OCR Specification focus:
‘Trade and economy: customs barriers; similarities and differences in the rule of Castile and Aragon; extent of unification and ‘New Monarchy’’
Spain under Isabella and Ferdinand was marked by efforts to unify diverse territories while managing economic challenges. Trade, finance, and governance highlight contrasts between Castile and Aragon.
The Economy and Trade in Late Fifteenth-Century Spain
The Spanish kingdoms faced complex economic realities. Castile possessed the stronger economic base, whereas Aragon maintained older structures and greater fragmentation. Trade remained essential for stability and revenue, but structural barriers hindered integration.
The Economy of Castile
Castile was the economic powerhouse of the Spanish kingdoms, providing a majority of resources and tax revenues.
Agriculture: The backbone of Castile’s economy, dominated by wheat production on the Meseta and sheep farming through the powerful Mesta (guild of sheep owners).
Map of the principal drove roads used for transhumant herding in Iberia, regulated by the Mesta and regional equivalents. The legend distinguishes Castilian cañadas reales, Aragonese cabañeras, and Catalan carrerades, clarifying how pastoral routes linked pastures to markets. Source
Wool exports: Castile exported high-quality merino wool, particularly to the Low Countries and northern Italy, which became a critical source of royal income.
Urban development: Cities like Seville, Burgos, and Valladolid flourished as trade centres, although Castilian trade was often reliant on foreign merchants and financiers.
Mesta: A powerful organisation of sheep owners in Castile that regulated grazing rights and sheep migration routes (cañadas), exerting significant economic influence.
The reliance on wool exports meant Castile’s economy was vulnerable to market fluctuations abroad. Nevertheless, Castile remained the engine of Spain’s financial strength.
The Economy of Aragon
In contrast, Aragon suffered from economic stagnation and decline.
Valencia and Barcelona had once been thriving Mediterranean ports, but competition from Italian states and the Ottoman advance reduced their importance.
Agriculture faced challenges, with smaller yields and more reliance on subsistence farming.
Trade routes increasingly bypassed Aragon, limiting its revenues and diminishing its influence compared to Castile.
The contrasts between Castile’s growing strength and Aragon’s relative weakness shaped the monarchy’s priorities and reinforced the dominance of Castile within the emerging Spanish state.
Customs Barriers and Economic Fragmentation
A significant challenge to economic integration was the persistence of customs barriers between kingdoms. Each region maintained separate fiscal systems, duties, and trade restrictions.
Goods moving between Castile and Aragon faced tariffs, discouraging internal trade.
Even within Aragon itself, the constituent kingdoms — Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia — had separate economic identities and customs arrangements.
Annotated map of the Crown of Aragon showing its Mediterranean holdings, useful for teaching Aragon’s maritime trade focus and plural institutions. This helps explain why Aragon’s Cortes-based governance and fueros limited royal centralisation compared to Castile. Source
Isabella and Ferdinand did not abolish these barriers, highlighting the limits of economic unification under their rule.
Customs barriers reinforced localism and emphasised the monarchy’s pragmatic approach: unity in dynastic and religious matters, but respect for established privileges (fueros) in economic governance.
Governance: Castile and Aragon Compared
Rule in Castile
Castile’s monarchy had greater central authority.
The Cortes of Castile was weaker and met less frequently, giving the monarchs more freedom to govern directly.
The royal council and corregidores (local governors) strengthened central oversight.
Royal finances were more secure, as Castile contributed the majority of crown revenue, particularly from wool trade taxes (alcabala, a sales tax).
Alcabala: A sales tax in Castile, typically 10% of transactions, which provided the crown with a steady and significant source of income.
Rule in Aragon
Aragon’s governance remained more decentralised and resistant to royal intervention.
The Cortes of Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia were powerful and defended local rights.
The monarchy was required to negotiate frequently, ensuring limited central control.
The principle of fueros (regional laws and privileges) was deeply entrenched, preventing the kind of uniform governance achieved in Castile.
This produced a dual monarchy where power was not evenly distributed, with Castile emerging as the dominant partner.
Extent of Unification
Isabella and Ferdinand are often seen as examples of a ‘New Monarchy’, a term describing rulers in early modern Europe who sought to strengthen royal power and reduce the autonomy of traditional elites.
In Castile, the monarchs succeeded in curbing noble power, reforming administration, and establishing effective financial control.
In Aragon, however, royal authority was limited by entrenched institutions and the strength of regional identities.
The marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand united the crowns, but not the states. They ruled their territories jointly but separately, respecting each kingdom’s institutions, laws, and customs. There was no attempt to create a single unified state apparatus.
New Monarchy: A model of rulership in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe characterised by stronger central authority, reduced noble independence, and greater use of bureaucratic governance.
The extent of unification therefore remained partial. While the monarchs projected a unified image abroad and shared religious policies, practical governance reflected the continuing differences between Castile and Aragon.
Key Points of Contrast
Economy
Castile: Dynamic wool trade, strong agriculture, financial reliability.
Aragon: Declining Mediterranean trade, weaker agricultural base, fiscal weakness.
Customs Barriers
Persistent tariffs and separate systems prevented free movement of goods across kingdoms.
Fragmentation reinforced local identities and autonomy.
Governance
Castile: Stronger monarchy, weaker Cortes, centralised institutions.
Aragon: Weaker monarchy, powerful Cortes, entrenched fueros.
Unification
Dynastic union achieved, but institutional and economic divisions remained.
Castile’s dominance laid the foundations for Spain’s future centralisation, though not under Isabella and Ferdinand.
FAQ
Castile’s dominance came from its high-quality merino sheep, which produced wool in great demand across Europe.
The Mesta ensured efficient organisation of flocks and protected long-distance grazing routes, lowering costs and safeguarding herders. Castile’s geography, with its wide Meseta plains, favoured sheep farming over intensive agriculture.
Finally, Castile’s position provided access to ports such as Burgos and, increasingly, Seville, linking the wool trade to northern Europe and the Mediterranean.
Aragon’s overseas holdings (Sardinia, Sicily, Naples) provided strategic ports and markets, shaping its economy around maritime trade.
However, by the late fifteenth century:
Competition from Italian states like Venice and Genoa undermined Aragon’s dominance.
The advance of the Ottomans disrupted trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean.
Internal fragmentation within Aragon limited coordinated economic policy.
This left Aragon unable to compete with Castile’s stronger land-based economy.
Customs barriers protected regional autonomy and fiscal privileges.
The monarchs relied on nobility and elites in each kingdom to secure loyalty, meaning they avoided tampering with sensitive rights.
Aragon’s fueros and Cortes explicitly defended the right to maintain separate fiscal arrangements.
Attempting to remove tariffs risked political confrontation that could destabilise the fragile dynastic union.
Thus, unity in trade was sacrificed to preserve stability and legitimacy.
In Aragon, the Cortes had significant influence. It controlled taxation and insisted on negotiation before granting subsidies, unlike the weaker Cortes of Castile.
The Cortes could also defend local fueros, preventing royal decrees that infringed on traditional rights. In some cases, resistance from the Cortes slowed reforms or blocked measures that might have centralised authority.
This institutional resistance meant Isabella and Ferdinand had far less control in Aragon than in Castile.
Economic fragmentation meant Spain did not yet function as a unified commercial power.
Castile’s strong wool trade connected it to northern Europe, especially the Low Countries.
Aragon’s decline reduced its influence in Mediterranean commerce.
Internal tariffs discouraged integrated Spanish markets, so revenues and development were uneven.
As a result, Spain projected power abroad through Castile’s wealth rather than as a coordinated economic bloc. This imbalance would influence foreign policy and the eventual dominance of Castile in Spanish affairs.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two economic differences between Castile and Aragon under Isabella and Ferdinand.
Mark Scheme
1 mark for each valid difference identified (maximum 2 marks).
Acceptable points include:
Castile had a strong wool export economy; Aragon’s Mediterranean trade was in decline.
Castile relied heavily on agriculture and the Mesta; Aragon relied more on subsistence farming.
Castile contributed the majority of royal revenues; Aragon’s finances were weaker.
Castilian towns like Seville and Burgos were dynamic; Aragonese ports like Barcelona had lost influence.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how customs barriers and separate institutions limited the extent of unification between Castile and Aragon under Isabella and Ferdinand.
Mark Scheme
Level 1 (1–2 marks):
Basic statements with little or no development, e.g. “They had customs barriers” or “Each kingdom had different laws.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks):
Some explanation of barriers and institutions, e.g. “Customs duties prevented free trade between the kingdoms, while each had its own Cortes, meaning government stayed divided.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks):
Developed explanation showing clear understanding of impact on unification, e.g.
Customs barriers discouraged internal trade and reinforced local identities, preventing economic integration.
Separate institutions such as Aragon’s strong Cortes and entrenched fueros limited the monarchy’s ability to impose central authority, unlike in Castile.
Together these factors ensured that despite dynastic union, Castile and Aragon remained separate states with little institutional or economic unification.
