ABSTRACT Assumptions about the topography of popular revolt have been essential in constructing sociological and historical models that demarcate a ‘pre-modern’ from the ‘modern’ period. In Charles Tilly’s words, the ‘repertoires of collective action’ before the mid-nineteenth century were ‘parochial, particular, and bifurcated’, while afterwards, they became ‘cosmopolitan, autonomous, and modular’ (2008). By relying on primary sources across the Italian peninsula, France, Flanders and Britain and for the early modern period across German-speaking regions into Russia, this article shows that the plethora of late medieval revolts were rarely, if ever, confined to a neighbourhood or bounded by local religious congregations or family ties. Instead, they were citywide and north of the Alps fused alliances with the peasantry and other cities. With popular protest pushing eastward in the early modern period, these long-distant dimensions became more extensive, crossing linguistic boundaries and thousands of kilometres. In addition, this article raises new questions, such as why peasants and urban rebels in Italy, in contrast to northern Europe, resisted cross-mural alliances, and to what extent late medieval popular insurrection differed from those of the early modern period. The article ends with a call for new models to understand these differences.

中文翻译：

---

中世纪流行抗议的地形

摘要 在构建区分“前现代”与“现代”时期的社会学和历史模型时，关于民众起义地形的假设至关重要。用 Charles Tilly 的话来说，19 世纪中叶之前的“集体行动曲目”是“狭隘的、特殊的和分叉的”，而之后，它们变成了“世界性的、自主的和模块化的”（2008 年）。本文依靠意大利半岛、法国、佛兰德斯和英国的原始资料，以及现代早期跨越德语地区到俄罗斯的原始资料，表明中世纪晚期的大量起义很少（如果有的话）仅限于附近或受当地宗教团体或家庭关系的约束。相反，他们在全市范围内与阿尔卑斯山以北的农民和其他城市结成联盟。随着近代早期民众抗议向东推进，这些遥远的维度变得更加广泛，跨越语言边界和数千公里。此外，这篇文章提出了新的问题，例如为什么意大利的农民和城市叛乱者与北欧相反，抵制跨壁联盟，以及中世纪晚期的民众起义与现代早期的起义有多大不同。文章最后呼吁新模型来理解这些差异。以及中世纪晚期的民众起义与现代早期的起义有何不同。文章最后呼吁新模型来理解这些差异。以及中世纪晚期的民众起义与现代早期的起义有何不同。文章最后呼吁新模型来理解这些差异。