Wilkinson, B., 'The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381', Speculum 15 (1940), 12-35

-

Quick Summary

The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 was primarily a ‘movement of reaction’ against John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster

  • Historians have paid too much attention to one particular source
  • Common hatred of John of Gaunt brought the Londoners and the rebels together
  • After the destruction of Gaunt’s palace in London the Peasants’ Revolt began to wane
Key Conclusion

Wilkinson provides a revisionist interpretation of the events in London during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381. Wilkinson contends that historians have paid too much attention to one particular source – the return of the jurors in the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions of 1382. The evidence presented to the Sheriffs’ Inquisitions was ‘thoroughly and, it seems likely, intentionally misleading’ (p. 12), since the London jurors ‘did their best to conceal the powerful support which Londoners themselves gave to the revolt’ (p. 29). Wilkinson concludes that the revolt was primarily a ‘movement of reaction against John of Gaunt’, and it was on ‘this particular grievance that the Londoners and rebels from Kent and Essex met on common ground’ (p. 31).

Content Overview

Wilkinson highlights how the Londoners were ‘very active among the leaders of the peasants’ and ‘helped to provoke the rising in Essex and Cambridgeshire’ (p. 29). Furthermore, an important group of Londoners sympathised with the aims of the peasants, and this support ‘brought about the opening of the city gates’ which allowed the rebels into the city (p. 30). The common hatred of John of Gaunt was the ‘spear point of a more general hatred against government as a whole’ inspired by wider issues such as the failure of the French war and the poll tax. Opposition to government was the ‘greatest single factor’ which brought the Londoners and rebels together into one single movement of rebellion (p. 31).

Further Findings

The first demand issued by the rebels on 12 July was for the heads of the duke of Lancaster and fifteen other lords. Following this, the ‘high spots’ of the rebellion involved the destruction of Gaunt’s Savoy palace and the murder of the chancellor and treasurer. After this the revolt ‘inevitably began to ebb, because it had few other realisable aims common to all’ (p. 32). Wilkinson also contends that the rebel leader, Wat Tyler, adopted a provocative attitude when he met Richard II on 15 July at Smithfield: ‘His movement was on the wane’ and Tyler intended to provoke an incident that would ‘defeat the conciliatory gesture which he expected Richard to make’ (pp. 28-9).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Phillpotts, Christopher, 'The fate of the truce of Paris, 1396-1415', Journal of Medieval History 24 (1998), 61-80

-
Quick Summary The Truce of Paris (1396) formed a framework to reduce the level of warfare between England and France up until 1415 The focus of the truce changed depending on the particular ambitions of subsequent English kings Richard II maintained the truce after 1397 to secure dowry payments from France Henry IV and Charles VI put their differences aside to establish a peace between kingdoms Key Conclusion Phillpotts explores the longest truce of the Hundred Years War, agreed at Paris between Richard II of England and Charles VI of France in 1396, and its subsequent extension, redefinition and clarification until 1415. Truces reduced the level of warfare, rather than ended it, and needed to be periodically renegotiated to be effective. Phillpotts concludes that the truce of 1396 ‘formed the central framework of a series of general and particular truces’. The focus of the truce changed between 1396 and 1314, from Richard II’s initial concern to p...
Read more

Theilmann, John M., 'Stubbs, Shakespeare, and Recent Historians of Richard II', Albion 8 (1976), 107-124

-
Quick Summary The idea that Richard II was a tyrant persists even though a satisfactory history of his reign is yet to be written According to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy, Richard II was a coldly calculating king A revision to the Stubbsean Orthodoxy cast Richard II as insane Existing research distorts history by its fixation on constitutional issues Key Conclusion Theilmann explores the historiography of Richard II’s reign from the 1890s to the 1970s and, in particular, the verdict reached by historians about his approach to kingship. This historiographical review leads Theilmann to conclude that the traditional interpretation of Richard’s reign – the ‘Stubbsean Orthodoxy’ – has been slowly challenged but its influence remains strong. According to this Orthodoxy, Richard II was a ‘coldly calculating king’ (p. 110). He was a tyrant determined to diminish parliament and destroy constitutional government. Theilmann notes that while more recent research h...
Read more