England
England: conclusions
The social and economic changes in England during these two centuries would be called dramatic, if it weren't for the fact that the next two centuries would bring even more dramatic changes. But the changes were nevertheless significant.
For the bulk of the population, two trends or phenomena were paramount. The first was demographic crises. This entailed more than just the famous Black Death of 1348. It entailed a return of the plague generation after generation for a hundred years. The effects of this I have sketched in my essay on the Black Death and were pretty much the same for England as for elsewhere.
The second trend was the intrusion of government into the lives of the people. Most noticeable and burdensome was taxation, followed closely by (and closely connected with) the effects of war. Far more than the immediate destructive effects of warfare--the coastal raids by the French, the invasions from Scotland and Wales, the civil warfare between barons of which the Wars of the Roses are merely the best known--more noticeable than any of these were the other disruptions caused by England's long centuries of war. Included here would obviously be the calling up of men as troops, but also must be considered the effects of commandeering of ships, of supplies, of goods and services, over and over again. Not all of these effects were negative. One must also consider the effects of booty and lands won, of titles gained, which would have had positive secondary effects among ordinary folk. One should also include the presence of the government in the form of sermons preached in favor of the war, and even news as spread through taverns and markets. All of these served to make ordinary folk far more aware of the doings and direction of their king and parliament.
Other changes can be noted for individual groups. Most famous and most historically significant of all, probably, would have to be the development of Parliament, which evolved from being an occasional assembly called at the king's whim, to being a major organ of government, still technically called at the king's whim but in fact indispensible to any significant royal undertaking.
Change in the noble classes has been well-documented. This was once known as the period of the development of so-called bastard feudalism, a term that is less used as the very idea of feudalism as a system has been heavily critiqued. But the changes were there, regardless of how historians characterize them. In England as elsewhere, this was the heyday of the powerful barons, who could command armies and could make (and un-make) kings. At the same time, the nobility was clearly in economic crisis resulting from ever-escalating expenses. Those strains played out in the 16th and 17th centuries, but the origins were here, in our period.
It's too soon to talk about a "decline of the nobility", but it's not too early to talk about a "rise of the merchant class". For in these centuries we can see clearly the great merchants of England come into a position of power, though not yet of dominance. In England, this means above all the merchants of London, for it is now that London pulls away from the pack to become the dominant city in the realm.
The later Middle Ages was characterized by Walter Ferguson as an "age of transition". The phrase could well apply to any two centuries, of course, but it seems especially suited to the 14th and 15th centuries, and not for England only. At the beginning of the reign of Edward I we seem indisputably (for all the precursors and early trends) to be in the Middle Ages. And with the reign of Henry VIII we are just as indisuptably (for all the survivals and anachronisms) to be out of the Middle Ages.