Did the period1780-1846 witness an industrial revolution in Britain

  Some historians also think that this period was a revolution. They felt that the speed that these things were happening at mad it impossible for it to be an evolution where things happened and developed over a long period of time. The whole of British industry was changing in such a relatively short space of time. The inventions of the Arkwrights spinning frame, the steam engine new roads, canals the whole infrastructure of Britain was changing and being improved. Industry was on the up like never before factories were being set up Arkwrights was leading this and not only was cotton spinning production up so was the output and the pottery industry. As industry improved this had knock on effects because with the call for more goods the better transport needed to be and Britain was by far the quickest transporters of goods. So historians would say from most of the country living in rural areas now Britain was the industrialised nation of the world all in a very short space of time.

  However many historians would say that although things had changed there was no revolt things had just improved. The roads and cannel links were not new they had been there since the Romans had built them. These historians would say that ideas had just been developed and improved over time. Yes Britain had undergone a series of social changes but they would argue that they were not totally new or in fact as drastic as they first seem, because these changes in transport, industry and agriculture were always developing but it was only at this time people began to take notice. People had not gone out and simply invented a whole new way of infrastructure it was just the development and growth of what was already there.

  As for the theory of Karl Marx many historians would say that his theory has not proved to be correct because most nations who have become communist states have collapsed, and the major nations in the world today are not communist and are very unlikely to become so.

  To conclude in my opinion both sides of the argument have good points however I think this period in British history was in fact a revolution. I think this because although many of the changes made did happen over a period of time they were drastic and far-reaching to be considered a revolution. The fact is the whole of Britain changed from being a rural country to a urbanised and industrial nation with all kinds of new and improved technologies. The steam train and Arkwrights mills were massive breakthroughs in technology and they were in many ways ahead of there time therefore in my opinion had this periods been an evolution these changes would have happened in a much more gradual process. In this period the infrastructure of Britain had been improved beyond recognition and that is why I think this period was a revolution and not an evolution.