|
What you had was a shift in what consituted wealth. The nobility's wealth was based on land, but as the feudal system died out, money came to replace land as the basis of wealth. Land represented food and protection in the feudal eras of each of those nations, but as non-feudal governments began to emerge and people became safer and agricultural techniques became more productive and a diversity of trade and production developed, land became less about safety and food and more about power and control of the peasants. Nobles, who achieved their status by being the toughest fighters and/or the best agricultural administrators, by this revolutionary point (different teams, but the same developmental point for all three) had become superfluous. They were important only because the law claimed they were, and they used the law to exploit the workers. The real power of wealth, though, had shifted to the merchants and lenders and skilled professionals. Towns became more the center of real power, but the landed aristocracy still held legal control, and used that control to oppress rather than protect. It was better for peasants to move to towns and learn a trade than to stay on the farms.
Each of those revolutions was lead by the bourgeouisie, even if they were fueled by the furor of the peasants and proles. The new wealth was using the poor to defeat the old wealth. The definition of power and wealth shifted, but those in power were still in power because of their wealth. Now and then a talented peasant or prole became a leader, but they usually also became rich when they did.
Those revolutions, like most, weren't the poor against the rich. They were the new rich against the old rich, and the poor were the pawns used by both sides. Wealth still equaled power. Wealth was just redefined.
|