Let's start by looking at the state of play when the book was first published in 1962, then at what Hobsbawm says, then at current historiography.

1/4 At the time Eric Hobsbawm was writing The Age of Revolution, historians were concerned with the extent to which the era around 1800 saw a dramatic change in how European societies were organised. They also debated how correct the economist Karl Polanyi was when he called this period “The Great Transformation.”

In some ways the evidence for change was not hard to spot; the old order seemed to be shaken to its roots, with rulers toppled, religion challenged, decades of war and deep economic crisis. Yet what was the relationship, if any, between these separate changes? And if these changes were all part of a single transformation, why did it happen? Meanwhile, economic historians were bitterly divided over whether the growth of industry in Britain could be characterised as a “revolution” at all.

Some said the term wrongly suggested a quick and unified event, while the reality was much more of a messy and drawn-out process. Political historians knew this was a period of great turmoil, especially during the explosive years of the French Revolution that began in 1789. But they did not agree on whether the turmoil could have been avoided and who was pushing the changes. Social historians focused on how the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century was the moment when mass political movements began. But how much did that, and particularly the socialist movement, grow out of the French Revolution or the misery of industrial workers? And how close did those working-class political movements come to actually challenging the political establishment?

"Whig" historians did not accept that the events of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century could be described as revolutionary turmoil. For them, many of the economic and political systems of the period remained, even if there were some big changes. For these historians, the radical actions of the French Revolution and the growth of socialist ideas were much less important in pushing change in Britain. These changes happened because of moderate reforms carried out by the elites who ran the country. Their careful actions were enough not just for them to hold on to power, but to make this era, according to English historian Asa Briggs, an “age of improvement.” The conservative historians did not accept the idea of sharp divisions within British society. Instead, they highlighted areas of agreement between the different social classes.

Marxist historians, in contrast, wanted to move away from a focus on the elites and instead looked to write history from below — looking at the thoughts and actions of ordinary people. In many ways Hobsbawm was working in a similar way to E. P.Thompson, Raphael Samuel and George Rudé. He spoke for all of them when he said that in the wake of the French Revolution, “What was new in the labour movement of the early nineteenth century was class consciousness and class ambition.” For British Marxists, the protests of those who lost out in the new industrial economy—including Luddites (workers who destroyed the new machines that were taking away their traditional jobs), artisans and landless peasants—were a key part of the tradition that would feed into early socialism.

In French historical circles, the Marxist approach was the most widely followed. Here, the fall of the French king was seen as the result of intense struggles between the nobility (the rulers), the bourgeoisie (the emerging group of self-made men) and the lower classes. Yet even here there were signs of differing views. In 1955, British historian Alfred Cobban had attacked the “myth” that the French bourgeoisie rebelled because they hated society under the king’s rule. Cobban claimed they wanted to join that society and felt frustrated by the barriers blocking them. Moreover, Cobban insisted that far from helping the bourgeoisie and their new businesses, the Revolution actually set back economic growth in France for a generation.

In exploring the remaking of society at this time, Hobsbawm relied heavily on the concepts laid out by Marx himself about the transition from “feudalism” (where peasants worked the land in return for protection from the landowners) to “capitalism” (where ideas of free enterprise and profit ruled). He synthesised existing research rather than exploring any new archives. But what was original about Hobsbawm’s approach was bringing materials on the Industrial Revolution and the French Revolution together and thinking about the relationship between the two events.

Hobsbawm strongly believed that the late eighteenth century saw a series of unique and permanent changes. Other historians focused on examples of agreement and compromise, but he argued that the new industrial economy brought about new forms of inequality and exploitation. “The poor suffered because the rich benefitted,” he wrote.

In discussing the French Revolution, Hobsbawm followed French historian Georges Lefebvre in arguing that the course of the revolution and the start of the Terror in 1792—where terrible atrocities were carried out to “ensure” the success of the French Revolution—were explained by the clash between different social classes. He gave as examples the threat of a counter-revolution by aristocrats and the dispute between two different political factions (Girondin and Jacobin) over how far to support the demands of the common people.

It was these arguments and disagreements that paved the way for Bonaparte to take advantage of the power vacuum and stage a military coup in 1799.Yet, for Hobsbawm, the ideals of the revolution lived on. And by placing the Industrial Revolution and French Revolution together he hoped the effects of both events would be understood more clearly.