The events of Jacquele in the mid-fourteenth century had a political impact on the French upper class, but the economic impact of the events after 1381 in England was negligible in comparison.
In France, due to the decisiveness of the structure, research on the subject and results of the class struggle is almost non-existent. However, for experts in feudalism in Castile and Leone, the scale of the class struggle went beyond the traditional framework of the Middle Ages, taking place in 1520-1521, and its economic impact was limited to the restoration of the previous structure.
Between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it was necessary to study the local antagonism of the peasant lords. There was also no revolt of the peasants in the mezzanine region of Italy, which prompted the absence to be explained by factors such as the peasants' best chances of life during the Great Depression of the Middle Ages or their personal social relations with the landowners.
On the other hand, England in the fifteenth century was called agrarian capitalism, giving rise to other very British themes. If the decisive factor of the first capitalism was wage labor, then the question of the remuneration of labor in late medieval relations with the market, money movement, rental, and social differentiation occupies an important place in the study.
Problems of this nature have also been brought to the attention in Italy, for example, the evolution of wages in Florence shows that there was a downward combined oscillation between 1371 and 1378.
Castilian historians focus less on this, and they focus more on the development of currency market relations in economies that are lower than those of Italy or the United Kingdom. While there are some imprecise comparisons, such as those between Cortez orders, this cannot be avoided.
These differences are mainly influenced by the topic to be addressed, and the documentation available is decisive. Italy, for example, seems to be a privileged area for statistical research in the general non-statistical era.
Let us mention the Florentine cadastre of 1427 and its possibility of comparison with the cadastre of 1469. While diversity can lead to different characteristics, knowing other countries can help us better understand and compare.
In fact, these historians have a deep understanding of comparative history, which is different from the average of economic historians. Their focus is on differences, not similarities, which helps to reveal the characteristics of each country that may contribute to or hinder development.
These comparisons are related to the notion of reality in the academic sense, just as feudalism exists in perfect form between the Loire and the Rhine. There is also a transition to perfect capitalism, where each place has its peculiarities that can be perceived by the sum of defects associated with the model.
This medievalism has an active dialogue with modern history and can be read interchangeably. For example, Witoldkula expounds on the economic theory of feudalism in Poland from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, which is a subject of interest to historians in different regions.
When studying medieval history, we find that there is an interconnection between the various practices. For example, the medievalist Rena Pastor teaches modern history at the University of Rosario in Buenos Aires and has an approach that is not much different from that of her teacher in Argentina.
José Luis Romero studied the development of urban civilization in the West, and Sánchez Albonozzi confirmed the weakness of the medieval bourgeoisie in modern Spain.
Pierre Villar, in his writings on modern Catalonia, also paid special attention to medieval history. Ruggiero Romano links the economic crisis of the seventeenth century with the economic foundations of the twelfth century, and together with Alberto Turni, he expounds a summary of the history of modern Europe from the beginning of the medieval crisis.
These phenomena will be observed nationwide in the long-term Braudelian. The weakness of manufacturing in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries further confirms the characteristics found in the origins of the bourgeoisie.
In Italy, the crisis of the fourteenth century did not lead to the decline of feudalism, but on the contrary proved the attributes of commercial capital. However, this was an obstacle to economic development in the long run, and as Carlo Sipola said in 1952, the cloth industry began to decline in the 17th century.
Although there were some reforms later, technological innovation did not take place, and a paternalistic climate prevailed, suppressing all social polarization. In addition, writers like Sereni believe that the problem of the long-term formation of the internal market is a decisive factor.
In England, the transformation of the late Middle Ages was associated with the bourgeois revolution, and the distant social origins of the revolutionaries of 1640 can be traced back to the victorious yeoman farmers of the fifteenth century.
In his exploration of Britain's political and cultural identity, Perry Anderson found that during a period of agrarian capitalist development, the bourgeois revolution was not as revolutionary and subversive as one might think.
This led him to conclude that British political and cultural idiosyncrasies stem from this non-radicalness. The influence of this ideology has been further extended to a global scale, and in the political and intellectual climate of Argentina and Brazil, Dob-Sweez's polemical views on transition have been applied.
These historians are united in different contexts, although there is no precise geographical location. In the early eighties, this issue began to enter the consideration of national historiography, dealt with by economists or historians.
Under the leadership of Emmanuel Wallerstein and Fernand Browdell, this analysis dominated the study of comparative economic evolution from 1200 to 1700.
On the basis of the center-periphery dichotomy, Wallerstein and Browder overturned the traditional historiographical division and privileged the interrelationship between medievalism and modernism.
This feudalism developed during the period of action of commodity capital, and the axis of interest changed. For example, Henri Breske's research shows that Sicily had the characteristics of each periphery in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, leading to a lasting economic and social backwardness due to the purchase of manufactured goods and the sale of raw materials.
This example illustrates the structural correspondence between regions in the Great Binary Dichotomy, which establishes an asymmetrical link between the economy that produces raw materials and the economy that produces manufactured goods.
Sicily did not enter Italy, but was associated with Eastern Europe of the "second serfdom" and Andalusia of the large estates. In this process, national histories are regionalized, and the pairs of development and underdevelopment demand the search for uniform economic indicators to show similar attributes, and this issue is unified in a variety of contexts, from Europe to the colonial world.
The illusion of the social sciences, diachronic and systemic at the same time, leads to arguments that go beyond the boundaries of historiography and represent only a step in the march that does not seem to stop with this fact.
Between 1920 and 1980, there was a major shift in American historiography under the direction of Charles Homer Haskins and Joseph Reece Strayer.
Medievalists began to focus on legal and institutional history, with the goal of revealing the origins of Western constitutionalism in responding to the challenge of communism. In the 70s and 80s, the issue of regional exchange was intertwined with this academic fringe research arrangement, represented by Emmanuel Wallerstein, who moved from postcolonial studies in Africa to an analysis of the "world economy".
However, as southern Italian experts Maurice Aymard and Henri Bresque have pointed out, this generalized concept demarcates new boundaries for non-state work.
For them, the colonial situation is not a matter of concern to historians. "Comfortably" comes from ** countries, an expression that is acceptable if we strip away its geographical connotations, because it reveals the common interests of those who study colonial or subsidiary economies.
From the ultra-left to the fringe bourgeoisie, the reformist rainbow political body has expectations for change of varying depths. From the late Middle Ages onwards, the study of primitive industries was closely linked to this developmentalism, and Bois's research on the crisis of feudalism had a profound impact.
In this area, regions with a similar economic base are also studied. The concept of Mediterranean feudalism also emerged at that time, and amazingly, it was closely linked to the current atmosphere.
It seems that the question of the center and the periphery is only a brief moment towards another vision, and they both belong to a very different whole than the one described above. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Stephen Epstein conducted a seminal study of Sicily, probably the most famous, and compared it with Tuscany and the Lombardy region.
In Sicily, economies of scale are organized and respond positively to market opportunities. The old principles of Adam Smith and David Ricardo about comparative advantage between commodity producers and manufacturing producers replaced the concept of comparative disadvantage that was popular among historians in the eighties.
In Sicily, there are no barriers to the development of the rural home furnishing industry, and unlike large Italian cities such as Florence, Sicily, the institutional organization in Sicily is more relaxed, allowing for the adoption of economic alternatives without restrictions.
In other words, the state is not exerting a pernicious "Keynesian" influence on the market's natural branding. It is precisely this factor that makes social practice the protagonist here, and Marshall successfully translates this objective idea into the historical realization of theory.
The peasants of the Middle Ages exhibited a timeless market spirit, their desire to participate in the profit economy, and the crisis and institutional circumstances of the fourteenth century provided them with the opportunity to realize this desire, which paved the way for them to explore new modes of production.