idea of class consciousness as more powerful than any real class consciousness, similarly the idea of popular sovereignty is powerful even if it was never widely implemented during the 19th century).

[Robert Jeens · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is self-consciously a book of global history, in which the author tries to bring together historical trends and regional events to show the connections and similarities, but also the differences, between them. It covers the period from the beginning of the French Revolution to World War One, which “ripped apart the contemporary system of states and empires”. This was an era of increasing European dominance of the world; however, in Bayley’s telling, events and ideas from the “core” of Western Europe radiated out and in turn events such as the great mid-nineteenth century rebellions in India and China radiated back. It was not only European influence taking over the world, but a system of negotiated meanings bringing the world into more unity. He looks at the state, politics, economics, religion, ideologies, and bodily practices such as what people ate, how they dressed, and how they managed relationships within families.
The title needs some explanation. What exactly is “modern”, as contested a word or idea as any in historiography. During the period in question, social, economic and ideological systems became more uniform but at the same time also more complex. Thus, by the end of the period, large numbers of peoples, especially in the West, believed themselves to be living in a modern age, consisting of a way of thinking, living, and technology. There were different variants on this, and not everybody agreed it was a good thing - some were very opposed - but it was an actually widespread phenomenon.
The spirit of Eric Hobsbawm’s four-volume “Age of…” series hangs over this book, as does E.P. Thompson. Those materialist explanations have been supplanted by newer ones that focus on discourse and representation, and the author tries to bridge the gap. He claims economic, political, social, and ideological forces moved in tandem with each other, influencing each other, and taking the lead at different times. He rejects the postmodernist idea of no grand narratives in history, and I agree with him. When postmodernists say we need to study the marginalized, they take the grand narratives for granted and use them to construct their own moralizing counter meta-narratives. Generally, they are studying secondary characteristics and acting as if these were more important than they really were. Anyway, Bayley’s approach is to find an updated middle ground, using examples and evidence from all over the world to make his selected points. It works well.
In 1780, probably 70% of humanity lived in agrarian empires and about 80% of those people were peasants. There was great variety among and between the empires in what people believed, ate, wore, and methods of subsistence. Universal, enlightened emperors reigned over people of many different faiths in very different ways with variegated sovereignty. While commercial societies in Western Europe and North America were more intense and industrious, these also existed in Japan, and parts of China and the Middle East. There was trade in slaves, tobacco, tea, sugar, spices and elite status goods. Outside these systems lived peoples in non-state societies, often in forests or mountains, and traded with and raided their more settled neighbors. Religions were based more on rituals than belief.
Contemporaries in the 19th Century saw the big changes as being industrialization, urbanization, the rise of the nation-state, and the age of European empires. Bayley agrees that “the critical historical change in the nineteenth century was the shift of the most powerful states and societies towards urban industrialism.” Capitalism took over the world. The state was rationalized, expanded, and became more effective and intrusive. But that is not all. Most people at the end of the period still did not live in cities. Even where they did, there was no “working class consciousness.” Radicals preached, but most working class people were focused on bread and butter issues rather than the dictatorship of the proletariat or the abolition of private property. Commercial, professional middle classes rose, and not just in Europe and North America. Because these phenomenon were new, they were of intense interest but they were more powerful as ideas and symbols and for the powerful political reactions they spawned. On the other hand, all of these changes accelerated as the end of the period drew near, causing major conflicts within and between the powers. Finally, the major World Religions, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism actually increased their numbers of followers and began to resemble each other more closely – as opposed to what followers of Marx or liberal secularists hoped or believed.
The rise of the nation state and the age of European empires likewise had contradictory and conflicting results. In the new nation-states, nationalism spurred imperialism and the demarcation between majority and minority populations. Still, at the end of the period, most of the old universalist empires still stood. European empires ruled over much of the world by 1914. However, this European dominance was often “partial and temporary.” The empires were different and the places were different, but often a colony was governed by very few Europeans and maybe just a few railway lines. In this context, the Europeans could only govern through negotiations with intermediaries and with a light touch. This European imperialism spurred new connections and ideologies among peoples but also new senses of difference between peoples as a result. Income disparities between China and Europe were perhaps two times in 1780 but ten times by 1914. By the end of the period, also, most indigenous, non-settled societies had been either removed, wiped out, or otherwise subjugated.
The century between 1815 and 1914 has been characterized as a long peace, and it was, as far as major European states were not marching armies across the continent at each other, but as soon as you zoom the lens out, it changes. There were the Taiping Rebellion, Indian Mutiny, American Civil War, and more. All these had things in common as well as differences and all had ramifications beyond their borders. The author shows how the French Revolution impacted the slave revolution in Haiti and the independence of the Spanish colonies, as well as the already fractious politics in places like the Ottoman Empire, the Mughal Empire, and China, which were riven by their own internal problems. Unlike in old-fashioned histories, this is not portrayed as Europe merely impacting the world, but the internal factors in other societies are evaluated as well.
There was such a thing as Western exceptionalism but it came more from a range of different things rather than any one thing, so that parts of most of these things existed in other places. For example, the Muslim world and East Asia also had schools of practical thinking based upon evidential reasoning, so that Western science and enlightenment thinking had parallels. However, these actually were different and revolutionary and were seen so by indigenous thinkers at the time. Further, in terms of the law codes, respect for property, and the growth of civil society, the West was exceptional. However, as history has shown, these advantages were only temporary.
It is true that European colonization interrupted indigenous reform efforts but exactly what would have been the results of these cannot be known anywhere except in Japan, which did reform in response to Western imperialism and through its own traditions as well and managed to defeat a major European power in 1905.
This book aptly illustrates how the whole idea of cultural appropriation is anti-historical, made by people with no idea how history has actually progressed. The main theme of the book is borrowings from every culture to every other and shows how the world became so much richer for it. I used to call myself a left-wing person, but when I started to hear about cultural appropriation, I thought, if that is what left is, I am not left. Should the Japanese have “stayed in their lane” and just continued to wear kimonos? The eighteenth century French passion for Chinois needs to be apologized for? Only Indians can make curry? Now I am a centrist.
Another point, as he says, the reason he finished the book in 1914 is because World War One really was an epochal event that changed everything. However, had it not happened, who knows how long the old empires and lifestyles and classes might have lasted?
You should not read this book if you are not already broadly familiar with the events discussed, because he doesn’t offer a narrative of them. This would be a good textbook for a course with a good professor who is lecturing to fill in the blanks.

[JoséMaría BlancoWhite · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although not for popular consumption this book isn't so bad and mean towards the average mortal taxpayer. One thing is clear though: the author didn't like the way the world progressed in the long 1780-1914 period described. Too many people got hurt on the way, it seems. And always after some encounter with the white man from the West, first Europe, then the English-speaking world. The author seems to have his own advice to the world, to save pain and misery: Dont't move and don't do anything, or you may hurt somebody or get hurt. But then the Zulus, the Tasmanians and so many peoples who pop up in this book and have their place in its sun for once, would still be today doing their own thing, whatever that may be. Because Mr. Bayly does't say what that could be: perhaps their history prior to the encounter vis a vis the white man wasn´t that interesting to tell after all. Of course being massacred, invaded, oppressed... it's only fair that them poor peoples should have a few lines dedicated to in any world history book. But it's also a conclusive statement that, aside from being pushed around and bossed, they didn't contribute a thing to the progress of the world.

Oh, about the book, which I bought because Mr. Niall Ferguson mentioned it was a "masterpiece", it is a bit confusing and there's no narrative, no single story or message to carry through. I remembered many times Paul Johnson's REAL masterpiece of world history, Modern Times, now that is one story that covers a lot of stuff in one single narrative, not a chaotic mishmash of names and places without a thread.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

C. A. Bayly’s The Birth of the Modern World, 1780–1914 (2004) is an ambitious and wide-ranging study that challenges Eurocentric narratives of modernity by demonstrating the interconnectedness of global developments during the long nineteenth century. As part of the Blackwell History of the World series, the book synthesizes political, economic, social, and cultural transformations across different regions, arguing that modernity was not solely a European creation but a complex, multi-centered process shaped by interactions between societies.


Bayly’s central thesis is that modernity was both global and contingent, emerging through processes of diffusion, adaptation, and resistance rather than through a singular, linear progression originating in Europe. He critiques the traditional historiography that portrays modernization as a primarily Western phenomenon, instead emphasizing the role of Asian, African, and American societies in shaping global transformations. He highlights the importance of indigenous agency, showing how local elites, reformers, and revolutionaries engaged with and reshaped modern ideas and institutions.


One of the book’s greatest strengths lies in its comprehensive scope. Bayly integrates a vast range of historical developments, from industrialization and political revolutions to the spread of new ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism, and socialism. He also gives considerable attention to cultural and intellectual exchanges, illustrating how ideas circulated through networks of trade, empire, and migration. His discussion of religion is particularly noteworthy, as he argues that religious movements were not simply remnants of a premodern past but actively contributed to the making of the modern world.


The book is structured thematically rather than regionally, allowing Bayly to draw connections across different societies. However, this approach occasionally results in a somewhat dense and overwhelming narrative, as the breadth of material covered can make it difficult to trace specific arguments. While his comparative method is effective in demonstrating global interconnectedness, some readers may find the book’s extensive detail challenging to navigate.


Bayly’s engagement with historiographical debates is another of the book’s strengths. He critiques deterministic models of modernization, such as Marxist and Weberian frameworks, and instead advocates for a more dynamic and flexible approach that accounts for historical contingency. His emphasis on the role of violence, coercion, and imperial power in shaping modernity also offers a corrective to overly optimistic accounts of progress.


Despite its many strengths, The Birth of the Modern World is not without its limitations. Some critics have pointed out that while Bayly successfully deconstructs Eurocentrism, his analysis occasionally lacks the depth needed to fully explore the specificities of non-European experiences. Additionally, while he emphasizes global connections, there are moments where his discussion leans more heavily on European influences than his thesis might suggest.


Overall, The Birth of the Modern World is a landmark contribution to global history. Bayly’s work is essential reading for scholars interested in modernity, empire, and transnational history. Its breadth and depth make it a valuable resource, even if its dense nature requires careful engagement. By situating modernity within a truly global framework, Bayly reshapes our understanding of the nineteenth century, demonstrating that the modern world was forged through complex and often contested interactions between societies across the globe.

GPT

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5.

Yazarın temel argümanı, 20. yüzyılda "küreselleşme" denilen dönem başlamadan çok daha önce, daha 16-17. yüzyılda fikirlerin, sosyal ve siyasal düzenler ile ekonomilerin karşılıklı bir etkileşim içerisinde şekillendiği. Devrimler devrimleri, devletler devletleri, toplumlar toplumları belirledi. Bu belirlemeyi sadece unsurların birbirine daha uyumlu hale gelmesi olarak da anlamamak gerekir: Örneğin, sömürgeleştirilme tehdidini hisseden Japonya'nın aksi yöne doğru ilerleyişi, geleneklerini farklılaştırması da bu harekete verilmiş bir tepkidir.

Bu yaklaşımı Wallerstein ortaya atmıştı ancak kendi çalışmasında etkileşimleri çoğunlukla ekonomiyle sınırlı olarak incelemişti. Bayly insan toplumlarının gelişiminde ekonomi ya da ideolojiler gibi tek bir belirleyen aramak yerine, bunların sürekli bir etkileşim içinde birbirini biçimlendirdiğini kabul etmemizi öneriyor. Bu gelişme sürecinde bir toplumun diğerini geride bırakması, etkili insan öldürme teknolojileri, muhasebe ve yönetim teknikleri, uygun siyasal yapı, yeterli yeraltı kaynağı, uygun coğrafi konum, verimli üretim ilişkilerinin kurulması, rakiplerin birbirlerini tükettikleri bir savaşta güçsüz düşmesi vs. vs. gibi sayısız faktörün uygun bir konjonktürde bir araya gelmesiyle oluyor.

Âlâ. Bir tarihçiden böyle demesi beklenir. Ancak böyle deyince teoriyi kovalamış oluyoruz. Toplumların dönüşümünde en etkili olan yapıları diğerlerinden ayıramaz olduğumuz bir teorisiz tarih çorbasının içinde kalıyoruz. Kitabın en zayıf olduğu konu da zaten bu. Verdiği onca tarihsel bilgiyi bir arada tutan bir teorik çerçeve yok. Her şeyin her şeyi belirlediği bir eşit vektörler, olaylar, dönüşümler geçidinin arasında baş dönmesi yaşıyoruz. En elle tutulur çerçeveyi modern dünyada her şeyin "eşbiçimli" hale gelmeye başladığı fikri oluşturuyor. Bu da bir analiz aracı değil, bir tespit olmakla kalıyor.

Türkçe çeviri: Çok ama çok kötü. Bir okur ve çevirmen olarak iki kere üzüldüm, öfkelendim. Bu konuyu daha sonra bloguma yazmak istiyorum.

[Ramil Kazımov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Modern Dünyanın Doğuşu kitabı bizim anladığımız şekliyle dünyanın nasıl oluştuğunu konu ediyor. Yazar kitapda birçok tarihi teoriden söz ediyor ama kendi anlatısını sanki her türlü teorinin üzerinde görmüş (en azından benim anladığım şekliyle).

Yazar modern dünyanı "yapılandırmaya" 1780 yıllarından başlamış. Yazarın dediğine göre (ki gerçek payı olduğu kuşkusuz) her ne kadar adı geçen yıl dönemine kadar dünyamız henüz homojenikleşmeden ve de teknikleşme/bürokrasileşmeden (çok fazla olmasa da) uzak ise de 1780 yıllarında (özellikle Fransız Devrimi) Avrupa medeniyeti adlandırdığımız kültürel oluşum dünyamızı istila etmeye başlamış oldu. Yazar bahsettiği dönemi dört hisseye bölmüş: 1780-1820, 1820-1860, 1860-1890 ve 1890-1914. Adı geçen dönemler boynca dünya tarihinde baş veren ve dünyanın farklı yerlerini birbirine bağlayan (özellikle) ticari ve politik olayları anlatmış.

Benden önce yorum yapmış arkadaşın şikayetine katılmıyorum. Zira kitap aslında hiç de fena tercüme edilmemiş. Çevirmen elinden gelenin en iyisini yapmış bana göre. Belki okuması biraz zor olabilir ama bu da çevirmenin kusurundan ziyade kitabın kendi yapısından olabilir. Zira birçok yerde yazar aynı satır içinde farklı ülkeler konusunda art arda bilgi vermiş. Objektivlik konusuna gelince, kendimi benden bilgili birinin hatasını düzeltecek kadar akıllı sanmam, ama yazarın objektiflikden saptığını düşünmüyorum. Özellikle yerli halkların küreselleşen dünyada Avrupa modernleşmesinden mustarip olduğunu anlatan bölümü okumak insanı fena burkuyor.

Modern dünyanın tekdüzeleşmesinin tarihini öğrenmek isteyen ve de öğrenecek sabrı olan herkesin okuması gereken eser..

[Christoffer Garland · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pioneer in the world history tradition, C.A. Bayly’s monumental The birth of the modern world is justly hailed as a masterpiece. It reveals the striking ways in which the world was connected even in what is usually described as early modern times. In everything from the means of production, to political currents to the way people dressed Bayly deftly illustrates how the world was interconnected and when it was not. Anyone interested in the period will learn plenty from this book. Its only flaw is how dense the book can feel at times. Despite this minor nitpick this is a highly recommended book.

[Gabriel Ángel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Estupendo para una historia universal desde varias perspectivas y con análisis crítico de la historiografía previa.

[Garrett Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very ambitious project that I felt was executed pretty well, but overall this was just a pretty mid read.

[Lauren S]

ITS FINALLY OVER. NO MORE BAYLY READINGS THIS YEAR!!!!!!!

[Leonids · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a note at the start of this review, I started this book at the second section (the book has four sections, each comprising close to 120 pages), which began with 1815, as this book is monstrously long and I was reading for a specific period, not just for fun.

This book is, honestly, really good. The last book I read on modern history was Hobsbawm, which was decidedly less interesting and ambitious. This isn't a 'Europe plus the unimportant bits' history, this is decidedly a global and thematic history with an active interest in engaging with the historiographical developments of the period.
In terms of how readable this book is, however, it varies. The structure of the segments and chapters is good, and most of the sentences are readable. But fairly frequently the author delves into overly complicated language or undefined more technical terms (there was one which I only recognised due to my tutor mentioning it in a tutorial on a similar topic last term).

That said, as long as you have a search engine to hand to look up some of the more unfamiliar words, I would wholeheartedly recommend this book as a moderately challenging if incredibly long take on modern European history. It's a pretty recent work (published in 2004, one of the most modern texts I've read in my degree) and challenges a lot of assumptions previous historians made.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Along with Tony Judt's Post War, the best history book I have read in years. What is most interesting is how he shows how global the world was in this period and how much of what happened in Europe was the result of much wider forces. How events like the American War of Independence, French Revolution, American Civil War had global causes and consequences. I don't think any other book has so changed my view of 19th century history and it is very well written, cogent, convincing and very well backed by research data, reference and woven together into an amazing tapestry of great learning and breadth of perspective.

[Raully · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very thought-provoking global history of the "long" nineteenth century, even perhaps worthy of toppling Hobsbawm's masterpiece. Two of the best aspects for me: making causal connections between Asia and North America, often with Europe moving back and forth between them; and his theory of "empires of religion" has sparked new lines of thought about the my own investigations into the internationalist and ecumenical movement. I need to think through this some more.

[AskHistorians]

The book, written by someone who is not a specialist in Western Europe, shows the myriad "modernities" that started emerging in the long 19th century and showing how the Western, eventually dominant one, interacted with them. It also raises the issue of this age as the first true globalization.

[Anna P · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this if you want to brush up on world history. Book attempts a comparative approach to world history and rejects euro-centric readings of culture and development.

[Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

C. A. Bayly nimmt sich in seinem umfangreichen Werk das "lange 19. Jahrhundert" vor – eine europäische Epochenbezeichnung –, um daraus eine Globalgeschichte zu entwickeln. Sein zentrales Anliegen ist es, zu zeigen, dass die Moderne nicht allein ein europäisches Projekt war, das der Rest der Welt passiv über sich ergehen ließ, sondern dass sich die großen Akteure der Zeit – Europa, die USA, das Osmanische Reich, Persien, Indien, China und Japan – in wesentlichen Zügen gemeinsam auf den Weg in die Moderne machten oder machen wollten.

Diese Perspektive ist programmatisch. Bayly interessiert sich weniger für nationale Sonderwege, Machtasymmetrien oder Zwangslagen als für übergreifende Entwicklungslinien, Verflechtungen und Parallelen. Er erzählt bewusst keine klassische Chronik politischer Ereignisse, sondern eine Geschichte von langfristigen sozialen, kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Dynamiken. Dabei greift er auf eine Vielzahl theoretischer Ansätze zurück, etwa Jan de Vries’ These von der Revolution des Fleißes, Sanjay Subrahmanyams Überlegungen zu chiliastischen Bewegungen, Arjun Appadurais Konzept kultureller Aneignung oder Ernest Gellners Idee der großen Sesshaftwerdung.

In Baylys Darstellung nähern sich Menschen weltweit einander an – in Konsumgewohnheiten, Kleidung, politischen Organisationsformen und religiösen Deutungen. Nationalismus erscheint nicht als europäischer Export, sondern als globales Phänomen mit lokalen Vorläufern; Religion spielt eine weit größere Rolle, als klassische Modernisierungserzählungen nahelegen; die industrielle Revolution wiederum wirkt weniger als singulärer Wendepunkt denn als Teil eines breiteren Prozesses ökonomischer und sozialer Intensivierung.

Um die Gleichzeitigkeit und Eigenständigkeit nicht-europäischer Entwicklungen zu betonen, tritt aber ein anderer zentraler Faktor auffällig in den Hintergrund: das 19. Jahrhundert als Zeitalter massiver europäischer militärischer, politischer und wirtschaftlicher Dominanz. Kolonialismus wird kaum explizit thematisiert; Indien erscheint fast wie ein eigenständig handelnder Akteur, während die Rolle des britischen Empire erstaunlich blass bleibt. Der Taiping-Aufstand erhält mehr Raum als die beiden Opiumkriege – eine Gewichtung, die weniger durch historische Relevanz als durch das übergeordnete Narrativ erklärbar scheint.

Baylys Ansatz könnte sein: Er will keine weitere eurozentrische Erfolgsgeschichte schreiben, sondern nichteuropäische Akteure ernst nehmen und ihnen Handlungsmacht zuschreiben. Doch genau darin liegt auch die Schwäche des Buches. Indem er betont, dass viele Gesellschaften eigene Reformbewegungen, Öffentlichkeiten und Modernisierungsbestrebungen entwickelten, entsteht der Eindruck, als sei die Moderne primär das Ergebnis eines global geteilten Wollens gewesen – nicht eines Jahrhunderts, das in hohem Maße durch Zwang, militärische Überlegenheit und strukturelle Ungleichheit geprägt war.

Besonders deutlich wird dies in Baylys sehr weiter Definition von Moderne. Modern zu sein bedeutet für ihn vor allem, modern sein zu wollen, "auf der Höhe der Zeit" zu stehen. Dieser Begriff ist so offen, dass er nahezu jede Reformbewegung einschließt – bis hin zum Wahhabismus, der bei Bayly als eine Form religiöser Modernität erscheint. Damit verliert der Begriff der Moderne jedoch an analytischer Schärfe und wird letztlich inhaltsarm.

Auch dort, wo Bayly soziale Hierarchien, Sklaverei oder die Situation indigener Bevölkerungen behandelt, geschieht dies häufig in einer Weise, die korrekt, aber seltsam entschärft wirkt. Moralische Ambivalenzen – etwa die unbeabsichtigten negativen Folgen der britischen Abschaffung des Sklavenhandels – werden benannt, während Gewalt, Zwang und koloniale Ausbeutung unterbelichet bleiben. Dass Bayly über große Sachkenntnis etwa zur indischen Geschichte verfügt, steht außer Frage; umso auffälliger ist, wie wenig über konkrete koloniale Herrschaftspraxis zu lesen ist.

Die Geburt der modernen Welt ist zweifellos ein beeindruckendes, kenntnisreiches Werk, das enorme Stoffmengen verarbeitet. Als neutrale Gesamtdarstellung des langen 19. Jahrhunderts eignet es sich m.E. jedoch nur bedingt. Zu deutlich ist die Agenda spürbar, Geschichte so zu erzählen, dass globale Gleichzeitigkeit und geteilte Modernitätsbestrebungen im Vordergrund stehen, während Machtasymmetrien und Zwangsverhältnisse eher randständig bleiben.

Man kann diese Sichtweise überzeugend finden – und viele tun es. Mich hat sie nicht überzeugt. Mir erscheint das 19. Jahrhundert weniger als ein gemeinsamer Aufbruch in die Moderne denn als ein Zeitalter ungleicher Begegnungen, in dem viele Gesellschaften ihren eigenen Weg nur noch unter stark eingeschränkten Bedingungen gehen konnten. Dass es überall Dynamik, Reformen und Reflexion gab, steht außer Zweifel. Aber diese Vielfalt wirkt in Baylys Darstellung allzu glatt gekämmt, um einer großen, harmonisierenden Erzählung Platz zu machen.

Rating: 3/5
Sprache gelesen: Deutsch
Gelesen im Jahr: 2025

[Grub Street Hack · Rating 5 out of 5]

The main argument made by Bayly in The Birth of the Modern World is that a trans-national elite with similarly “modern” agendas, and who profited from a growing world economy, had emerged during the long eighteenth century. This elite is a continuation of the old aristocracies who regrouped and retained control of states and strengthened their old hierarchies, despite the emergence of a bourgeois class, by attaching themselves to trans-region networks and by using Enlightenment ideas to modernize their states in response to revolutionary fervor. Bayly argues that the rise of capital was not “a force in itself,” but “spread in a social ecology which had already been created by wider aspirations to power, ownership, justice, and sanctity” that were made possible by ideological and political changes brought on by the revolutionary era (7). Ruling groups promoted industrialization as a way to stabilize the social order, thus spurring the age of capital that began in 1840 and climaxed by the 1870s. Colonies helped strengthen the elites who now had access to millions of cultivators locked into a non-market relationship. Bayly emphasizes the role and influence of military force in several ways. First, he argues that “the modern state was designed precisely to create an economy which could support a technologically efficient military power” (278). He describes nationalism as defining itself against “others,” and argues that the experience of common military service “widely transformed peasants and workers into nationalists” (204). This militarized nationalism would then give rise to further conflicts, culminating in the world wars: “The state, urbanization, and print capitalism all played a part, but war was the origin of nationalisms, just as nationalisms caused wars” (243). He argues that revolutionary wars and Napoleon’s occupation “galvanized the fluid patriotisms of the eighteenth century into the harsher lineaments of the modern nation-state” (112). Bayly also explains increased marinization and discrimination of ethnic minorities as related to external conflict: “War exacerbated the fear of the enemy within” (225). He cites the examples of pogroms against Jews in Russia after the Russo-Japanese War

[Russel Henderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the better grand-sweep "meta-histories" I've read. The obvious comparison is Osterhammel's The Transformation of the World, and I much preferred Bayly. More concise, less tangential, with a better understanding of the limits of the genre. I have no doubt that Bayly presented as "settled" disputes that academics think are not, and I'm sure he cut across thousands of pages of spilled ink in just a few paragraphs (I certainly quibbled with a few of his assertions), but on the whole he did a good job of laying out conventional wisdom, contemporary criticisms, and the trend of modern scholarship on given subjects. He balanced the need to explain why the nations of the West reached so many milestones first and were able to impose their will on much of the rest of the world with the imperative to avoid overly exceptionalist or Whiggish historiographical tendencies and did it quite well. He explained why the West was different in that time and place but explained why the struggles of some of the subject peoples and the Asian civilizations did not signal particular "backwardness" or inevitability, nor were they suggestive of future limitations. In his topical/thematic approach, he added a great deal of context to the conventional Western appreciation of "the long nineteenth century" and helped the novice to better understand Africa, South America and especially Asia in that timeframe. To do what he did in a single volume and to still make it readable was quite an achievement.

[Albert Gubler · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the books I had to read and review for my new history class - so I won't review it in its entirety here. But the narrative that the whole world was already interconnected and then many of the changes that emanated in the west were also influenced by other cultures which mostly aren't referenced in history books is compelling and worth checking out more. Very enlightening read in the field of global history.

[Louis Hawkes · Rating 3 out of 5]

An incredibly dense, yet interested look at how the world systems evolved yet became more uniform as time went on. I would have enjoyed this book more had I been more well-read, as a lot of the content itself is quite dense and challenging to understand. With that being said, Bayly covered an enormous stretch of modern history, and essentially delves into a multitude of distinct facets of social and political history throughout the modern world.

[Joanne Buurma-van't spijker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting thematic history of the world from 1780 to the dawning of World War I in 1914. Is described as a reflection on, rather than a narrative of world history, about the interconnectedness and interdependence of political and social changes across the world.

[Sybe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant history of the 19th century. Must be read by everyone who is interested in history.

[Debbie]

Important discussion of what constitutes modernity p9-12

[✧ mads ✧]

reading list - political and social history

[Davide Di Legge · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5