The current reads here are three by historian Eric Hobsbawm:
The Age of Revolution,
The Age of Capital, and
The Age of Empire (in progress). They are independent books, but can be read as one extended historical inquiry.
The Age of Revolution covers the period from 1789 to 1848, and deals with two great revolutions and their impacts: the French Revolution, which toppled the monarchy and the aristocracy, and sounded the death knell for absolute monarchs and the rise of democracy, and the Industrial Revolution in Britain, which fundamentally changed the nature of European economies. While separate events in separate spheres, they influenced and reinforced each other.
The Age of Capital covers the period from 1848 through 1875, and deals with the rise of the industrial economy and the beginnings of the capitalist system, as economic changes transformed agrarian economies, and many who formerly worked the land moved to cities to become the basis of an industrial labor force. It coincided with the rise of the middle class, and a new upper class whose wealth came from manufacture and trade, not the ownership of land that had been the basis for the nobility.
The Age of Empire covers the period from 1875 through 1914, and the rise of the nation-state, beginning with just what was meant when you said "nation", with the main selector being "speaking a common language". An assortment of new nations arose during the period, like Belgium (formerly part of France, and later the United Netherlands), and Serbia and Bulgaria (formerly part of the Ottoman Empire.) It also saw the creation of what is now thought of as Germany, under the domination of what was then Prussia, with the political questions of just what German speaking areas would be included. The end result of this process would be World War I and even more dramatic change.
I was already familiar with at least some of what Hobsbawm covers, but he tied things together and pointed out relationships and connections I hadn't considered. There were places where I raised my eyebrows (mostly in matters of economics) and said "That's not how I would define those terms...", but they were indications of a differing viewpoint, and not a fundamental disagreement.
The forces involved and the issues created are things still playing themselves out today. If you have an interest in how we got to where we are, Hobsbawm is highly recommended.
______
Dennis