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 Medieval Monarchs of England

The first 'official' monarch of the medieval period in England was Henry II. This monarch, as well as the next several succeeding ones, were really quite interesting people and made decisions and lived lives that were really interesting. Unfortunately for most of us, he have heard of very few of them except in our current social context. One example is Disney's animated version of 'Robin Hood' which paints King Richard in a pristine and beautiful light and makes Prince John into a two dimensional character with only bad and cowardly qualities.... not necessarily dishonest images, but certainly not the vibrant and colorful tapestry of the image that historians have been able to gather from the documentation. These small paragraphs are really in some ways a tease as I too haven't given you the complex, full images. But hopefully as you read through some of these small snapshots on the different monarchs and their challenges and successors, you will find yourself intrigued enough to want to take the time to learn more... I promise you that you would not be disappointed. :)

Henry II was considered to be very charismatic and he had a great impact on England. He was an unusual English monarch in that he was half 'French'. So he spoke French and was heir to a great deal of lands and titles in the land of France. His mother, who was daughter to the English king Henry I, made sure that he had a good understanding and familiarity of England. At the time that Henry came to power when he was 21 years old, the English 'Baron' was really the power in England. These barons had either taken over royal castles or created illegal castles so that they could have control over many areas... causing the leading ruler's power to really be broken up into the differing barons and not the monarchy itself. One of Henry's first decisions was to get the royal castles back under his control... and to have all illegal castles destroyed. Another thing which was a really big deal was that Henry made it possible for a king to use writing to be able to make decisions without having to actually be in the area. The Chancellor Office was created by Henry who had changed some parts of the law creating a document that was produced was called a 'writ'. This document would be created and it would carry the king's new law and was signed with a large and impressive 'seal' and then could be carried all over the nation-state. So Henry II no longer had to go places to have his word obeyed or known- he could send it and only need to enforce it physically if an area showed disagreement or balking. He attempted to put a great friend, Thomas Beckett, in the position of Archbishop of Canterbury so that he could have control over the church in England... or at least not be controlled by the church in his borders. Unfortunately, he got his wish... and his best friend was put in the position of Archbishop. But Thomas Beckett soon became his bitterest enemy and thwarted Henry II at every turn when it came to the autonomy of the church. Their disagreements became so bitter and angry that Beckett was eventually killed in his own cathedral in England by some of Henry's own knights leaving the blame- whether appropriately or not- on the head of King Henry. For a decade Henry also had to fight to control his lands against France and the disloyalty of his own sons who didn't want to wait for his death for power of their own. In summary, it can truly be said that Henry II had really solidified kingly power in England. King Henry did whatever it took to keep power under his control and even spent a decade fighting his own children whose ambition had started to rival his own. So he ended up fighting France and his children to keep his throne until his death. (Truly the battles between the king and his ambitious children could not have been comfortable or pleasing to the general populace.)

Richard I was his father's successor, and as such, he spent a decade 'ruling' England. However, he was only actually 'physically' in England for about six months of his reign. He had spent about a decade fighting his father Henry II for more power and whether he simply got used to fighting, he liked it too much, or really had no wish to sit around ruling, Richard chose to continuing fighting skirmishes or wars during his reign. So England was truly ruled during this time by an 'absentee' king- what Richard seemed to need England for was for money to finance his wars and adventures abroad... and that's it. Richard I also fought in the Crusades in the Holy Land and he eventually died from a mortal wound from his fighting. (His reputation for someone who disliked Jews led to some massacres of Jewish people on occasion and when he did eventually produce a writ stating that the Jews be left alone, it was very loosely enforced in his absence.) His chosen heir was his younger brother John who would then become king of England upon his death. Richard I was given a nickname that he would be called throughout his life by many and it was given to him even before he became king due to his reputation of great leadership in battle and as a formidable warrior; 'Coeur de Lion' or Richard the Lion-heart.

In a sense, John was always going to be in a difficult position coming into power after his brother Richard I. Unfortunately for John 'Landless', he was designated by future generations as the 'model of a bad king' for his pains. :) England had enjoyed almost a whole decade without a King on its shores and so an attentive monarch would not necessarily have been a thrill. However, John was also not strong in other positive ways and had a few personality traits that were quite difficult and are not positive or acceptable in a good leader such as pettiness, spite and vindictiveness. John also lost several of England's French territories to the strong and able leader of France and so for the first time since the time of William of Normandy, the English king was only the ruler of the land of England itself. John also appears to have been willing to sell out anyone and anything to protect himself – even the whole of England at one point in his rule. While past kings had claimed absolute authority, none of them had welded it with such a vengeance toward its people and John's ability to utilize any and all ways available to squeeze cash and revenue out of his subjects won him the reputation as a greedy and miserly leader. He used his power to strip his enemies of property and land... and what made you an enemy could be as simple as a disagreement with the king. John depended more on 'his' men than the nobility causing jealousy and anger between himself and the nobles. (At one point, John had so angered the Pope Innocent III that the pope ordered John 'deposed' from his throne and suggested a crusade to other monarchs to remove John from it- King John only got out of this by severe bribery to the Pope including an annual tribute and an agreement that the Pope was John's 'overseer'.... quite a compromise indeed ;) King John was quite willing to use any advantage he saw over his enemies or those who threatened him. Certainly few rulers have been able to get all of the most powerful of their lands to mutiny against them... that is an honor that John can share with very few.

We can thank John I for the document that we call 'Magna Carta'. The words 'Magna Carta' means 'the great charter' and it was a document that was signed into law around 1225 in England. This document was one of the ways that the English aristocracy tried in reign in the abuses of power by King John and it specified certain rights (such as the idea that a freeman could only be punished through the actual law of the land.) This document is the very first document that was ever forced onto a member of the English monarchy in an attempt to actually limit the King's powers and the monarchy's ability to punish members of the noble class for perceived (or actual) slights. It is important due to it's almost revolutionary idea that a king/monarchy should have some limit to their powers and authority... that even an absolute monarch had a few lines that they couldn't cross. King John's reaction to the Magna Carta and it's limits on his power was to sign it due to the threat of force, but then appealed to the Pope (his overseer)... who then nullified it causing great anger and war with the nobles in England. (It's a little funny how John would use anything and anyone to his advantage... and he still died a natural death. Funny, that.) While the Magna Carta might have been started due to King John's power abuses and arbitrary use of power, the next several kings had to deal as well with some form of the Magna Carta. Many of the rights listed in the document are known to us now as the basic human rights that every human being has the right to expect from their government. (whether all human beings do or not is a different story altogether...)

In addition to the Magna Carta, there were other things did the English aristocracy do to gain power over the king. The Magna Carta was reissued several times and when possible, many nobles would act as regents to young kings and simply not seem to notice that the king had grown up. During the time of Henry III, the nobles forced the king to accept a 'constitution' with an elected 15 man committee... he did fight it with a military, but was unsuccessful and had to turn over his son to the nobles to make sure that King Henry kept the rules of the new laws. He became simply a figurehead. Nobles began to discuss not just the tasks that they used to over the centuries such as taxes, but the affairs of the kingdom as well.

Edward III had quite an impact on the English government, but almost anyone might have after his father's weak and difficult reign. Luckily for England, he used much of his ambition for what the majority might have considered for the country's good. Edward III was a great military man and he managed, through his battles with Scotland and France, to form England into a formidable military power. Edward ruled for around fifty years, overcoming many difficulties including the arrival of the Black Plague and his initial coup d'état at the age of seventeen against his own regents. His ambitious claim to the French throne would begin a period of war in England with France for almost a century. Edward was very good at charming those he needed to and he also recognized that he needed to work with the aristocracy so he developed ways of pulling the nobles and the monarchy close together. It is thought that he even enjoyed working with the aristocracy. He developed and encouraged more 'peerages' and also created the 'Order of the Garter'. While King Edward fought, the Parliament would fund the wars and sign the treaties giving the English nobility an the English people themselves a full stake in the success of the monarchy and the state... a fairly new idea as most battles in the past were more about the leader and didn't cause much emotion in the populace unless it affected their lives personally.

Edward III successor was his grandson Richard II. But Richard's successor would not be of his choosing... In some ways, Henry IV gained the throne from his cousin Richard in small steps. These two men grew up together and had been great friends- they were both grandsons of Edward III. However, their minds and political wills developed very differently over time and they rarely agreed as adults. Twice, Richard II pardoned or exiled Henry Bolingbroke. King Richard's ruling style was very autocratic and with a nobility that was rich from England's wars with France and used to helping with the governing... Richard II would find that his ruling approach would not be accepted by the aristocracy. He was almost overthrown once by the nobles which included Henry (who he pardoned) and with patience, then used time and more power to overcome the nobles who had tried to revolt. Henry Bolingbroke came back from his exile when his father died and Richard II kept the lands and inheritance that should have gone to him... he was justly annoyed. With the help of several nobles and their armies, Henry was successful in his rebellion and he trapped King Richard in one of his Welsh castles. Henry Bolingbroke tricked King Edward into coming out into the open and then made him his prisoner.... and under force, Edward abdicated his throne to God alone. Henry then took power and was declared Henry IV, after stating that God had allowed him to take the throne from Richard, he was God's first choice. Henry IV then locked Richard II in Pontefract castle and allowed the deposed king to starve to death to secure the throne for himself and his heirs. This is important because King Henry helped cement the idea that England's king could simply be 'won' and not actually directly inherited... which would cause the crown to become a symbol of bloodshed and the sword for some time to come.... the 'Hundred Years War' would continue until around 1453.

(It might also be true that Richard's rule was so difficult for his subjects, especially with the heavyhandedess and the hatred that the people felt for one of his advisers (John of Gaunt) that the people were happy to help Henry take the throne. However, as John of Gaunt was dead and Henry's father... that doesn't make a lot of sense to me at least... )


Henry V may have only ruled for almost a decade, but that was a decade of great and ambitious work. King Henry had no doubt that the crown should be his and he immediately set about to bring together the country again that have been thrown into upheaval and fractured during the time of his father. He pardoned all his father's enemies and those who had fought for King Richard. He then claimed the French crown and when his claim was rejected, he gathered an army and headed to France. His conquests came close to winning him France and the peace treaty that was signed gave Henry the right as heir apparent to the French throne- he married Catherine of Valois, the French king's daughter, a few days after the treaty was signed. By the time of his death due to dysentery a few years later, England was a strong country; a country filled with people who felt strong nationalism and loyalty to the monarch, a country with 'legitimate' control of France, ruled by kings who wrote and governed entirely in English, and a country that was truly now a strong united nation-state. (This was the first time since the Norman Conquest that a government in England used English for all official and non-official documents.)

I will end by saying that Henry V is one of my favorite kings, but I think that is because I really liked his wife Catherine of Valois... or I guess I like her story and I like wondering about it and how her actions changed history for the entire future monarchy. I also find it difficult to really understand his death due to such a simple disease after all his ambition and struggle and motivation... it doesn't feel OK to me. Not that God or nature ever asked me. :D

So after these small tidbits of history, who are you most interested in learning about? If you wanted a better biography of any of these people, who would you want more information on? If you share, I might just oblige you.... :)