This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/askhistorians by /u/holomorphic_chipotle on 2023-09-26 09:09:05.
As far as I know, the term "age of revolution" became popular after the 1962 publication of Eric Hobswan's book. His book highlighted the economic and social changes that resulted from the convergence of the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution in Europe. Though at the time it "revolutionized" (if you allow me the bad pun) the field, with regards to current understandings of global history, the book only looked at Great Britain and France.
In the context of Atlantic history, the concept has been used to examine the American war of independence, and in Spanish speaking historiography la "era de las revoluciones atlánticas" is common. The Haitian revolution complicates the panorama. If the age of revolution was real, what are the common threads of a popular revolution (France), a conservative revolution of Creole elites (Mexico) and planters (USA), a successful insurrection of self-liberated slaves (Haiti), and the rise of Britain's "second empire". On top of this, the concept is now being extended to the Fulani jihads in West Africa.
Hence my question: outside the narrative structure typical of popular history books, what is to be gained by attempting all-encompassing theories? Does such a concept still make sense?