Did the Russian State... Part VII by Nils Johann (The Development after the Time of the Black Death)

The Black Death had spread westwards, disrupting the societies it infected. Old bonds were broken and ruling structures were destabilized. Power dispersed, even to the point that peasants were able to renegotiate the conditions of their bondage, as a result of the shortage in workforce, in relation to workable natural resources. Strong central government had not been materialized in the west since the Roman empire contracted eastwards. Coming into the middle of the 15th century we can see a renewed effort among the warlords in the peripheral regions, bordering on Islamic civilization to their southeast, to gather grater territories and to build state-institutions, like stable dynasties and monarchical hierarchies. Barons (*local strongmen) would not cede power easily to pretenders to monarchy. On the Iberian Peninsula, Ferdinand (*1452–†1516) and Isabella (*1451–†1504) fought a decade long civil war against their Barons and succeeded. Matthias Corvinos (*1443-†1490) tried something similar in the area of modern-day Hungary but failed to establish a stable monarchical institution.

Up until 1453 the 'Hundred Years War' (1337 to 1453) had made it easier for the French Monarch to gather his power. The conflicts had introduced the first large standing armies in North- Western Europe since the decline of the western Roman Empire. The armies started to replace the role of the retinues of Feudal Lords in warfare. In the resolving part of the conflict, even zappers, and cannon with iron shot had started to play its part, next to the traditional bowmen, lancer infantry, and heavy knights.

War is in the period the general vehicle for gravitating power towards the King, as the war, as part of foreign policy, gives the King reason to levy taxes, where he usually would only have right to the tariffs and tolls. Standing armies are expensive, and in connection with them, we also see the rise of a bureaucratic tax-system with an annual tax, further increasing the power and reach of the Monarchs. Henri VII Tudor, took in twenty times more taxes, than any of his predecessors since 1066.

Other notable state-formations rising in this period, besides the more peripheral English and Russian, are, the Habsburg Empire, the Jagiellonian Empire(s) and the Ottoman Empire. They were all bureaucratic states with standing gunpowder armies, and the predecessors to still familiar modern states.

The monarchy itself also changes in the period, as the pen becomes mightier than the sword, from bloodthirsty field commander, to a high level paper-pusher. Philip II Habsburg (*1527–†1598), rarely leaves his desks in Valadolid and at El Escorial, in contrast to his father Carl V Habsburg (*1500-†1558), who spent much of his time, personally leading the army in the field. The nobles also lost their traditional role as plated knights on horse. The superiority of cavalry that amongst others also Machiavelli notes in 'The Art of War' (1521), peters out during this century. Cavalry’s expensive, time-consuming, training can be made to nothing, by any peasant wielding a hand-arkebus, in between a phalanx of Landsknechten pike-men, or by field-artillery. Quite suddenly, accompanied by Cervantes' satire, they change form and live on as the less dominant gunmen on horseback.

Brief Views on the Great Rising of 1381: the "Peasant Revolution" in England

The Great Rising of 1381 is an event that sometimes comes to my mind when I think of the '99' movement of our day. In so many ways they are similar and even though my post will be fairly simplistic, I suspect that a careful reader will easily see the parallels with today's protest movements. (I was listening to a lecture that discusses happiness and how it is measured today... and it is generally agreed upon that countries that have the smallest amount of economic disparity are the happiest... certainly the US has a very wide disparity right now which is a big part of this protest movement. So sit back and enjoy a few minutes of reading about the people who became part of the Peasant Revolt in England. You won't regret it. :)

So our story will start with the newest tax- the third 'poll' tax. The vast majority of people already felt oppressed, poor and overtaxed already. So from stage right... enters a tax collector into the town of Fobbing. Thomas Baker was a brave man who lived in Fobbing and John Bampton was the poor soul who was given the royal authority to attempt and collect the poll tax from the villages. Everyone was afraid to get in the way of any of the official men who were supposed to collect the poll tax . These collectors were men who were given many liberties – including the ability to reach up the skirts of the local women to determine if they were virgins (and therefore didn't have to pay the tax) or if they were not virginal... whereas the woman would need to pay the tax. When John Bampton came to the village of Fobbing, he brought a token bodyguard and set up to look for 'potential' tax evaders. It was at this point that Thomas Baker came forward with a small group of men from the nearby villages. He told John Bampton that everyone who lived there had paid the tax appropriately and so he (John Bampton) needed to leave. John, in his misjudgment or arrogance, then ordered the arrest of 100 people from the crowd including Tom Baker. The crowd, emboldened by Mr Baker's bravery and angry about the government and the tax in general began to riot... forcing John Bampton and his token bodyguard to flee for their lives and health. This would later be seen as the beginning of the Peasant Revolt.

It must be noted that the Black Death also played a role in the beginning of this revolt. The Black Death arrived several decades before this time... and took the lives of about half of the people living in Europe and England at the time. In areas, whole villages were emptied of populations - This massive and quick quantity of death caused a labor shortage which changed the way that landowners had to deal with their serfs. When the country of England had been overcrowded, peasants really couldn't complain much and had no way to address their grievances in any way that could affect positive change. Being a serf and surviving the plague gave you more options about your work... and even who you could work for. Land was now more available and so a peasant could attempt to work for someone else for more money or more benefits. Wages rose significantly as people could travel and there were fewer people to do jobs. Because of this, the English monarchs would pass laws trying to keep the wages lower and to attempt to keep the peasants oppressed and malleable.

Three men that must be mentioned are the advisers of the young King Richard II - John Gaunt, Simon Sudbury, and Robert Hales. The Hundred Years' war was still in session and so these men needed to find ways to continue to get funds to pays for the costs of fighting. These men helped pass new taxes such as the huge poll tax that was so unpopular and led to this rebellion (a tax that taxed every individual the same whether you were a peasant or you were wealthy.) They had also passed laws trying to restrict the rise of wages to help keep prices low for the rich and 'noble'. John Gaunt, father of the future Henry IV and uncle to Richard II, was very hated due to his great ability to come up with new laws that were very oppressive and made live difficult for the serfs and peasants and perceived (real or not) ability to siphon off funds for his own purse. Simon Sudbury was the Archbishop of Canterbury as well as Chancellor of England while Robert Hales was another high ranking member of the Catholic Church who also had a strong political position- that of Treasurer of England. These three men are known as the few who developed and passed not only these oppressive laws, but these two high ranking men of the Church are the ones who apparently came up with the heavy handed laws of enforcing the tax... including the sexual assaulting of all the peasant women by checking their 'virginity' status. (By the way, it was not unusual for high ranking churchmen to also be high ranking politicians... so the presence of these men in this scenario isn't really that unusual. Only these individual's extreme tactics were truly extreme and unusual for the time.)

There isn't much known about the individual we now know as Wat Tyler who became a great leader in this rebellion. What is known is that he was a tradesman and he was elected a leader in this revolt. There are some thoughts that be might have been a solider in his past, but it is certainly clear that he must have been a smart and cunning man to be able to control and wield his peasant 'army' with such skill and success- in fact he did so well, that the group he was leading only fell apart at his death . Sometimes the Peasant's revolt is called by the name 'Wat Tyler's Rebellion'. John Ball was considered by many to be a radical preacher who was determined to change the Catholic church from within and to change the church's response to the poor and the sick. He wanted the church to go back to it's fundamental principles and for his 'radical' sermons, he had been imprisoned a few times. One quote that John Ball is well known for is “While Adam delved (dug) and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?” - the suggestion that all people used to work... that there was not a group who benefited from the labors of others and did not work in the earth's beginning... and this was a fairly radical at this time. Words such as these caused John Ball's next imprisonment under the orders of Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury. During the revolt, a group of rebels broke into the church of the Archbishop of Canterbury and ordered the archbishop removed and John Ball to be put in his (Simon Sudbury) place. John Ball had been rescued from prison by the rebels along with a few other individuals. On the Catholic Feast of Corpus Christi, John Ball the rebel’s preacher, gave the speech with the former quote and a large groups spurred on by Ball's motivating mass on social equality would then rise up and try to set 'the world right'. When the King wouldn’t come to them, these large groups decided to go to London to see him. Both of these men were considered quite radical at the time. Both attempted to cause change- whether politically or through the Catholic church that helped who they saw as the downtrodden and the poor and sick. This was not really a common thought with the elite at this time- in fact, many of the elite tended to think that the poor and the sick as lazy, savages, stupid, etc.... These men were asking the people to see a world very different from the status quo... which would threaten the minority power structure at the top.

Many other groups joined in the rebellion besides the 'peasant' classes. Some were actually considered 'rich landowners' or wealthy merchants. These individuals which included John Sumner from Manningtree and his neighbor Robert Pierce, joined due to their anger over the injustice of the poll tax. This revolt had popular support across all classes and when the rebels were joined by rich and influential individuals such as John Mocking, the peasant army would put these men in the front of the large force. That way, these men of influence could help persuade others of influence to help in the cause. These men were able, for instance, to convince the men in charge of the gates of London to led the invading 'army' in so no fighting was necessary. These people joined because they too agreed with the peasants about the injustice of the tax and other oppressive laws. So in this way, the revolt is not just a form of class warfare, but a form of several classes working towards a more fair and just government.

When this uprising was beginning, King Richard II was fourteen years old. The belief that the king was God's appointed 'ruler' on earth for England which gave the monarchy a level of flexibility and trust that no other organization on earth had... even the Catholic church had been tarnished with the Black Death. But the King was divinely appointed and so he was trusted implicitly. However, if the King was too young, a king would be helped in his job by some powerful and high ranking nobleman. This was beneficial for King Richard because when things went bad as they did with the combination of the continuing consequences of the Black Death, new oppressive laws and taxes, etc... these advisers would be blamed. The vast majority of the peasants truly believed that John of Gaunt was the evil force behind the throne and that he (John) was the man that had convinced the King to pass all of these oppressive laws... that the king was young and innocent and that John had simply been using King Richard to gain more power and money. This trust and faith that was had in the King was so absolute and unquestioning that after the King signed a charter giving the peasants most of their demands, many people took King Richard at his word and simply went home... they didn't wait to make sure he kept his word. Unfortunately, Richard II was not trustworthy towards to the peasants and rebels. He would use this absolute faith in him to his advantage, to take out the leaders of this revolt and to use terror to bring the populace back under his control.


While some groups have thought and argued that the peasants revolt was simple an 'disorganized rabble' and as such could not really organize, there is evidence to show that this theory can not be and is not correct. (In fact it is a little telling that the nobles tending to think of the peasants as savages... this ignorance may help explain why the nobles felt that they didn't have to treat the peasants as human... and as such their prejudiced would not have allowed them to believe the peasants could be intelligent enough to organize.) This revolt did start with an explosion of disorganized riots in a few places such as Essex and Kent due to the frustration and out of control emotions in the lower classes. However, after a few weeks, these riots would be turned into something that would be seen more as a military display than a disorganized group. Messages would be written in code and delivered by horses and boats quickly through the countryside. The rebels were organized and used targeted violence in an attempt to achieve their aims. An experiment completed by Tony Robinson and others show that the only way to really have this revolt happen the way that past observers and chroniclers have written it was to have good organization- small groups that would travel quickly and help rouse up the local populaces to help with the fight... large groups of people who may not have been sure what to do, but were willing to follow good leaders so that they could have the change and freedom that they wanted. The acts of violence that were committed were almost always very controlled and were very symbolic towards the enemies of the 'king'- looting was banned and not allowed by the leaders and it is a sign of how well thought of and controlled that these groups were that these ideas were fairly easily enforced. That said, other groups of people who were not quite so scrupulous 'took advantage' of the large military presence of the peasants to even up scores with their enemies, steal and cause damage, as well as racist attacks and massacres on the Flemish immigrants in the area... so everything wasn't exactly perfect.

The demands of the peasants were very radical for the time... whereas we wouldn't even raise our eyebrows over their demands today. In Balking at Essex, the ringleaders of this 'revolution' held a summit in June 1381 where they wrote a manifesto... a very well written manifesto by the way. This document stated the peasants' intention to destroy 'divers legions' or enemies of the king and to have no laws in England except those the people felt to be ordained or acceptable. The idea that people could actually rule themselves or make some of the rules themselves was a really big deal- especially if you look at the other ideas that were also widely believed at the time... that the Pope was God's spokesman on earth, that kings were divinely appointed to rule and create laws, that 'classes' in society were a tradition and a divine institution. More specifically, the demands that were asked for was for the poll tax was to be abolished, all rebels were to be pardoned by the king, that all traitors as defined by the people would be put to death, that land rates would be reduced, and that the peasants would be given more rights and privileges. These demands were given to King Richard himself by the rebel leader, Wat Tyler. Some of the rights that were wanted were that peasants should have the freedom to trade as they wanted to and not just give their goods to the 'Lord of the Manor'. By wanting to lower the land rent all over the country for everyone, the peasants were really asking for economic freedom for all.

To be a leader of the Peasant’s revolt was to suffer terribly if you were poor... and ironically, to have no or little punishment if you were considered a higher class and wealthier person. Thomas Baker would be hunted down, captured and then killed in July 1381 by the horrible act hanging, drawn and quartered. Wat Tyler met in front of a small group alone and unarmed when he decided to ask the king for more concessions – Wat Tyler didn't think that the king had truly given enough rights to the peasants. Mr Tyler, sitting on his horse, then was 'rude' to the King and was violently attacked by the Lord Mayor of London named William Walworth. Wat Tyler was wounded in the scuffle with the mayor and when he fell off his horse he was later dragged to an abbey for an attempt at saving his life. However, the king's men dragged Wat back out, killed him and then put Wat Tyler's head on a pike to show it off. John Ball was hung, drawn and quartered in a marketplace as an example in July 1381. Some of the wealthier leaders, such as John Mocking, Thomas Raven, and the men from Manningtree were pardoned and lived out the rest of their lives in relative obscurity and potential boredom. Thomas Waltham, the army deserter, claimed innocence and staked his life on a trial by combat... which he lost. Richard Scott ended up in prison the next year for cheating some men in a dice game. Over the next five months, there were many unofficial executions without trial as the government itself tried to cover up the revolts and have it quickly forgotten. Some of King Richard's high ranking men died in this revolt as well. Robert Hales and Simon Sudbury were executed, their heads cut off... and their heads were placed on spikes for the celebration of the peasant's accomplishments – Sudbury's head was rescued by some of his supporters and hidden in his church in a cupboard where we can still see it today. (yuck!)


In conclusion, what did the Great Rising accomplish? In the short term, it didn't appear that much had really changed at all. But the peasant's revolt really scared the nobility who were truly the minority in the country and that fear had a long lasting legacy. Feudalism had pretty much fallen apart and the nobles/Lords treated the peasants with more respect and did give many of them more rights, including the right to be 'free men'.... the charter that King Richard had signed removed and abolished serfdom as it had been practiced before that time. Parliament never attempted to continue to collect the poll tax again... and it was never brought up as a possibility in the future. Parliament also stopped attempting to control wages or the amounts that landowners could pay peasants. The global effect was that all over the world, leaders were put on notice that ordinary people could and would get together and think about politics on a broader level … even politics that didn't necessarily affect them or their lives. It gave notice that governments who ignored the opinions of their own people did so at the government's peril. This method of rebellion would crop up in future revolts and rebellions in other countries (reminds me immediately of the French Revolution actually.)

What are your thoughts? :)

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.