Once. They were warriors, now they are dhimmis.
Whenever anyone tells you he’s going to tell you history from the bottom up, run for the hills. Unless he himself has experienced life at the bottom of the heap today, you’ll get a good dose of his own modern spin with his own preferred bogeyman (undoubtedly the eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiillllllllll Church).
Besides, his protagonists are not bottom-dwellers in 1414. They are part of the middle. Portraying Lollards as bottom-dwellers, innocent victims of the eeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvviiiiiiilllllllll king/church already has distorted things by implying that the movement was a movement of the poor and powerless, innocent victim-heroes.
When, in fact, John of Gaunt, just about as near to the top as one could get in that day, supported them and lots of Lollards were from the middle-to-the-top of the heap.
Bottoms-up, sure.
Very interesting. Not unlike what has happened in America.
Even the technique is not new. Parker Rowland published a fascinating “history of England through the eyes of a single village” back in 1975, titled Common Stream: Two Thousand Years of the English Village.
It’s an interesting read, to be sure, and I’m sure Wood’s TV program is interesting. But groundbreaking and innovative it is not and a no-spin zone, most assuredly not.
It’s not clear from the article, but my guess is that the 1414 executions were tied to the 1413 uprising led by Sir John Oldcastle. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why Woods didn’t mention that upfront? He makes Nicholas and Walter, at most bit players, into the central figures.
Oldcastle’s rebellion was a bottoms-up revolution but a revolt led by lower gentry, one of hundreds of such power-struggle uprisings by noblemen that had taken place for centuries and would continue to take place until the absolutist kings finally crushed the nobles in the 1500s. The whole late 1300s and the rest of the 1400s would be characterized by exactly this sort of power struggle among elites, not bottoms-up revolutions.
Even the technique is not new. Parker Rowland published a fascinating “history of England through the eyes of a single village” back in 1975, titled Common Stream: Two Thousand Years of the English Village.
It’s an interesting read, to be sure, and I’m sure Wood’s TV program is interesting. But groundbreaking and innovative it is not and a no-spin zone, most assuredly not.
It’s not clear from the article, but my guess is that the 1414 executions were tied to the 1413 uprising led by Sir John Oldcastle. Hmmmmmmm. Wonder why Woods didn’t mention that upfront? He makes Nicholas and Walter, at most bit players, into the central figures.
Oldcastle’s rebellion was not a bottoms-up revolution but a revolt led by lower gentry, one of hundreds of such power-struggle uprisings by noblemen that had taken place for centuries and would continue to take place until the absolutist kings finally crushed the nobles in the 1500s. The whole late 1300s and the rest of the 1400s would be characterized by exactly this sort of power struggle among elites, not bottoms-up revolutions.
no. 5 was posted in error. No 6 has the correct “Oldcastle’s rebellion was NOT . . .”
My kind of people. Their distrust is well founded.
|
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe · |
|||
Antiquity Journal & archive Archaeologica Archaeology Archaeology Channel BAR Bronze Age Forum Discover Dogpile Eurekalert LiveScience Mirabilis.ca Nat Geographic PhysOrg Science Daily Science News Texas AM Yahoo Excerpt, or Link only? |
|
||
|
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · |
|||
mark
