WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia

Search Wikipedia
Search
Donate
Create account
Log in

Hide
WLE Austria Logo (no text).svgWiki Loves Earth photo contest:
Upload photos of natural heritage sites in India to help Wikipedia and win
fantastic prizes!
Contents hide
(Top)
Terminology
Background and causes

Events

Rebels
Legacy

See also
Notes
References
Bibliography
External links
Peasants' Revolt

Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history

Tools
Appearance hide
Text

Small

Standard

Large
Width

Standard

Wide
Color (beta)

Automatic

Light

Dark
Featured article
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the English peasants' revolt of 1381. For other peasants'
revolts, see List of peasant revolts.
Peasants' Revolt
Painting of Richard II
The boy-king Richard II meets the rebels on 14 June 1381, in a miniature from a
1470s copy of Jean Froissart's Chronicles.
Date 30 May – November 1381
Location
England
Result
Sacking of Tower of London and mass execution of royal officials
Charters granted to rebel towns
Eventual suppression of revolt and execution of rebel leaders

Belligerents
The People Royal government
Commanders and leaders
Wat Tyler †
Jack Straw Executed
Thomas Baker Executed
John Wrawe Executed
John Ball Executed
William Grindecobbe Executed
Johanna Ferrour
King Richard II
Sir William Walworth
Archbishop Simon Sudbury Executed
Bishop Henry Despenser
Sir Robert Hales Executed
Sir Richard Lyons Executed
Sir John Cavendish Executed
Casualties and losses
At least 1,500 killed Unknown
The Peasants' Revolt, also named Wat Tyler's Rebellion or the Great Rising, was a
major uprising across large parts of England in 1381. The revolt had various
causes, including the socio-economic and political tensions generated by the Black
Death in the 1340s, the high taxes resulting from the conflict with France during
the Hundred Years' War, and instability within the local leadership of London. The
revolt heavily influenced the course of the Hundred Years' War, by deterring later
Parliaments from raising additional taxes to pay for military campaigns in France.

Interpretations of the revolt by academics have shifted over the years. It was once
seen as a defining moment in English history, in particular causing a promise by
King Richard II to abolish serfdom, and a suspicion of Lollardy, but modern
academics are less certain of its impact on subsequent social and economic history.

The revolt has been widely used in socialist literature, including by the author
William Morris, and remains a potent symbol for the political left, informing the
arguments surrounding the introduction of the Community Charge in the United
Kingdom during the 1980s.

Terminology
The term "Peasants' Revolt" does not occur in medieval sources: contemporary
chronicles did not give the events a specific title, and the term "peasant" did not
appear in the English language until the 15th century.[1] In the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries it was generally known as "the Insurrection of Wat Tyler".[2]
Though he commented that "which eighteenth- or nineteenth-century historian first
used the doubly discredited phrase 'Peasants' Revolt' I have been unable to
determine", Paul Strohm's first identified usage of the term was in John Richard
Green's Short History of the English People in 1874.[1] The name has been critiqued
by modern historians such as Strohm and Miri Rubin, both on the grounds that many
in the movements were not peasants, and that the events more closely resemble a
prolonged protest or rising rather than a revolt or rebellion.[3] Alternative terms
include "the 1381 Rising"[1] and "the English Rising of 1381".[4]

Background and causes

Economics
Main article: Consequences of the Black Death
The Peasants' Revolt was fed by the economic and social upheaval of the 14th
century.[5] At the start of the century, the majority of English people worked in
the countryside economy that fed the country's towns and cities and supported an
extensive international trade.[6] Across much of England, production was organised
around manors, controlled by local lords – including the gentry and the Church –
and governed through a system of manorial courts.[7] Some of the population were
unfree serfs, who had to work on their lords' lands for a period each year,
although the balance of free and unfree varied across England, and in the south-
east serfdom was relatively rare.[8] Some serfs were born unfree and could not
leave their manors to work elsewhere without the consent of the local lord; others
accepted limitations on their freedom as part of the tenure agreement for their
farmland.[9] Population growth led to pressure on the available agricultural land,
increasing the power of local landowners.[10]

In 1348 a plague known as the Black Death crossed from mainland Europe into
England, rapidly killing an estimated 50 percent of the population.[11] After an
initial period of economic shock, England began to adapt to the changed economic
situation.[12] The death rate among the peasantry meant that suddenly land was
relatively plentiful and labourers in much shorter supply.[13] Labourers could
charge more for their work and, in the consequent competition for labour, wages
were driven sharply upwards.[14] In turn, the profits of landowners were eroded.
[15] The trading, commercial and financial networks in the towns disintegrated.[16]

The authorities responded to the chaos by passing emergency legislation, the

Ordinance of Labourers in 1349, and the Statute of Labourers in 1351.[17] These
attempted to fix wages at pre-plague levels, making it a crime to refuse work or to
break an existing contract, imposing fines on those who transgressed.[18] The
system was initially enforced through special Justices of Labourers and then, from
the 1360s onwards, through the normal Justices of the Peace, typically members of
the local gentry.[19] Although in theory these laws applied to both labourers
seeking higher wages and to employers tempted to outbid their competitors for
workers, they were in practice applied only to labourers, and then in a rather
arbitrary fashion.[20] The legislation was strengthened in 1361, with the penalties
increased to include branding and imprisonment.[21] The royal government had not
intervened in this way before, nor allied itself with the local landowners in quite
such an obvious or unpopular way.[22]

Over the next few decades, economic opportunities increased for the English
peasantry.[23] Some labourers took up specialist jobs that would have previously
been barred to them, and others moved from employer to employer, or became servants
in richer households.[24] These changes were keenly felt across the south-east of
England, where the London market created a wide range of opportunities for farmers
and artisans.[25] Local lords had the right to prevent serfs from leaving their
manors, but when serfs found themselves blocked in the manorial courts, many simply
left to work illegally on manors elsewhere.[26] Wages continued to rise, and
between the 1340s and the 1380s the purchasing power of rural labourers increased
by around 40 percent.[27] As the wealth of the lower classes increased, Parliament
brought in fresh laws in 1363 to prevent them from consuming expensive goods
formerly only affordable by the elite. These sumptuary laws proved unenforceable,
but the wider labour laws continued to be firmly applied.[28]
War and finance
Another factor in the revolt of 1381 was the conduct of the war with France. In
1337 Edward III of England had pressed his claims to the French throne, beginning a
long-running conflict that became known as the Hundred Years' War. Edward had
initial successes, but his campaigns were not decisive. Charles V of France became
more active in the conflict after 1369, taking advantage of his country's greater
economic strength to commence cross-Channel raids on England.[29] By the 1370s,
England's armies on the continent were under huge military and financial pressure;
the garrisons in Calais and Brest alone, for example, were costing £36,000 a year
to maintain, while military expeditions could consume £50,000 in only six months.
[30][nb 1] Edward died in 1377, leaving the throne to his grandson, Richard II,
then only ten years old.[32]

Medieval painting
English soldiers landing in Normandy, c. 1380–1400, during the Hundred Years' War
Richard's government was formed around his uncles, most prominently the rich and
powerful John of Gaunt, and many of his grandfather's former senior officials. They
faced the challenge of financially sustaining the war in France. Taxes in the 14th
century were raised on an ad hoc basis through Parliament, then comprising the
Lords, the titled aristocracy and clergy; and the Commons, the representatives of
the knights, merchants and senior gentry from across England.[33] These taxes were
typically imposed on a household's movable possessions, such as their goods or
stock.[34] The raising of these taxes affected the members of the Commons much more
than the Lords.[35] To complicate matters, the official statistics used to
administer the taxes pre-dated the Black Death and, since the size and wealth of
local communities had changed greatly since the plague, effective collection had
become increasingly difficult.[36]

Just before Edward's death, Parliament introduced a new form of taxation called the
poll tax, which was levied at the rate of four pence on every person over the age
of 14, with a deduction for married couples.[37][nb 2] Designed to spread the cost
of the war over a broader economic base than previous tax levies, this round of
taxation proved extremely unpopular but raised £22,000.[37] The war continued to go
badly and, despite raising some money through forced loans, the Crown returned to
Parliament in 1379 to request further funds.[39] The Commons were supportive of the
young King, but had concerns about the amounts of money being sought and the way
this was being spent by the King's counsellors, whom they suspected of corruption.
[40] A second poll tax was approved, this time with a sliding scale of taxes
against seven different classes of English society, with the upper classes paying
more in absolute terms.[41] Widespread evasion proved to be a problem, and the tax
only raised £18,600 – far short of the £50,000 that had been hoped for.[42]

In November 1380, Parliament was called together again in Northampton. Archbishop

Simon Sudbury, the new Lord Chancellor, updated the Commons on the worsening
situation in France, a collapse in international trade, and the risk of the Crown
having to default on its debts.[43] The Commons were told that the colossal sum of
£160,000 was now required in new taxes, and arguments ensued between the royal
council and Parliament about what to do next.[44] Parliament passed a third poll
tax (this time on a flat-rate basis of 12 pence on each person over 15, with no
allowance made for married couples) which they estimated would raise £66,666.[45]
The third poll tax was highly unpopular and many in the south-east evaded it by
refusing to register.[46] The royal council appointed new commissioners in March
1381 to interrogate local village and town officials in an attempt to find those
who were refusing to comply.[47] The extraordinary powers and interference of these
teams of investigators in local communities, primarily in the south-east and east
of England, raised still further the tensions surrounding the taxes.[48]

Protest and authority

Medieval painting
Sheep farming, from the Luttrell Psalter, c. 1320–1340
...from the beginning all men by nature were created alike...

–John Ball, 1381[49]

The decades running up to 1381 were a rebellious, troubled period.[50] London was a
particular focus of unrest, and the activities of the city's politically active
guilds and fraternities often alarmed the authorities.[51] Londoners resented the
expansion of the royal legal system in the capital, in particular the increased
role of the Marshalsea Court in Southwark, which had begun to compete with the city
authorities for judicial power in London.[52][nb 3] The city's population also
resented the presence of foreigners, Flemish weavers in particular.[54] Londoners
detested John of Gaunt because he was a supporter of the religious reformer John
Wycliffe, whom the London public regarded as a heretic.[55] John of Gaunt was also
engaged in a feud with the London elite and was rumoured to be planning to replace
the elected mayor with a captain, appointed by the Crown.[56] The London elite were
themselves fighting out a vicious, internal battle for political power.[57] As a
result, in 1381 the ruling classes in London were unstable and divided.[58]

Rural communities, particularly in the south-east, were unhappy with the operation
of serfdom and the use of the local manorial courts to exact traditional fines and
levies, not least because the same landowners who ran these courts also often acted
as enforcers of the unpopular labour laws or as royal judges.[59] Many of the
village elites refused to take up positions in local government and began to
frustrate the operation of the courts.[60] Animals seized by the courts began to be
retaken by their owners, and legal officials were assaulted.[61] Some started to
advocate the creation of independent village communities, respecting traditional
laws but separate from the hated legal system centred in London.[62] As the
historian Miri Rubin describes, for many, "the problem was not the country's laws,
but those charged with applying and safeguarding them".[63]

Concerns were raised about these changes in society.[64] William Langland wrote the
poem Piers Plowman in the years before 1380, praising peasants who respected the
law and worked hard for their lords, but complaining about greedy, travelling
labourers demanding higher wages.[65] The poet John Gower warned against a future
revolt in both Mirour de l'Omme and Vox Clamantis.[66] There was a moral panic
about the threat posed by newly arrived workers in the towns and the possibility
that servants might turn against their masters.[67] New legislation was introduced
in 1359 to deal with migrants, existing conspiracy laws were more widely applied
and the treason laws were extended to include servants or wives who betrayed their
masters and husbands.[68] By the 1370s, there were fears that if the French invaded
England, the rural classes might side with the invaders.[22]

The discontent began to give way to open protest. In 1377, the "Great Rumour"
occurred in south-east and south-west England.[69] Rural workers organised
themselves and refused to work for their lords, arguing that, according to the
Domesday Book, they were exempted from such requests.[70] The workers made
unsuccessful appeals to the law courts and the King.[71] There were also widespread
urban tensions, particularly in London, where John of Gaunt narrowly escaped being
lynched.[72] The troubles increased again in 1380, with protests and disturbances
across northern England and in the western towns of Shrewsbury and Bridgwater.[73]
An uprising occurred in York, during which John de Gisborne, the city's mayor, was
removed from office, and fresh tax riots followed in early 1381.[74] There was a
great storm in England during May 1381, which many felt to prophesy future change
and upheaval, adding further to the disturbed mood.[75]

Events
Overview
The final trigger for the revolt was the intervention of a royal official, John
Bampton, in Essex on 30 May 1381. His attempts to collect unpaid poll taxes in
Brentwood ended in a violent confrontation, which rapidly spread across the
southeast of the country. A wide spectrum of rural society, including many local
artisans and village officials, rose up in protest, burning court records and
opening the local prisons. The rebels sought a reduction in taxation, an end to
serfdom, and the removal of King Richard II's senior officials and law courts.

Inspired by the sermons of the radical cleric John Ball and led by Wat Tyler, a
contingent of Kentish rebels advanced on London. They were met at Blackheath by
representatives of the royal government, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade
them to return home. King Richard, then aged 14, retreated to the safety of the
Tower of London, but most of the royal forces were abroad or in northern England.
On 13 June, the rebels entered London and, joined by many local townsfolk, attacked
the prisons, destroyed the Savoy Palace, set fire to law books and buildings in the
Temple, and killed anyone associated with the royal government. The following day,
Richard met the rebels at Mile End and agreed to most of their demands, including
the abolition of serfdom. Meanwhile, rebels entered the Tower of London, killing
Simon Sudbury, Lord Chancellor, and Robert Hales, Lord High Treasurer, whom they
found inside.

On 15 June, Richard left the city to meet Tyler and the rebels at Smithfield.
Violence broke out, and Richard's party killed Tyler. Richard defused the tense
situation long enough for London's mayor, William Walworth, to gather a militia
from the city and disperse the rebel forces. Richard immediately began to re-
establish order in London and rescinded his previous grants to the rebels. The
revolt had also spread into East Anglia, where the University of Cambridge was
attacked and many royal officials were killed. Unrest continued until the
intervention of Henry Despenser, who defeated a rebel army at the Battle of North
Walsham on 25 or 26 June. Troubles extended north to York, Beverley, and
Scarborough, and as far west as Bridgwater in Somerset. Richard mobilised 4,000
soldiers to restore order. Most of the rebel leaders were tracked down and
executed; by November, at least 1,500 rebels had been killed.

Outbreak of revolt
Essex and Kent
The revolt of 1381 broke out in Essex, following the arrival of John Bampton to
investigate non-payment of the poll tax on 30 May.[76] Bampton was a Member of
Parliament, a Justice of the Peace and well-connected with royal circles.[76] He
based himself in Brentwood and summoned representatives from the neighbouring
villages of Corringham, Fobbing and Stanford-le-Hope to explain and make good the
shortfalls on 1 June.[76] The villagers appear to have arrived well-organised, and
armed with old bows and sticks.[77] Bampton first interrogated the people of
Fobbing, whose representative, Thomas Baker, declared that his village had already
paid their taxes, and that no more money would be forthcoming.[77] When Bampton and
two sergeants attempted to arrest Baker, violence broke out.[76] Bampton escaped
and retreated to London, but three of his clerks and several of the Brentwood
townsfolk who had agreed to act as jurors were killed.[78] Robert Bealknap, the
Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, who was probably already holding court
in the area, was empowered to arrest and deal with the perpetrators.[79]

Medieval painting
Peasant longbowmen at practice, from the Luttrell Psalter, c. 1320–1340
By the next day, the revolt was rapidly growing.[80] The villagers spread the news
across the region, and John Geoffrey, a local bailiff, rode between Brentwood and
Chelmsford, rallying support.[80] On 4 June, the rebels gathered at Bocking, where
their future plans seem to have been discussed.[81] The Essex rebels, possibly a
few thousand strong, advanced towards London, some probably travelling directly and
others via Kent.[80] One group, under the leadership of John Wrawe, a former
chaplain, marched north towards the neighbouring county of Suffolk, with the
intention of raising a revolt there.[82]

Revolt also flared in neighbouring Kent.[83] Sir Simon de Burley, a close associate
of both Edward III and the young Richard, had claimed that a man in Kent, called
Robert Belling, was an escaped serf from one of his estates.[83] Burley sent two
sergeants to Gravesend, where Belling was living, to reclaim him.[83] Gravesend's
local bailiffs and Belling tried to negotiate a solution under which Burley would
accept a sum of money in return for dropping his case, but this failed and Belling
was taken away to be imprisoned at Rochester Castle.[83] A furious group of local
people gathered at Dartford, possibly on 5 June, to discuss the matter.[84] From
there the rebels travelled to Maidstone, where they stormed the prison, and then on
to Rochester on 6 June.[85] Faced by the angry crowds, the constable in charge of
Rochester Castle surrendered it without a fight and Belling was freed.[86]

Some of the Kentish crowds now dispersed, but others continued.[86] From this
point, they appear to have been led by Wat Tyler, whom the Anonimalle Chronicle
suggests was elected their leader at a large gathering at Maidstone on 7 June.[87]
Relatively little is known about Tyler's former life; chroniclers suggest that he
was from Essex, had served in France as an archer and was a charismatic and capable
leader.[87] Several chroniclers believe that he was responsible for shaping the
political aims of the revolt.[88] Some also mention a Jack Straw as a leader among
the Kentish rebels during this phase in the revolt, but it is uncertain if this was
a real person, or a pseudonym for Wat Tyler or John Wrawe.[89][nb 4]

Tyler and the Kentish men advanced to Canterbury, entering the walled city and
castle without resistance on 10 June.[91] The rebels deposed the absent Archbishop
of Canterbury, Sudbury, and made the cathedral monks swear loyalty to their cause.
[92] They attacked properties in the city with links to the hated royal council,
and searched the city for suspected enemies, dragging the suspects out of their
houses and executing them.[93] The city prison was opened and the prisoners freed.
[94] Tyler then persuaded a few thousand of the rebels to leave Canterbury and
advance with him on London the next morning.[95]

March on the capital

Medieval painting
15th-century representation of the cleric John Ball encouraging the rebels; Wat
Tyler is shown in red, front left
The Kentish advance on London appears to have been coordinated with the movement of
the rebels in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk.[95] Their forces were armed with weapons
including sticks, battle axes, old swords and bows.[96][nb 5] Along their way, they
encountered Lady Joan, the King's mother, who was travelling back to the capital to
avoid being caught up in the revolt; she was mocked but otherwise left unharmed.
[95] The Kentish rebels reached Blackheath, just south-east of the capital, on 12
June.[95][nb 6]

Word of the revolt reached the King at Windsor Castle on the night of 10 June.[95]
He travelled by boat down the River Thames to London the next day, taking up
residence in the powerful fortress of the Tower of London for safety, where he was
joined by his mother, Archbishop Sudbury, the Lord High Treasurer Sir Robert Hales,
the Earls of Arundel, Salisbury and Warwick and several other senior nobles.[99] A
delegation, headed by Thomas Brinton, the Bishop of Rochester, was sent out from
London to negotiate with the rebels and persuade them to return home.[95]

At Blackheath, John Ball gave a famous sermon to the assembled Kentishmen.[100]

Ball was a well-known priest and radical preacher from Kent, who was by now closely
associated with Tyler.[101] Chroniclers' accounts vary as to how he came to be
involved in the revolt; he may have been released from Maidstone prison by the
crowds, or might have been already at liberty when the revolt broke out.[102] Ball
rhetorically asked the crowds "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then a
gentleman?" and promoted the rebel slogan "With King Richard and the true commons
of England".[100] The phrases emphasised the rebel opposition to the continuation
of serfdom and to the hierarchies of the Church and State that separated the
subject from the King, while stressing that they were loyal to the monarchy and,
unlike the King's advisers, were "true" to Richard.[103] The rebels rejected
proposals from the Bishop of Rochester that they should return home, and instead
prepared to march on.[95]

Discussions took place in the Tower of London about how to deal with the revolt.
[95] The King had only a few troops at hand, in the form of the castle's garrison,
his immediate bodyguard and, at most, several hundred soldiers.[104][nb 7] Many of
the more experienced military commanders were in France, Ireland and Germany, and
the nearest major military force was in the north of England, guarding against a
potential Scottish invasion.[106] Resistance in the provinces was also complicated
by English law, which stated that only the King could summon local militias or
lawfully execute rebels and criminals, leaving many local lords unwilling to
attempt to suppress the uprisings on their own authority.[107]

Since the Blackheath negotiations had failed, the decision was taken that the King
himself should meet the rebels, at Greenwich, on the south side of the Thames.[108]
Guarded by four barges of soldiers, Richard sailed from the Tower on the morning of
13 June, where he was met on the other side by the rebel crowds.[109] The
negotiations failed, as Richard was unwilling to come ashore and the rebels refused
to enter discussions until he did.[109] Richard returned across the river to the
Tower.[110]

Events in London
Entry to the city
Map of London
Map of London in 1381:
A – Clerkenwell
B – Priory of St. John
C – Smithfield
D – Newgate and Fleet Prisons
E – The Savoy Palace
F – The Temple
G – Black Friars
H – Aldgate
I – Mile End
J – Westminster
K – Southwark
L – Marshalsea Prison
M – London Bridge
N – Tower of London
The rebels began to cross from Southwark onto London Bridge on the afternoon of 13
June.[110] The defences on London Bridge were opened from the inside, either in
sympathy for the rebel cause or out of fear, and the rebels advanced into the city.
[111][nb 8] At the same time, the rebel force from Essex made its way towards
Aldgate on the north side of the city.[113] The rebels swept west through the
centre of the city, and Aldgate was opened to let the rest of the rebels in.[114]

The Kentish rebels had assembled a wide-ranging list of people whom they wanted the
King to hand over for execution.[109] It included national figures, such as John of
Gaunt, Archbishop Sudbury and Hales; other key members of the royal council;
officials, such as Belknap and Bampton who had intervened in Kent; and other hated
members of the wider royal circle.[109] When they reached the Marshalsea Prison in
Southwark, they tore it apart.[115] By now the Kent and Essex rebels had been
joined by many rebellious Londoners.[116] The Fleet and Newgate Prisons were
attacked by the crowds, and the rebels also targeted houses belonging to Flemish
immigrants.[117]

On the north side of London, the rebels approached Smithfield and Clerkenwell
Priory, the headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller which was headed by Hales.[118]
The priory was destroyed, along with the nearby manor.[118] Heading west along
Fleet Street, the rebels attacked the Temple, a complex of legal buildings and
offices owned by the Hospitallers.[119] The contents, books and paperwork were
brought out and burned in the street, and the buildings systematically demolished.
[119] Meanwhile, John Fordham, the Keeper of the Privy Seal and one of the men on
the rebels' execution list, narrowly escaped when the crowds ransacked his
accommodation but failed to notice he was still in the building.[119]

Next to be attacked along Fleet Street was the Savoy Palace, a huge, luxurious
building belonging to John of Gaunt.[120] According to the chronicler Henry
Knighton it contained "such quantities of vessels and silver plate, without
counting the parcel-gilt and solid gold, that five carts would hardly suffice to
carry them"; official estimates placed the value of the contents at around £10,000.
[120] The interior was systematically destroyed by the rebels, who burnt the soft
furnishings, smashed the precious metal work, crushed the gems, set fire to the
Duke's records and threw the remains into the Thames and the city drains.[120]
Almost nothing was stolen by the rebels, who declared themselves to be "zealots for
truth and justice, not thieves and robbers".[121] The remains of the building were
then set alight.[122] In the evening, rebel forces gathered outside the Tower of
London, from where the King watched the fires burning across the city.[123]

Taking the Tower of London

Medieval painting
Late 15th-century depiction of the Tower of London and its keep, the White Tower.
Old London Bridge is visible in the background.
On the morning of 14 June, the crowd continued west along the Thames, burning the
houses of officials around Westminster and opening the Westminster prison.[124]
They then moved back into central London, setting fire to more buildings and
storming Newgate Prison.[124] The hunt for Flemings continued, and those with
Flemish-sounding accents were killed, including the royal adviser, Richard Lyons.
[125][nb 9] In one city ward, the bodies of 40 executed Flemings were piled up in
the street, and at the Church of St Martin Vintry, popular with the Flemish, 35 of
the community were killed.[127] Historian Rodney Hilton argues that these attacks
may have been coordinated by the weavers' guilds of London, who were commercial
competitors of the Flemish weavers.[128]

Isolated inside the Tower, the royal government was in a state of shock at the turn
of events.[129] The King left the castle that morning and made his way to negotiate
with the rebels at Mile End in east London, taking only a very small bodyguard with
him.[130] The King left Sudbury and Hales behind in the Tower, either for their own
safety or because Richard had decided it would be safer to distance himself from
his unpopular ministers.[131] Along the way, several Londoners accosted the King to
complain about alleged injustices.[132]

It is uncertain who spoke for the rebels at Mile End, and Wat Tyler may not have
been present on this occasion, but they appear to have put forward their various
demands to the King, including the surrender of the hated officials on their lists
for execution; the abolition of serfdom and unfree tenure; "that there should be no
law within the realm save the law of Winchester", and a general amnesty for the
rebels.[133] It is unclear precisely what was meant by the law of Winchester, but
it probably referred to the rebel ideal of self-regulating village communities.
[134][nb 10] Richard issued charters announcing the abolition of serfdom, which
immediately began to be disseminated around the country.[136] He declined to hand
over any of his officials, apparently instead promising that he would personally
implement any justice that was required.[137]
While Richard was at Mile End, the Tower was taken by the rebels.[138] This force,
separate from those operating under Tyler at Mile End, approached the castle,
possibly in the late morning.[138][nb 11] The gates were open to receive Richard on
his return and a crowd of around 400 rebels entered the fortress, encountering no
resistance, possibly because the guards were terrified by them.[139]

Once inside, the rebels began to hunt down their key targets, and found Archbishop
Sudbury and Robert Hales in the chapel of the White Tower.[140] Along with William
Appleton, John of Gaunt's physician, and John Legge, a royal sergeant, they were
taken out to Tower Hill and beheaded.[140] Their heads were paraded around the
city, before being affixed to London Bridge.[141] The rebels found John of Gaunt's
son, the future Henry IV, and were about to execute him as well, when John Ferrour,
one of the royal guards, successfully interceded on his behalf.[142] The rebels
also discovered Lady Joan and Joan Holland, Richard's sister, in the castle but let
them go unharmed after making fun of them.[143] The castle was thoroughly looted of
armour and royal paraphernalia.[144]

In the aftermath of the attack, Richard did not return to the Tower but instead
travelled from Mile End to the Great Wardrobe, one of his royal houses in
Blackfriars, part of south-west London.[145] There he appointed the military
commander Richard FitzAlan, the Earl of Arundel, to replace Sudbury as Chancellor,
and began to make plans to regain an advantage over the rebels the following day.
[146] Many of the Essex rebels now began to disperse, content with the King's
promises, leaving Tyler and the Kentish forces the most significant faction in
London.[147] Tyler's men moved around the city that evening, seeking out and
killing John of Gaunt's employees, foreigners and anyone associated with the legal
system.[148]

Smithfield
Medieval painting
Late 14th-century depiction of William Walworth killing Wat Tyler; the King is
represented twice, watching events unfold (left) and addressing the crowd (right).
British Library, London.
On 15 June the royal government and the remaining rebels, who were unsatisfied with
the charters granted the previous day, agreed to meet at Smithfield, just outside
the city walls.[149] London remained in confusion, with various bands of rebels
roaming the city independently.[144] Richard prayed at Westminster Abbey, before
setting out for the meeting in the late afternoon.[150] The chroniclers' accounts
of the encounter all vary on matters of detail, but agree on the broad sequence of
events.[151] The King and his party, at least 200 strong and including men-at-arms,
positioned themselves outside St Bartholomew's Priory to the east of Smithfield,
and the thousands of rebels massed along the western end.[152][nb 12]

Richard probably called Tyler forwards from the crowd to meet him, and Tyler
greeted the King with what the royal party considered excessive familiarity,
terming Richard his "brother" and promising him his friendship.[154] Richard
queried why Tyler and the rebels had not yet left London following the signing of
the charters the previous day, but this brought an angry rebuke from Tyler, who
requested that a further charter be drawn up.[155] The rebel leader rudely demanded
refreshment and, once this had been provided, attempted to leave.[156]

An argument then broke out between Tyler and some of the royal servants.[156] The
Lord Mayor of London, William Walworth, stepped forward to intervene, Tyler made
some motion towards the King, and the royal soldiers leapt in.[157] Either Walworth
or Richard ordered Tyler to be arrested, Tyler attempted to attack the Mayor, and
Walworth responded by stabbing Tyler.[156] Ralph Standish, a royal squire, then
repeatedly stabbed Tyler with his sword, mortally injuring him.[158]
The situation was now precarious and violence appeared likely as the rebels
prepared to unleash a volley of arrows.[158] Richard rode forward towards the crowd
and persuaded them to follow him away from Smithfield, to Clerkenwell Fields,
defusing the situation.[158] Walworth meanwhile began to regain control of the
situation, backed by reinforcements from the city.[159] Tyler's head was cut off
and displayed on a pole and, with their leader dead and the royal government now
backed by the London militia, the rebel movement began to collapse.[160] Richard
promptly knighted Walworth and his leading supporters for their services.[158]

Wider revolt
Eastern England
Photograph
The Abbey Gate of Bury St Edmunds Abbey, stormed by the rebels on 13 June
While the revolt was unfolding in London, John Wrawe led his force into Suffolk.
[161] Wrawe had considerable influence over the development of the revolt across
eastern England, where there may have been almost as many rebels as in the London
revolt.[162] The authorities put up very little resistance to the revolt: the major
nobles failed to organise defences, key fortifications fell easily to the rebels
and the local militias were not mobilised.[163] As in London and the south-east,
this was in part due to the absence of key military leaders and the nature of
English law, but any locally recruited men might also have proved unreliable in the
face of a popular uprising.[164]

On 12 June, Wrawe attacked Sir Richard Lyons' property at Overhall, advancing on to

Cavendish and Bury St Edmunds in west Suffolk the next day, gathering further
support as they went.[165] John Cambridge, the Prior of the wealthy Bury St Edmunds
Abbey, was disliked in the town, and Wrawe allied himself with the townspeople and
stormed the abbey.[166] The Prior escaped, but was found two days later and
beheaded.[167] A small band of rebels marched north to Thetford to extort
protection money from the town, and another group tracked down Sir John Cavendish,
the Chief Justice of the King's Bench and Chancellor of the University of
Cambridge.[168] Cavendish was caught in Lakenheath and killed.[169] John Battisford
and Thomas Sampson independently led a revolt near Ipswich on 14 June.[170] They
took the town without opposition and looted the properties of the archdeacon and
local tax officials.[170] The violence spread out further, with attacks on many
properties and the burning of the local court records.[171] One official, Edmund
Lakenheath, was forced to flee from the Suffolk coast by boat.[172]

Revolt began to stir in St Albans in Hertfordshire late on 13 June, when news broke
of the events in London.[173] There had been long-running disagreements in St
Albans between the town and the local abbey, which had extensive privileges in the
region.[174] On 14 June, protesters met with the Abbot, Thomas de la Mare, and
demanded their freedom from the abbey.[173] A group of townsmen under the
leadership of William Grindecobbe travelled to London, where they appealed to the
King for the rights of the abbey to be abolished.[175] Wat Tyler, then still in
control of the city, granted them authority in the meantime to take direct action
against the abbey.[176] Grindecobbe and the rebels returned to St Albans, where
they found the Prior had already fled.[177] The rebels broke open the abbey prison,
destroyed the fences marking out the abbey lands and burnt the abbey records in the
town square.[178] They then forced Thomas de la Mare to surrender the abbey's
rights in a charter on 16 June.[179] The revolt against the abbey spread out over
the next few days, with abbey property and financial records being destroyed across
the county.[180]

Photograph
Corpus Christi College's Old Court, attacked by the rebels on 15 June
On 15 June, a revolt broke out in Cambridgeshire, led by elements of Wrawe's
Suffolk rebellion and some local men, such as John Greyston, who had been involved
in the events in London and had returned to his home county to spread the revolt,
and Geoffrey Cobbe and John Hanchach, members of the local gentry.[181] The
University of Cambridge, staffed by priests and enjoying special royal privileges,
was widely hated by the other inhabitants of the town.[181] A revolt backed by the
Mayor of Cambridge broke out with the university as its main target.[181] The
rebels ransacked Corpus Christi College, which had connections to John of Gaunt,
and the University's church, and attempted to execute the university bedel, who
escaped.[182] The university's library and archives were burnt in the centre of the
town, with one Margery Starre leading the mob in a dance to the rallying cry "Away
with the learning of clerks, away with it!" while the documents burned.[183] The
next day, the university was forced to negotiate a new charter, giving up its royal
privileges.[184] Unrest then spread north from Cambridge toward Ely, where the
prison was opened and the local Justice of the Peace executed.[185]

In Norfolk, the revolt was led by Geoffrey Litster, a weaver, and Sir Roger Bacon,
a local lord with ties to the Suffolk rebels.[186] Litster began sending out
messengers across the county in a call to arms on 14 June, and isolated outbreaks
of violence occurred.[187] The rebels assembled on 17 June outside Norwich and
killed Sir Robert Salle, who was in charge of the city defences and had attempted
to negotiate a settlement.[188] The people of the town then opened the gates to let
the rebels in.[188] They began looting buildings and killed Reginald Eccles, a
local official.[189] William de Ufford, the Earl of Suffolk fled his estates and
travelled in disguise to London.[190] The other leading members of the local gentry
were captured and forced to play out the roles of a royal household, working for
Litster.[190] Violence spread out across the county, as prisons were opened,
Flemish immigrants killed, court records burned, and property looted and destroyed.
[191]

Northern and western England

Medieval painting
An illustration from Vox Clamantis by John Gower, a poem which described and
condemned the Revolt, in Glasgow University Library
Revolts also occurred across the rest of England, particularly in the cities of the
north, traditionally centres of political unrest.[192] In the town of Beverley,
violence broke out between the richer mercantile elite and the poorer townspeople
during May.[193] By the end of the month the rebels had taken power and replaced
the former town administration with their own.[194] The rebels attempted to enlist
the support of Alexander Neville, the Archbishop of York, and in June forced the
former town government to agree to arbitration through Neville.[195] Peace was
restored in June 1382 but tensions continued to simmer for many years.[196]

Word of the troubles in the south-east spread north, slowed by the poor
communication links of medieval England.[197] In Leicester, where John of Gaunt had
a substantial castle, warnings arrived of a force of rebels advancing on the city
from Lincolnshire, who were intent on destroying the castle and its contents.[197]
The mayor and the town mobilised their defences, including a local militia, but the
rebels never arrived.[198] John of Gaunt was in Berwick when word reached him on 17
June of the revolt.[199] Not knowing that Wat Tyler had by now been killed, John of
Gaunt placed his castles in Yorkshire and Wales on alert.[200] Fresh rumours, many
of them incorrect, continued to arrive in Berwick, suggesting widespread rebellions
across the west and east of England and the looting of the ducal household in
Leicester; rebel units were even said to be hunting for the Duke himself.[200]
Gaunt began to march to Bamburgh Castle, but then changed course and diverted north
into Scotland, only returning south once the fighting was over.[201]

News of the initial events in London also reached York around 17 June, and attacks
at once broke out on the properties of the Dominican friars, the Franciscan
friaries and other religious institutions.[202] Violence continued over the coming
weeks, and on 1 July a group of armed men, under the command of John de Gisbourne,
forced their way into the city and attempted to seize control.[203] The mayor,
Simon de Quixlay, gradually began to reclaim authority, but order was not properly
restored until 1382.[203] The news of the southern revolt reached Scarborough where
riots broke out against the ruling elite on 23 June, with the rebels dressed in
white hoods with a red tail at the back.[204] Members of the local government were
deposed from office, and one tax collector was nearly lynched.[205] By 1382 the
elite had re-established power.[206]

In the Somerset town of Bridgwater, revolt broke out on 19 June, led by Thomas
Ingleby and Adam Brugge.[207] The crowds attacked the local Augustine house and
forced their master to give up his local privileges and pay a ransom.[208] The
rebels then turned on the properties of John Sydenham, a local merchant and
official, looting his manor and burning paperwork, before executing Walter Baron, a
local man.[209] The Ilchester prison was stormed, and one unpopular prisoner
executed.[210]

Suppression
Photograph
A 14th-century carving of Henry Despenser, the victor of the Battle of North
Walsham in Norfolk
The royal suppression of the revolt began shortly after the death of Wat Tyler on
15 June.[211] Sir Robert Knolles, Sir Nicholas Brembre and Sir Robert Launde were
appointed to restore control in the capital.[212] A summons was put out for
soldiers, probably around 4,000 men were mustered in London, and expeditions to the
other troubled parts of the country soon followed.[213]

The revolt in East Anglia was independently suppressed by Henry Despenser, the
Bishop of Norwich.[190] Henry was in Stamford in Lincolnshire when the revolt broke
out, and when he found out about it he marched south with eight men-at-arms and a
small force of archers, gathering more forces as he went.[214] He marched first to
Peterborough, where he routed the local rebels and executed any he could capture,
including some who had taken shelter in the local abbey.[215] He then headed south-
east via Huntingdon and Ely, reached Cambridge on 19 June, and then headed further
into the rebel-controlled areas of Norfolk.[216] Henry reclaimed Norwich on 24
June, before heading out with a company of men to track down the rebel leader,
Geoffrey Litster.[217] The two forces met at the Battle of North Walsham on 25 or
26 June; the Bishop's forces triumphed and Litster was captured and executed.[218]
Henry's quick action was essential to the suppression of the revolt in East Anglia,
but he was very unusual in taking matters into his own hands in this way, and his
execution of the rebels without royal sanction was illegal.[219]

On 17 June, the King dispatched his half-brother Thomas Holland and Sir Thomas
Trivet to Kent with a small force to restore order.[220] They held courts at
Maidstone and Rochester.[220] William de Ufford, the Earl of Suffolk, returned to
his county on 23 June, accompanied by a force of 500 men.[221] He quickly subdued
the area and was soon holding court in Mildenhall, where many of the accused were
sentenced to death.[222] He moved on into Norfolk on 6 July, holding court in
Norwich, Great Yarmouth and Hacking.[220] Hugh, Lord la Zouche, led the legal
proceedings against the rebels in Cambridgeshire.[220] In St Albans, the Abbot
arrested William Grindecobbe and his main supporters.[223]

On 20 June, the King's uncle, Thomas of Woodstock, and Robert Tresilian, the
replacement Chief Justice, were given special commissions across the whole of
England.[220] Thomas oversaw court cases in Essex, backed up by a substantial
military force as resistance was continuing and the county was still in a state of
unrest.[224] Richard himself visited Essex, where he met with a rebel delegation
seeking confirmation of the grants the King had given at Mile End.[225] Richard
rejected them, allegedly telling them that "rustics you were and rustics you are
still. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher".[225]
[nb 13] Tresilian soon joined Thomas, and carried out 31 executions in Chelmsford,
then travelled to St Albans in July for further court trials, which appear to have
utilised dubious techniques to ensure convictions.[227] Thomas went on to
Gloucester with 200 soldiers to suppress the unrest there.[228] Henry Percy, the
Earl of Northumberland, was tasked to restore order to Yorkshire.[228]

A wide range of laws were invoked in the process of the suppression, from general
treason to charges of book burning or demolishing houses, a process complicated by
the relatively narrow definition of treason at the time.[229] The use of informants
and denunciations became common, causing fear to spread across the country; by
November at least 1,500 people had been executed or killed in battle.[230] Many of
those who had lost property in the revolt attempted to seek legal compensation, and
John of Gaunt made particular efforts to track down those responsible for
destroying his Savoy Palace.[231] Most had only limited success, as the defendants
were rarely willing to attend court.[231] The last of these cases was resolved in
1387.[231]

The rebel leaders were quickly rounded up.[232] A rebel leader by the name of Jack
Straw was captured in London and executed.[233][nb 14] John Ball was caught in
Coventry, tried in St Albans, and executed on 15 July.[235] Grindecobbe was also
tried and executed in St Albans.[233] John Wrawe was tried in London; he probably
gave evidence against 24 of his colleagues in the hope of a pardon, but was
sentenced to be executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered on 6 May 1382.[236]
Sir Roger Bacon was probably arrested before the final battle in Norfolk, and was
tried and imprisoned in the Tower of London before finally being pardoned by the
Crown.[237] As of September 1381, Thomas Ingleby of Bridgwater had successfully
evaded the authorities.[238]

Although women such as Johanna Ferrour played a prominent role in the revolt, no
evidence has been found of women being executed or punished as harshly as their
male counterparts.[239]

Aftermath
Medieval painting
Late 14th-century portrait of Richard II, now in Westminster Abbey
The royal government and Parliament began to re-establish the normal processes of
government after the revolt; as the historian Michael Postan describes, the
uprising was in many ways a "passing episode".[240] On 30 June, the King ordered
England's serfs to return to their previous conditions of service, and on 2 July
the royal charters signed under duress during the rising were formally revoked.
[220] Parliament met in November to discuss the events of the year and how best to
respond to their challenges.[241] The revolt was blamed on the misconduct of royal
officials, who, it was argued, had been excessively greedy and overbearing.[242]
The Commons stood behind the existing labour laws, but requested changes in the
royal council, which Richard granted.[243] Richard also granted general pardons to
those who had executed rebels without due process, to all men who had remained
loyal, and to all those who had rebelled – with the exception of the men of Bury St
Edmunds, any men who had been involved in the killing of the King's advisers, and
those who were still on the run from prison.[244]

Despite the violence of the suppression, the government and local lords were
relatively circumspect in restoring order after the revolt, and continued to be
worried about fresh revolts for several decades.[245] Few lords took revenge on
their peasants except through the legal processes of the courts.[246] Low-level
unrest continued for several more years.[247] In September 1382 there was trouble
in Norfolk, involving an apparent plot against the Bishop of Norwich, and in March
the following year there was an investigation into a plot to kill the sheriff of
Devon.[248] When negotiating rents with their landlords, peasants alluded to the
memory of the revolt and the threat of violence.[249]
There were no further attempts by Parliament to impose a poll tax or to reform
England's fiscal system.[250] The Commons instead concluded at the end of 1381 that
the military effort on the Continent should be "carefully but substantially
reduced".[251] Unable to raise fresh taxes, the government had to curtail its
foreign policy and military expeditions and began to examine the options for peace.
[252] The institution of serfdom declined after 1381, but primarily for economic
rather than political reasons.[253] Rural wages continued to increase, and lords
increasingly sold their serfs' freedom in exchange for cash, or converted
traditional forms of tenure to new leasehold arrangements.[254] During the 15th
century serfdom vanished in England.[249]

Rebels
Medieval painting
14th-century rural scene of a reeve directing serfs, from the Queen Mary Psalter.
British Library, London
Chroniclers primarily described the rebels as rural serfs, using broad, derogatory
Latin terms such as serviles rustici, servile genus and rusticitas.[255] Some
chroniclers, including Knighton, also noted the presence of runaway apprentices,
artisans and others, sometimes terming them the "lesser commons".[255] The evidence
from the court records following the revolt, albeit biased in various ways,
similarly shows the involvement of a much broader community, and the earlier
perception that the rebels were only constituted of unfree serfs is now rejected.
[256][nb 15]

The rural rebels came from a wide range of backgrounds, but typically they were, as
the historian Christopher Dyer describes, "people well below the ranks of the
gentry, but who mainly held some land and goods", and not the very poorest in
society, who formed a minority of the rebel movement.[258] Many had held positions
of authority in local village governance, and these seem to have provided
leadership to the revolt.[259] Some were artisans, including, as the historian
Rodney Hilton lists, "carpenters, sawyers, masons, cobblers, tailors, weavers,
fullers, glovers, hosiers, skinners, bakers, butchers, innkeepers, cooks and a
lime-burner".[260] They were predominantly male, but with some women in their
ranks.[261] The rebels were typically illiterate; only between 5 and 15 per cent of
England could read during this period.[262] They also came from a broad range of
local communities, including at least 330 south-eastern villages.[263]

Many of the rebels had urban backgrounds, and the majority of those involved in the
events of London were probably local townsfolk rather than peasants.[264] In some
cases, the townsfolk who joined the revolt were the urban poor, attempting to gain
at the expense of the local elites.[265] In London, for example, the urban rebels
appear to have largely been the poor and unskilled.[128] Other urban rebels were
part of the elite, such as at York where the protesters were typically prosperous
members of the local community, while in some instances, townsfolk allied
themselves with the rural population, as at Bury St Edmunds.[266] In other cases,
such as Canterbury, the influx of population from the villages following the Black
Death made any distinction between urban and rural less meaningful.[267] With the
Peasants’ Revolt marking the revolution of the freedom fight, labour had become so
expensive that the feudal system was ultimately coming to an end.[268] The rebels
of the Peasants’ Revolt were represented by various writers since they did not
represent themselves in historical records.[269] The distortion of written records
implied that these rebels were illiterate, or otherwise incoherent.[269] Some of
these distortions made by countless authors were also interpretative and favored
their own positions, making the job of historians more difficult as they try to
uncover a more truthful representation of the rebels.[269] Author and medievalist
Steven Justice exemplifies that the rebels were, in fact, capable of speech and
language at its most developed.[270] Examples of this included cultural forms of
expression such as rituals, performances, and literary texts.[270]
The vast majority of those involved in the revolt of 1381 were not represented in
Parliament and were excluded from its decision-making.[271] In a few cases the
rebels were led or joined by relatively prosperous members of the gentry, such as
Sir Roger Bacon in Norfolk.[272] Some of them later claimed to have been forced to
join the revolt by the rebels.[273] Clergy also formed part of the revolt; as well
as the more prominent leaders, such as John Ball or John Wrawe, nearly 20 are
mentioned in the records of the revolt in the south-east.[274] Some were pursuing
local grievances, some were disadvantaged and suffering relative poverty, and
others appear to have been motivated by strong radical beliefs.[275]

Many of those involved in the revolt used pseudonyms, particularly in the letters
sent around the country to encourage support and fresh uprisings.[276] They were
used both to avoid incriminating particular individuals and to allude to popular
values and stories.[277] One popular assumed name was Piers Plowman, taken from the
main character in William Langland's poem.[278] Jack was also a widely used rebel
pseudonym, and historians Steven Justice and Carter Revard suggest that this may
have been because it resonated with the Jacques of the French Jacquerie revolt
several decades earlier.[279]

Legacy
Historiography
Portrait painting of an older grey-haired man with grey whiskers clad in black and
sitting in a chair
Historian William Stubbs, who considered the revolt "one of the most portentous
events in the whole of our history", painted by Hubert von Herkomer[280]
Contemporary chroniclers of the events in the revolt have formed an important
source for historians. The chroniclers were biased against the rebel cause and
typically portrayed the rebels, in the words of the historian Susan Crane, as
"beasts, monstrosities or misguided fools".[281] London chroniclers were also
unwilling to admit the role of ordinary Londoners in the revolt, preferring to
place the blame entirely on rural peasants from the south-east.[1] Among the key
accounts was the anonymous Anonimalle Chronicle, whose author appears to have been
part of the royal court and an eye-witness to many of the events in London.[282]
The chronicler Thomas Walsingham was present for much of the revolt, but focused
his account on the terror of the social unrest and was extremely biased against the
rebels.[283] The events were recorded in France by Jean Froissart, the author of
the Chronicles.[284] He had well-placed sources close to the revolt, but was
inclined to elaborate the known facts with colourful stories.[285] No sympathetic
accounts of the rebels survive.[98]

For four centuries, chroniclers and historians of the revolt were overwhelmingly
negative, but attitudes started to change in the 18th century as serfdom was long
rejected and in the aftermath of the radicalism associated with the French
Revolution.[286] At the end of the 19th century, there was a surge in historical
interest in the Peasants' Revolt, spurred by the contemporary growth of the labour
and socialist movements.[287] Work by Charles Oman, Edgar Powell, André Réville and
G. M. Trevelyan established the course of the revolt.[288] By 1907, the accounts of
the chroniclers were all widely available in print and the main public records
concerning the events had been identified.[289] Réville began to use the legal
indictments that had been used against suspected rebels after the revolt as a fresh
source of historical information, and over the next century extensive research was
carried out into the local economic and social history of the revolt, using
scattered local sources across south-east England.[290]

Interpretations of the revolt have changed over the years. Historians of the 17th
Century, such as John Smyth, established the idea that the revolt had marked the
end of unfree labour and serfdom in England.[280] Historians of the 19th Century,
such as William Stubbs and Thorold Rogers, reinforced this conclusion, Stubbs
describing it as "one of the most portentous events in the whole of our history".
[280] In the 20th century, this interpretation was increasingly challenged by
historians such as May McKisack, Michael Postan and Richard Dobson, who revised the
impact of the revolt on further political and economic events in England.[291] Mid-
20th century Marxist historians were both interested in, and generally sympathetic
to, the rebel cause, a trend culminating in Hilton's 1973 account of the uprising,
set against the wider context of peasant revolts across Europe during the period.
[292] The Peasants' Revolt has received more academic attention than any other
medieval revolt, and this research has been interdisciplinary, involving
historians, literary scholars and international collaboration.[293]

A large slate memorial to 'The Great Rising' was commissioned by Matthew Bell and
carved by Emily Hoffnung. It was unveiled by the film director Ken Loach in
Smithfield on 15 July 2015.[294]

Popular culture
Engraved illustration
Illustration from title page to William Morris's A Dream of John Ball (1888), by
Edward Burne-Jones
The Peasants' Revolt became a popular literary subject.[295] The poet John Gower,
who had close ties to officials involved in the suppression of the revolt, amended
his famous poem Vox Clamantis after the revolt, inserting a section condemning the
rebels and likening them to wild animals.[296] Geoffrey Chaucer, who lived in
Aldgate and may have been in London during the revolt, used the rebel killing of
Flemings as a metaphor for wider disorder in The Nun's Priest's Tale part of The
Canterbury Tales, parodying Gower's poem.[297][298] Although the Peasant's Revolt
was only ever mentioned sparingly in Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales, the
Peasant's Revolt was one of the many historical incidents that occurred in
Chaucer's life prior to his popular works.[268] With other events such as The Black
Death, the devastation that followed after the plague incited the peasants that
survived to seek a better quality of life.[270] Evidence of the impression that the
revolt made on Chaucer can be seen in the Miller's Prologue of The Canterbury
Tales. Chaucer portrays the Miller as someone who is not entirely satisfied with
the typical idea of what a peasant is and how they should live, and he uses
metaphors in order to make this implication in the Miller's Prologue.[270] The
notion that the Miller is able to tell a tale that can match, or is even better
than one of the highest-ranking Knights in the pilgrimage shows the rebellion and
persistence in bettering one's status, which is similar to what was seen in the
attitudes of the peasants in their revolt.[270] Chaucer otherwise made no reference
to the revolt in his work, possibly because as he was a client of the King it would
have been politically unwise to discuss it.[299] William Langland, the author of
the poem Piers Plowman, which had been widely used by the rebels, made various
changes to its text after the revolt in order to distance himself from their cause.
[300]

The revolt formed the basis for the late 16th-century play, The Life and Death of
Jack Straw, possibly written by George Peele and probably originally designed for
production in the city's guild pageants.[301] It portrays Jack Straw as a tragic
figure, being led into wrongful rebellion by John Ball, making clear political
links between the instability of late-Elizabethan England and the 14th century.
[302] The story of the revolt was used in pamphlets during the English Civil War of
the 17th century, and formed part of John Cleveland's early history of the war.
[303] It was deployed as a cautionary account in political speeches during the 18th
century, and a chapbook entitled The History of Wat Tyler and Jack Strawe proved
popular during the Jacobite risings and American War of Independence.[304] The
historian James Crossley argues that after the French Revolution, the Peasants'
Revolt was seen more positively, especially among radicals and revolutionaries.
[305] Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke argued over the lessons to be drawn from the
revolt, Paine expressing sympathy for the rebels and Burke condemning the violence.
[306] The Romantic poet Robert Southey based his 1794 play Wat Tyler on the events,
taking a radical and pro-rebel perspective.[307]

As the historian Michael Postan describes, the revolt became famous "as a landmark
in social development and [as] a typical instance of working-class revolt against
oppression", and was widely used in 19th and 20th century socialist literature.
[308] William Morris built on Chaucer in his novel A Dream of John Ball, published
in 1888, creating a narrator who was openly sympathetic to the peasant cause,
albeit a 19th-century persona taken back to the 14th century by a dream.[309] The
story ends with a prophecy that socialist ideals will one day be successful.[310]
In turn, this representation of the revolt influenced Morris's utopian socialist
News from Nowhere.[311] Florence Converse used the revolt in her novel Long Will in
1903.[308] Later 20th century socialists continued to draw parallels between the
revolt and contemporary political struggles, including during the arguments over
the introduction of the Community Charge in the United Kingdom during the 1980s.
[308]

Conspiracy theorists, including writer John Robinson, have attempted to explain

alleged flaws in mainstream historical accounts of the events of 1381, such as the
speed with which the rebellion was coordinated.[312] Theories include that the
revolt was led by a secret, occult organisation called "the Great Society", said to
be an offshoot of the order of the Knights Templar destroyed in 1312, or that the
fraternity of the Freemasons was covertly involved in organising the revolt.[313]
[nb 16]

See also
Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe
Jack Cade
Kett's Rebellion
Levellers
John Preston (rebel)
Statute of Cambridge 1388
Notes
It is impossible to accurately compare 14th century and modern prices or incomes.
For comparison, the income of a typical nobleman such as Richard le Scrope was
around £600 a year, while only six earls in the kingdom enjoyed incomes of over
£5,000 a year.[31]
For comparison, the wage for an unskilled labourer in Essex in 1380 was around
three pence a day.[38]
The Marshalsea Court was originally intended to provide justice for the royal
household and those doing business with it, travelling with the King around the
country and having authority covering 12 miles (19 km) around the monarch. The
monarchs of the 14th century were increasingly based in London, resulting in the
Marshalsea Court taking up semi-permanent business in the capital. Successive
monarchs used the court to exercise royal power, often at the expense of the City
of London's Corporation.[53]
Walsingham highlights the role of a "Jack Straw", and is supported by Froissart,
although Knighton argues that this was a pseudonym; other chroniclers fail to
mention him at all. The historian Friedrich Brie popularised the argument in favour
of the pseudonym in 1906. Modern historians recognise Tyler as the primary leader,
and are doubtful about the role of "Jack Straw".[90]
Military historian Jonathan Sumption considers this description of the rebels'
weaponry, drawn from the chronicler Thomas Walsingham, as reliable; literary
historian Stephen Justice is less certain, noting the sarcastic manner in which
Walsingham mocks the rebels' old and dilapidated arms, including their bows
"reddened with age and smoke."[97]
Historian Andrew Prescott has critiqued these timings, arguing that it would have
been unlikely that so many rebels could have advanced so fast on London, given the
condition of the medieval road networks.[98]
Chronicler figures for the King's immediate forces in London vary; Henry Knighton
argues that the King had between 150–180 men in the Tower of London, Thomas
Walsingham suggests 1,200. These were probably over-estimates, and historian
Alastair Dunn assesses that only a skeleton force was present; Jonathan Sumption
judges that around 150 men-at-arms were present, and some archers.[105]
It is uncertain who opened the defences at London Bridge and Aldgate. After the
revolt three aldermen, John Horn, Walter Sibil and William Tongue, were put on
trial by the authorities, but it is unclear how far these accusations were
motivated by the post-conflict London politics. The historian Nigel Saul is
doubtful of their guilt in collaborating with the rebels. Rodney Hilton suggests
that they may have opened the gates in order to buy time and so prevent the
destruction of their city, although he prefers the theory that the London crowds
forced the gates to be opened. Jonathan Sumption similarly argues that the aldermen
were forced to open the gates in the face of popular pressure.[112]
The royal adviser Richard Lyons was believed to have Flemish origins, although he
was also unpopular in his own right as a result of his role in government.[126]
The rebel call for a return to the "law of Winchester" has been much debated. One
theory is that it was another term for the Domesday Book of William I, which was
believed to provide protection for particular groups of tenants. Another is that it
referred to the Statute of Winchester in 1285, which allowed for the enforcement of
local law through armed village communities, and which had been cited in more
recent legislation on the criminal law. The creation of special justices and royal
officials during the 14th century were seen as eroding these principles.[135]
Most chroniclers stated that the force that attacked the Tower of London was
separate to that operating under Tyler's command at Mile End; only the Anonimalle
Chronicle links them to Tyler. The timing of the late morning attack relies on the
account of the Westminster Chronicle.[138]
The primary sources for the events at Smithfield are the Anonimalle Chronicle,
Thomas Walsingham, Jean Froissart, Henry Knighton and the Westminster Chronicler.
There are minor differences in their accounts of events. Froissart suggests that
Wat Tyler intended to capture the King and kill the royal party, and that Tyler
initiated the engagement with Richard in order to carry out this plan. The
Anonimalle Chronicle and Walsingham both go into some, if varying, detail as to the
rebels' demands. Walsingham and Knighton wrote that Tyler, rather than being about
to depart at the end of his discussions with Richard, appeared to be about to kill
the King, triggering the royal response. Walsingham differs from the other
chroniclers in giving a key role in the early part of the encounter to Sir John
Newton.[153]
The "rustics" quotation from Richard II is from the chronicler Thomas Walsingham,
and should be treated with caution. Historian Dan Jones suspects that although
Richard no doubt despised the rebels, the language itself may have been largely
invented by Walsingham.[226]
As noted above, questions exist over Jack Straw's identity. The chronicler Thomas
Walsingham attributes a long confession to the Jack Straw executed in London, but
the reliability of this is questioned by historians: Rodney Hilton refers to it as
"somewhat dubious", while Alastair Dunn considers it to be essentially a
fabrication. There are no reliable details of the trial or execution.[234]
Historian Sylvia Federico notes the dangers in treating the pardons lists
simplistically, given the tendency for some innocent individuals to acquire pardons
for additional security, and the tendency for cases to be brought against
individuals for local, non-political reasons.[257]
The term "the Great Society" emerges from indictments against the rebels, in which
references were made the magne societatis. This probably meant "large company" or
"great band" of rebels, but was mistranslated in the late 19th century to refer to
the "Great Society".[314]
References
Strohm 2008, p. 201
Prescott 2017, p. 79
Rubin 2006, p. 121; Strohm 2008, p. 202; Cohn 2013, p. 3
Prescott 2017, p. 78
Dunn 2002, pp. 22–23
Rubin 2006, pp. 1–3
Rubin 2006, p. 2; Dunn 2002, p. 14
Postan 1975, p. 172
Dunn 2002, p. 14; Postan 1975, p. 172
Dyer 2009, p. 249; Dunn 2002, p. 15
Dyer 2009, pp. 271–272
Dyer 2009, pp. 273–274
Rubin 2006, p. 65
Dyer 2009, p. 278
Dyer 2000, pp. 202–203
Butcher 1987, p. 86
Dyer 2009, p. 282
Dyer 2009, p. 282; Rubin 2006, p. 69
Dyer 2009, pp. 282, 285
Dyer 2009, pp. 282–283
Rubin 2006, p. 69
Dyer 2009, p. 285
Rubin 2006, p. 122
Dyer 2009, p. 279; Rubin 2006, pp. 122–123
Dyer 2000, p. 200
Rubin 2006, p. 122; Dyer 2009, p. 278; Postan 1975, p. 172
Dyer 2009, p. 279
Dyer 2009, pp. 283–284; Jones 2010, p. 16
Rubin 2006, p. 121; Sumption 2009, pp. 18, 53–60
Sumption 2009, pp. 325–327, 354–355, 405; Dunn 2002, p. 52
Given-Wilson 1996, p. 157; Rubin 2006, p. 161
Rubin 2006, p. 120
Rubin 2006, p. 50
Dunn 2002, p. 50
Jones 2010, pp. 19–20
Dunn 2002, p. 51
Jones 2010, p. 21; Dunn 2002, p. 51
Dyer 2000, p. 168
Sumption 2009, pp. 325–327, 354–355; Dunn 2002, pp. 51–52
Rubin 2006, p. 120; Sumption 2009, p. 355
Dunn 2002, pp. 50–51
Dunn 2002, p. 51; Jones 2010, p. 22
Dunn 2002, pp. 52–53
Dunn 2002, p. 53; Sumption 2009, p. 407
Dunn 2002, p. 53; Sumption 2009, p. 408
Dunn 2002, p. 54; Sumption 2009, p. 419
Dunn 2002, p. 55
Sumption 2009, pp. 419–420; Powell 1896, p. 5
"BBC Radio 4 Voices of the Powerless – featuring Peasants Revolt". www.bbc.co.uk.
Postan 1975, p. 171; Dyer 2000, p. 214
Rubin 2006, pp. 121–122
Harding 1987, pp. 176–180; Dunn 2002, pp. 80–81
Dunn 2002, pp. 80–81
Spindler 2012, pp. 65, 72
Jones 2010, p. 34
Jones 2010, pp. 34, 35, 40
Oman 1906, p. 18
Jones 2010, p. 40
Dyer 2000, pp. 213–217
Dyer 2000, pp. 211–212
Dyer 2000, p. 212
Dyer 2000, p. 219; Rubin 2006, pp. 123–124
Rubin 2006, p. 124
Dyer 2009, p. 281
Dyer 2009, pp. 281, 282
Wickert 2016, p. 18
Rubin 2006, p. 70
Rubin 2006, p. 70; Harding 1987, pp. 18–190
Faith 1987, p. 43
Faith 1987, pp. 44–46
Faith 1987, p. 69
Dunn 2002, p. 88; Cohn 2013, p. 100
Cohn 2013, p. 105; Dilks 1927, p. 59
Dobson 1987, p. 123
Dyer 2000, p. 218.
Dunn 2002, p. 73
Sumption 2009, p. 420
Dunn 2002, p. 73; Sumption 2009, p. 420
Dunn 2002, pp. 73–74
Dunn 2002, p. 74
Sumption 2009, pp. 420–421
Dunn 2002, p. 122; Powell 1896, p. 9
Dunn 2002, p. 75
Dunn 2002, pp. 75–76
Dunn 2002, pp. 60, 76
Dunn 2002, p. 76
Dunn 2002, p. 58; Sumption 2009, p. 421
Dunn 2002, p. 58
Dunn 2002, pp. 62–63
Dunn 2002, pp. 62–63; Brie 1906, pp. 106–111; Matheson 1998, p. 150
Dunn 2002, pp. 76–77; Lyle 2002, p. 91
Dunn 2002, p. 77
Dunn 2002, p. 77; Sumption 2009, p. 421
Sumption 2009, p. 421
Dunn 2002, p. 78
Sumption 2009, p. 422
Justice 1994, p. 204; Sumption 2009, p. 422
Strohm 2008, p. 203
Dunn 2002, p. 78; Sumption 2009, p. 423
Sumption 2009, p. 423
Dunn 2002, p. 60; Sumption 2009, p. 422
Dunn 2002, p. 76; Sumption 2009, p. 422
Dunn 2002, p. 58; Jones 2010, pp. 62, 80; Rubin 2006, p. 124
Sumption 2009, p. 422; Dunn 2002, p. 135; Tuck 1987, p. 199
Dunn 2002, pp. 91–92; Sumption 2009, p. 423
Sumption 2009, p. 423; Dunn 2002, p. 135; Tuck 1987, p. 199
Tuck 1987, pp. 198–200
Dunn 2002, pp. 78–79
Dunn 2002, p. 79
Dunn 2002, p. 79; Sumption 2009, p. 424
Sumption 2009, p. 424; Dobson 1983, p. 220; Barron 1981, p. 3
Saul 1999, p. 424; Hilton 1995, pp. 189–190; Sumption 2009, p. 424
Sumption 2009, p. 424
Sumption 2009, p. 425
Dunn 2002, p. 81; Sumption 2009, p. 424
Sumption 2009, p. 425; Dunn 2002, p. 81
Sumption 2009, p. 425; Dunn 2002, pp. 81–82
Dunn 2002, p. 83
Dunn 2002, p. 84
Dunn 2002, pp. 85, 87
Dunn 2002, p. 86
Dunn 2002, pp. 86–87
Dunn 2002, p. 92
Dunn 2002, p. 88
Dunn 2002, p. 90
Cohn 2013, p. 286; Dunn 2002, p. 90
Spindler 2012, pp. 62, 71; Saul 1999, p. 70
Hilton 1995, p. 195
Dunn 2002, pp. 92–93
Dunn 2002, p. 95; Sumption 2009, p. 427
Dunn 2002, p. 95
Saul 1999, p. 68
Dunn 2002, pp. 68, 96; Oman 1906, p. 200
Dunn 2002, p. 69; Harding 1987, pp. 166–167
Harding 1987, pp. 165–169; Dunn 2002, p. 69
Dunn 2002, pp. 96–97
Dunn 2002, p. 98
Dunn 2002, p. 99
Sumption 2009, p. 427; Saul 1999, p. 69
Sumption 2009, pp. 427–428
Dunn 2002, p. 101
Dunn 2002, p. 101; Mortimer 1981, p. 18
Dunn 2002, pp. 99–100
Saul 1999, p. 69
Mortimer 1981, p. 18
Dunn 2002, p. 102; Sumption 2009, p. 428
Dunn 2002, p. 97
Sumption 2009, p. 428.
Dunn 2002, pp. 103, 105
Dunn 2002, pp. 102–103
Dunn 2002, p. 103
Dunn 2002, p. 103; Saul 1999, p. 70
Dunn 2002, pp. 103–106
Dunn 2002, p. 104
Dunn 2002, pp. 104–105
Dunn 2002, pp. 106–107
Dunn 2002, p. 106
Dunn 2002, p. 107
Dunn 2002, pp. 107–108
Dunn 2002, p. 107; Jones 2010, pp. 154–155
Dunn 2002, p. 122
Powell 1896, pp. 41, 60–61
Powell 1896, pp. 57–58
Powell 1896, p. 58; Tuck 1987, pp. 197–198
Dunn 2002, pp. 122–123
Dunn 2002, pp. 123–124
Dunn 2002, p. 124; Powell 1896, p. 19
Dunn 2002, p. 124; Powell 1896, p. 12
Dunn 2002, pp. 124–125
Dunn 2002, p. 126
Dunn 2002, p. 126; Powell 1896, p. 24.
Dunn 2002, p. 126; Powell 1896, p. 21
Dunn 2002, p. 113
Dunn 2002, pp. 112–113
Dunn 2002, p. 114
Dunn 2002, pp. 114–115
Dunn 2002, p. 115
Dunn 2002, pp. 115–117
Dunn 2002, pp. 117–118
Dunn 2002, p. 119
Dunn 2002, p. 127
 Dunn 2002, p. 128
Dunn 2002, pp. 128–129
Dunn 2002, p. 129
Powell 1896, pp. 45–49
Dunn 2002, p. 130; Powell 1896, p. 26
Powell 1896, pp. 27–28
Dunn 2002, p. 130; Powell 1896, p. 29
Dunn 2002, pp. 130–131
Dunn 2002, p. 131
Powell 1896, pp. 31–36
Dobson 1987, pp. 112–114
Dobson 1987, p. 124
Dobson 1987, pp. 126–127
Dobson 1987, pp. 127–128
Dobson 1987, pp. 128–129
Dunn 2002, p. 121
Dunn 2002, pp. 121–123
Dunn 2002, p. 143
Dunn 2002, pp. 143–144
Dunn 2002, p. 144
Dobson 1987, p. 121
Dobson 1987, pp. 122–123
Dobson 1987, pp. 130–136
Dobson 1987, pp. 136–137
Dobson 1987, p. 138
Dilks 1927, p. 64
Dilks 1927, p. 65
Dilks 1927, pp. 65–66
Dilks 1927, p. 66
Dunn 2002, p. 135
Dunn 2002, pp. 135–136
Dunn 2002, pp. 135–136; Tuck 1987, p. 200
Dunn 2002, p. 131; Oman 1906, pp. 130–132
Jones 2010, pp. 172–173
Jones 2010, pp. 178–182
Jones 2010, p. 194
Jones 2010, pp. 194–195
Tuck 1987, pp. 197, 201; Powell 1896, p. 61
Dunn 2002, p. 136
Dunn 2002, pp. 126, 136
Powell 1896, p. 25; Dunn 2002, p. 136
Dunn 2002, pp. 140–141
Dunn 2002, pp. 136–137
Saul 1999, p. 74
Jones 2010, p. 196; Saul 1999, p. 74; Strohm 2008, p. 198
Dunn 2002, pp. 137, 140–141
Dunn 2002, p. 137
Dunn 2002, pp. 137–138; Federico 2001, p. 169
Jones 2010, pp. 200–201; Prescott 2004, cited Jones 2010, p. 201
Dunn 2002, p. 138; Rubin 2006, p. 127
Jones 2010, p. 20
Dunn 2002, p. 139
Dunn 2002, pp. 71, 139;Hilton 1995, p. 219
Dunn 2002, pp. 137, 139–140
Powell 1896, p. 25; Dunn 2002, p. 139
Powell 1896, p. 39
Dilks 1927, p. 67
Melissa Hogenboom (14 June 2012). "Peasants' Revolt: The time when women took up
arms". BBC News Magazine. Retrieved 14 June 2012.
 Postan 1975, p. 172;Tuck 1987, p. 212
Dunn 2002, pp. 141–142
Tuck 1987, pp. 205–206
Dunn 2002, p. 142
Dunn 2002, pp. 142–143
Hilton 1995, p. 231; Tuck 1987, p. 210
Tuck 1987, p. 201
Rubin 2006, p. 127
Eiden 1999, p. 370; Rubin 2006, p. 127
Dyer 2009, p. 291
Tuck 1987, pp. 203–205
Sumption 2009, p. 430
Tuck 1987, pp. 208–209; Sumption 2009, p. 430
Dunn 2002, p. 147
Dunn 2002, p. 147; Hilton 1995, p. 232
Hilton 1995, pp. 176–177; Crane 1992, p. 202
Postan 1975, p. 171; Hilton 1995, pp. 178, 180; Strohm 2008, p. 197
Federico 2001, pp. 162–163
Dyer 2000, p. 196; Hilton 1995, p. 184; Strohm 2008, p. 197
Dyer 2000, pp. 197–198
Hilton 1995, p. 179
Federico 2001, p. 165
Crane 1992, p. 202
Dyer 2000, p. 192
Rubin 2006, p. 121; Strohm 2008, pp. 197–198
Butcher 1987, pp. 84–85
Butcher 1987, p. 85; Strohm 2008, p. 197
Butcher 1987, p. 85
"Interpretations of the Peasants' Revolt – KS3 History Revision". BBC Bitesize.
Retrieved 10 December 2021.
Crane 1992.
"Protest, Complaint, and Uprising in the "Miller's Tale."". chaucer.lib.utsa.edu.
Retrieved 10 December 2021.
Rubin 2006, p. 121
Hilton 1995, p. 184
Tuck 1987, p. 196
Hilton 1995, pp. 207–208
Hilton 1995, pp. 208–210
Jones 2010, p. 169; Hilton 1995, pp. 214–215
Jones 2010, p. 169
Justice 1994, p. 223
Justice 1994, p. 222
Hilton 1987, p. 2
Crane 1992, p. 208; Strohm 2008, pp. 198–199
Jones 2010, p. 215
Dunn 2002, pp. 99–100; Jones 2010, p. 215
Reynaud 1897, p. 94
Jones 2010, pp. 215–216
Crossley 2022
Dyer 2003, p. x; Crossley 2022, pp. 241–267
Dyer 2003, p. x; Powell 1896; Oman 1906; Réville 1898; Trevelyan 1899
Dyer 2000, p. 191
Dyer 2000, pp. 191–192; Hilton 1987, p. 5
Hilton 1987, pp. 2–3
Strohm 2008, p. 203; Hilton 1995; Jones 2010, p. 217; Dyer 2003, pp. xii–xiii;
Crossley 2022, pp. 345–401
Cohn 2013, pp. 3–4
"Peasants' Revolt Plaque Unveiled In Smithfield". Londonist. 17 July 2015.
Retrieved 18 October 2020.
 Jones 2010, p. 208; Crossley 2022
Fisher 1964, p. 102; Galloway 2010, pp. 298–299; Saul 2010, p. 87; Justice 1994,
p. 208; Crossley 2022, p. 47
Justice 1994, pp. 207–208; Crow & Leland 2008, p. xviii
Scales, Len (15 June 2007). "Bread, Cheese and Genocide: Imagining the Destruction
of Peoples in Medieval Western Europe" (PDF). History. 92 (307): 284–300.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.2007.00396.x. Retrieved 22 April 2022.
Hussey 1971, p. 6
Justice 1994, pp. 233–237; Crane 1992, pp. 211–213
Ribner 2005, pp. 71–72
Ribner 2005, pp. 71–74
Jones 2010, p. 210; Matheson 1998, p. 135; Crossley 2022, pp. 89–100
Jones 2010, p. 210; Matheson 1998, pp. 135–136; Crossley 2022, pp. 131–136
Crossley 2022
Matheson 1998, pp. 138–139;Crossley 2022, pp. 155–161
Matheson 1998, p. 143; Crossley 2022, pp. 161–183
Ortenberg 1981, p. 79; Postan 1975, p. 171; Crossley 2022, pp. 183–429
Ellis 2000, pp. 13–14
Matheson 1998, p. 144; Crossley 2022, pp. 268–297
Ousby 1996, p. 120
Robinson 2009, pp. 51–59
Robinson 2009, pp. 51–59; Silvercloud 2007, p. 287; Picknett & Prince 2007, p. 164
Hilton 1995, pp. 214–216
Bibliography
Arner, Lynn (2013). Chaucer, Gower, and the Vernacular Rising: Poetry and the
Problem of the Populace After 1381. University Park: Penn State University Press.
ISBN 978-0-271-05894-8.
Barron, Caroline M. (1981). Revolt in London: 11 to 15 June 1381. London: Museum of
London. ISBN 978-0-904818-05-5.
Brie, Friedrich (1906). "Wat Tyler and Jack Straw". English Historical Review. 21:
106–111.
Butcher, A. F. (1987). "English Urban Society and the Revolt of 1381". In Hilton,
Rodney; Alton, T. H. (eds.). The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 84–111. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Cohn, Samuel K. (2013). Popular Protest in Late Medieval English Towns. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-02780-0.
Crane, Susan (1992). "The Writing Lesson of 1381". In Hanawalt, Barbara A. (ed.).
Chaucer's England: Literature in Historical Context. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press. pp. 201–222. ISBN 978-0-8166-2019-7.
Crossley, James. 2021 "John Ball and the 'Peasants' Revolt'", in James Crossley and
Alastair Lockhart (eds.), Critical Dictionary of Apocalyptic and Millenarian
Movements.
Crossley, James (2022). Spectres of John Ball: The Peasants' Revolt in English
Political History, 1381–2020. London: Equinox. ISBN 978-1800501362.
Crow, Martin M.; Leland, Virginia E. (2008). "Chaucer's Life". In Cannon,
Christopher (ed.). The Riverside Chaucer (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University
Press. pp. xi–xxi. ISBN 978-0-19-955209-2.
Dilks, T. Bruce (1927). "Bridgwater and the Insurrection of 1381". Journal of the
Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society. 73: 57–67.
Dobson, R. B. (1983). The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.
ISBN 0-333-25505-4.
Dobson, R. B. (1987). "The Risings in York, Beverley and Scarborough". In Hilton,
Rodney; Alton, T. H. (eds.). The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 112–142. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Dunn, Alastair (2002). The Great Rising of 1381: the Peasants' Revolt and England's
Failed Revolution. Stroud, UK: Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-2323-4.
Dyer, Christopher (2000). Everyday Life in Medieval England. London and New York:
Hambledon and London. ISBN 978-1-85285-201-6.
Dyer, Christopher (2003). "Introduction". In Hilton, Rodney (ed.). Bondmen Made
Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (New ed.).
Abingdon, UK: Routledge. pp. ix–xv. ISBN 978-0-415-31614-9.
Dyer, Christopher (2009). Making a Living in the Middle Ages: the People of Britain
850–1520. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-10191-1.
Eiden, Herbert (1999). "Norfolk, 1382: a Sequel to the Peasants' Revolt". The
English Historical Review. 114 (456): 370–377. doi:10.1093/ehr/114.456.370.
Ellis, Steve (2000). Chaucer at Large: the Poet in the Modern Imagination.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-3376-0.
Faith, Rosamond (1987). "The 'Great Rumour' of 1377 and Peasant Ideology". In
Hilton, Rodney; Alton, T. H. (eds.). The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 43–73. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Federico, Silvia (2001). "The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381". Journal of British
Studies. 40 (2): 159–183. doi:10.1086/386239.
Fisher, John H. (1964). John Gower, Moral Philosopher and Friend of Chaucer. New
York: New York University Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-0149-2.
Galloway, Andrew (2010). "Reassessing Gower's Dream Visions". In Dutton, Elizabeth;
Hines, John; Yeager, R. F. (eds.). John Gower, Trilingual Poet: Language,
Translation, and Tradition. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. pp. 288–303. ISBN 978-1-
84384-250-7.
Given-Wilson, Chris (1996). The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages. London:
Routledge. ISBN 978-0-203-44126-8.
Harding, Alan (1987). "The Revolt Against the Justices". In Hilton, Rodney; Alton,
T. H. (eds.). The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 165–193. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Hilton, Rodney (1987). "Introduction". In Hilton, Rodney; Alton, T. H. (eds.). The
English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–8. ISBN 978-1-
84383-738-1.
Hilton, Rodney (1995). Bondmen Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the
English Rising of 1381. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-01880-7.
Hussey, Stanley Stewart (1971). Chaucer: an Introduction. London: Methuen. ISBN
978-0-416-29920-5.
Israel, Charles E. (1963). Who was then the gentleman? A novel. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Jones, Dan (2010). Summer of Blood: the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. London: Harper
Press. ISBN 978-0-00-721393-1.
Justice, Steven (1994). Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-20697-5.
Lyle, Marjorie (2002). Canterbury: 2000 Years of History (Revised ed.). Stroud, UK:
Tempus. ISBN 978-0-7524-1948-0.
Matheson, Lister M. (1998). "The Peasants' Revolt through Five Centuries of Rumor
and Reporting: Richard Fox, John Stow, and Their Successors". Studies in Philology.
95 (2): 121–151.
Mortimer, Ian (1981). The Fears of Henry IV: the Life of England's Self-Made King.
London: Vintage. ISBN 978-1-84413-529-5.
Oman, Charles (1906). The Great Revolt of 1381. Oxford: Clarendon Press. OCLC
752927432.
Ortenberg, Veronica (1981). In Search of the Holy Grail: the Quest for the Middle
Ages. London: Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-85285-383-9.
Ousby, Ian (1996). The Cambridge Paperback Guide to Literature in English.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43627-4.
Picknett, Lynn; Prince, Clive (2007). The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of
the True Identity of Christ (10th anniversary ed.). London: Random House. ISBN 978-
0-552-15540-3.
Postan, Michael (1975). The Medieval Economy and Society. Harmondsworth, UK:
Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-020896-8.
Powell, Edgar (1896). The Rising of 1381 in East Anglia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. OCLC 1404665.
Prescott, Andrew (2004). "'The Hand of God': the Suppression of the Peasants'
Revolt in 1381". In Morgan, Nigel (ed.). Prophecy, Apocalypse and the Day of Doom.
Donington, UK: Shaun Tyas. pp. 317–341. ISBN 978-1-900289-68-9.
Prescott, Andrew (2017). "'Great and Horrible Rumour': Shaping the English Revolt
of 1381". In Firnhaber-Baker, Justine; Schoenaers, Dirk (eds.). The Routledge
History Handbook of Medieval Revolt. London: Routledge. pp. 76–103. ISBN
9781315542423.
Réville, André (1898). Étude sur le Soulèvement de 1381 dans les Comtés de
Hertford, de Suffolk et de Norfolk (in French). Paris: A. Picard and sons. OCLC
162490454.
Reynaud, Gaston (1897). Chroniques de Jean Froissart (in French). Vol. 10. Paris:
Société de l'histoire de France.
Ribner, Irving (2005). The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-35314-4.
Robinson, John J. (2009). Born in Blood: the Lost Secrets of Freemasonry. Lanham,
US: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-59077-148-8.
Rubin, Miri (2006). The Hollow Crown: a History of Britain in the Late Middle Ages.
London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-014825-1.
Saul, Nigel (1999). Richard II. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-
07875-6.
Saul, Nigel (2010). "John Gower: Prophet or Turncoat?". In Dutton, Elizabeth;
Hines, John; Yeager, R. F. (eds.). John Gower, Trilingual Poet: Language,
Translation, and Tradition. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell Press. pp. 85–97. ISBN 978-1-
84384-250-7.
Silvercloud, Terry David (2007). The Shape of God: Secrets, Tales, and Legends of
the Dawn Warriors. Victoria, Canada: Trafford. ISBN 978-1-4251-0836-6.
Spindler, Erik (2012). "Flemings in the Peasants' Revolt, 1381". In Skoda, Hannah;
Lantschner, Patrick; Shaw, R. (eds.). Contact and Exchange in Later Medieval
Europe: Essays in Honour of Malcolm Vale. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press. pp.
59–78. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Strohm, Paul (2008). "A 'Peasants' Revolt'?". In Harris, Stephen J.; Grigsby, Bryon
Lee (eds.). Misconceptions About the Middle Ages. New York: Routledge. pp. 197–203.
ISBN 978-0-415-77053-8.
Sumption, Jonathan (2009). Divided Houses: the Hundred Years War III. London: Faber
and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-24012-8.
Trevelyan, George (1899). England in the Age of Wycliffe. London: Longmans and
Green. OCLC 12771030.
Tuck, J. A. (1987). "Nobles, Commons and the Great Revolt of 1381". In Hilton,
Rodney; Alton, T. H. (eds.). The English Rising of 1381. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 192–212. ISBN 978-1-84383-738-1.
Wickert, Maria (2016) [1953]. Studies in John Gower. Translated by Meindl, Robert
J. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. p. 18. ISBN
9780866985413.
External links
The Peasants' Revolt – World History Encyclopedia
John Ball, English Legend – A website about John Ball and the Peasants' Revolt from
1381 to the present
People of 1381 – A project on collecting data about individuals involved in the
events of 1381
The Peasants' Revolt, BBC Radio 4 discussion with Miri Rubin, Caroline Barron &
Alastair Dunn (In Our Time, 16 November 2006)
When Medieval Peasants Revolted Against The Establishment | Peasants' Revolt Of
1381 | Timeline, The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 presented by Tony Robinson.
Media related to English Peasants' Revolt at Wikimedia Commons
vte
Riots in England
vte
History of London
vte
Tax resistance
vte
Peasant revolts in medieval and early modern Europe
Authority control databases: National Edit this at Wikidata
United StatesJapanIsrael
Categories: Peasants' Revolt14th-century rebellions14th century in LondonHistory of
EssexHistory of KentHistory of the Royal Borough of GreenwichBattles and military
actions in LondonProtests in EnglandRebellions in medieval EnglandRichard II of
England1381 in EnglandConflicts in 1381Riots and civil disorder in EnglandMedieval
farmers
This page was last edited on 14 June 2025, at 07:55 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License;
additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaCode of
ConductDevelopersStatisticsCookie statementMobile view
Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki