Peasant Revolt Hits London

The 13th June marks the anniversary of the day Wat Tyler led the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 into London. The English capital descended into chaos as the peasants burnt and looted the city, cementing the revolt as the most significant peasant uprising in the feudal period of English history.

Originating in the South-East of England, it was when the revolt reached London that its significance became apparent. The peasants went on to capture the Tower of London, a feat which had never been done before. Two powerful figures, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the King’s Treasurer, were killed by the rebels. The King was forced to meet the peasants and discuss their demands, again, something without precedent.

In feudal England, the peasantry was kept in line through the threat of harsh punishment, and restrictions on property and movement which were a consequence of their position in society. The idea of peasants not only mobilising, but reaching the capital and intimidating the country’s rulers, was unthinkable. In a broader context the event is a remarkable moment in feudal history and the development of protest.

A variety of long term factors contributed to the resentment which ultimately exploded into the Peasant’s Revolt. Thirty five years before the revolt the Black Death had struck England, the catastrophic pandemic decimating huge swathes of the peasant population and dramatically altering the balance of society. A sudden scarcity of labour gave workers greater bargaining power. Landlords had to encourage workers to stay on their estates, and therefore offered them freedom and wages to continue working. In 1380, Parliament started working to lower the wages of labourers and reinforce their subordinate position in society, a reactionary move which led to the peasantry fearing a return to the situation before the Black Death.

Another underlying cause was the state of almost perpetual war with France. The wars were largely paid for by taxation of peasants. In 1380, King Richard announced a new Poll-Tax which meant everyone over the ago of 15 had to pay a shilling, a significant amount to the poorest in society. This was the third such tax that had been raised in four years, and added to the resentment already felt by the peasantry.

The trigger for the revolt came in May 1381, when peasants in Brentwood, Esssex, resisted a poll-tax collector. From Brentwood, defiance spread to neighbouring villages and then the surrounding counties of Hertordshire, Kent and Norfolk. Soldiers were sent to the rebelling villages to restore order but the resistors had become armed and organised, and turned the military away.

Wat Tyler, from Kent, had emerged as the leader of the peasants and following the attempt by the army to extinguish the revolt, led the rebels to London. Along the way they burned down government buildings and destroyed tax records. Once at the outskirts of the city, London’s urban poor opened the gates and joined in the revolt themselves.

On 14th June, two days after the peasant’s arrival in London, the king agreed to meet them at Mile End in East London. Richard agreed to the peasant’s demands of abolishing serfdom and the restrictions on wages, but the chaos in London continued, with Tyler leading the force that seized the Tower of London and executed the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The following day, having spent the night in fear of his life as violence reigned over the city, the king again met Tyler at Smithfields. In a scuffle, the mayor of London fatally wounded Tyler with a sword. Hundreds of troops arrived at the scene, and executed the rebel leaders, while the rest of the mob quickly dispersed. Over the next few days troops brutally restored order across the south-east of England. Richard revoked the concessions he had made at Mile End, and the Peasant’s Revolt came to an end.

I doubt that it was Diocletian, or any of the later western emperors, as the economic life of that part of the Roman Empire was actually pretty great during the 3rd c, thanks to the political fragmentation. Diocletian did introduce the practice (echoed today in the vesting of priests when the Pope does it) of supplicants prostrate with their arms over their heads when making their case with the Emperor. That was the way it was being done in his time in the various eastern neighbors.

The rigid class system in ancient Rome was already in place during the so-called republic; it was a real problem for people in lower classes, and it had to go. The hereditary despots from the assembly of despots known as the Roman senate fought tooth and nail against it.

Among various articles I encountered after Googling “Rigid class structure in Roman times”, I found the following article which somewhat condenses but pretty well summarizes what I was talking about. I learned of this situation while reading a historical novel of early Great Britain. I also include some quotes from the article:

http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HST301-7.3.2-Economy-FINAL.pdf

The Roman government itself did not collect the taxes; this would have been too complex and difficult an operation for the resources of the ancient government. Instead, the responsibility fell on the curial class. Curiales were members of local city councils, and in order to build prestige among their citizens and demonstrate their fitness to rule, they often paid out of pocket for the construction of temples, the sponsorship of games, and other things that benefited their citizens. The Roman government required them to pay the tax burden of their cities out of their own pockets in exchange for the right to pass on the taxes to their people. Essentially, the Roman government made the curiales their tax collectors. If they fell short of collecting what their city owed in taxes, they would have to make up the difference with their own money. Thus, membership in
the curial class could be financially ruinous, and many tried to escape by enrolling in positions that granted exemptions from curial responsibilities, such as the army, the imperial bureaucracy, or the Church. By the sixth century...As the curial class disappeared, the responsibility of governing cities, as well as raising funds to forward to the government, fell to the Church and local bishops.

In order to ensure that land was farmed and that taxes and a steady supply of grain was sustained, the Roman state bound tenant farmers to the soil for life. These farmers were known as coloni, and they were legally required to remain on the land as farmers. Their children were required to follow them in working this land. Though they were forced to work the land, usually on a larger estate belonging to a wealthy land owner, they were not slaves. Coloni were legally entitled to the land they worked, and thus coloni could not be moved or sold as slaves could. [Like serfs of Middle Ages and Russia]

He (Diocletian) also began a gradual process of tying workers to certain industries for life and required that their sons follow them in the trade, much like coloni. The basis of this reform was the collegia, or guilds, that had operated as social or fraternal organizations of workers. The Roman government made membership in these organizations obligatory and required that members remain in their industry and supply some portion of their production to the state, typically at a much lower price than normal. This was designed to ensure that goods and
commodities deemed essential—such as weapons, armor, bread, clothes, etc.—would be available. Though normally a worker was required to remain in the collegia for life and be succeeded by his son, it is clear that this was often not the case, and the government had a great deal of trouble enforcing this system.

Thanks g! The guilds of medieval Europe are rooted in Roman times. The coloni deal sounds like a pretty good one, and must have been good enough to attract colonists to the frontiers. As one ancient wag wrote, he had to leave Rome and travel in the provinces to hear Latin spoken. OTOH, it appears that it was not necessarily as advertised, and “they were not slaves” doesn’t ring true. During the imperial period there was massive upward mobility, which is another reason the landed, hereditary aristocracy were such strong supporters of the fake republic that the glimmerings of enfranchisement and political equality led them to commit murders on the Senate floor.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.