When the term revolt comes into mind a majority of people would assume that it involved much bloodshed and an attempt to overthrow a government or individual(s) of authority. The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was not seen as a typical rebellion or revolt as it seen a social change to the current system of feudalism, reduction in the taxation, and change in the political representation in the king's court. This allowed a open discussion for historians to research and argue through different lens. Many historians open up new interpretation of the Peasants' Revolt on a social, economic, or political stance. Miriam Muller decided to open a interpretation on the relationships between a local lord and his peasants to argue that the revolt of 1381 was …show more content…
the result of a long term relationship that brought the small resistance that would lead to the Peasants' Revolt. Richard Barrie Dobson provided a different shift from the numerous interpretations and instead brings to the table a monograph compiled of primary documents relating to the Peasants' Revolt and critical analysis and background information. Charles Oman and his monograph The Great Revolt of 1381 provided a grand narrative on how the revolt began, the events during, and the end result of the insurrection. Each historian adds a new or give more insight onto an existing layer to the historiography of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Miriam Muller and her paper Conflict and Revolt: The Bishop of Ely and his Peasants at the Manor of Brandon in Suffolk c. 1300-81 discuss on the scope of the development of the relationship between the Bishop of Ely and his peasants. Her research through Brandon's manorial court records provided the argument that the revolt of 1381 was not a open revolt but instead "day to day" forms of petty resistance between the local lords and peasants. She examined how the Black Death changed the power dynamics that the bishop of Ely was losing as land and grain values were dropping. As the values of the bishop's assets started to decline, Muller argued that in order to recuperate the loss of value and also the increase of price the lord of the manor passed higher rent and entry fines on lease holdings. This created a imbalance where the wages of the peasants were stagnant but the rent and taxes were increasing which strained the peasants. She argued near the end of her paper that this conflict between the "bishop and his tenants... triggered into open revolt by the last poll tax and the news that rebellion was spreading rapidly across the whole region." She narrowed down the narrative from the multiple events leading up to, during, and the conclusion of the Peasants' Revolt to the long-term relationship between the bishop and his peasants. Arguing that the Peasants' Revolt was not a grand scale coalition nor was it a bloodshed revolution with the purpose of killing the lords of the land. Rather they were rebels formed of individuals from all the strata within the peasantry aiming to end to serfdom and destruction of manorial records. By focusing on a more personal and local relationship in Brandon, this allowed Muller to be able to argue that the revolt was a result of the "day by day" form of petty resistance that grew to the nationwide Peasants' Revolt that many other historians have developed interpretations on. The Peasants' Revolt have had its cause and the rebels being portrayed changed depending on the historian.
Charles Oman and his monograph The Great Revolt of 1381 expanded on the events leading up to the pockets of rebellions that would soon swept England in fire and ruin and then at the end the last surviving band of insurgents were hunted down and executed. Oman and the direction of his monograph was that the direction the nation was heading to and the reason behind the constant fail of the wars between France was due to the "personnel of the King's Council who wish to persevere in the struggle." Oman's monograph helped established the timeline of the revolt with events leading up to 1381, during the revolts, and the conclusion when England have sent out the royal army to suppress the revolt after the death of Wat Tyler. His approach was to break up the course of the revolt into chapters detailing on information that was crucial to how each event had a hand in what was soon to become the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. His research involved using Andre Reville transcripts of documents that he was able to acquire. It was through these transcripts that allowed Oman to rewrite the history of the Revolt. Though Muller's paper is published twelve years later after Oman's monograph the connection between each other can be seen as both saw how diverse the Peasant Revolt was as there were multiple small rebellions throughout England involving a wide spectrum of people. Oman argues that these rebellions and revolt was very bloody and violent due to the type of individuals while Muller approach was that it was due to a long term tense
relationship By looking at the Peasants Revolt as a whole narrative instead of focusing on a smaller scale, the narrative of the peasants seemed to be that they were blood thirsty and violent toward the lords of the manor. Oman states in his monograph that the rioters "by more or less violent harangues and threats forced him to ratify the King's general abolition of serfdom." Oman fell prey to the grand narrative voice when he narrowed the view of the Peasants' Revolt as his argument that King Richard supported the rebels and revolt. His meeting with the rebels at Mile End was seen, according to Oman, as his concession to the rebels and his documents allow them to entered the Tower. This allowed a open discussion for future historians to focus on their research narrow past the whole narrative and look for individual groups or relationships. Each new research outside of the grand narrative will add a new layer to the historiography of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. While many focus on finding new interpretations there are some historians focusing on the bringing a compiled monograph composed of primary documents that have been translated for critical analysis and background information. Richard Barrie Dobson brought to attention that the history written about the revolt and rebels of 1381 was written by their enemies. That the narrative of each monographs that was written was biased towards the rebels being seen as the enemies while the lords of England was the ones being without fault. He saw that the survival of the legal documents allowed historians to study the numerous rebellions. However Dobson argued that documents involving the poll taxes was written down with great details but the themes on the motives of the peasants, the king's and his court's attitudes, or the details of Wat Tyler are seemed to be obscured or not mention in great details. That this lack of details in these multiple themes that readers are most likely interest in creates a "information that is controlled and restricted by the contemporary historians." This extensive collection of primary documents that Dobson have collected for the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 allowed historians to gain access for content that allow critical analysis and research for their interpretations. His monograph is broken up into seven chapters in which each chapter has sub chapters pertaining to a primary source that goes into details on background information towards the Peasants' Revolt. Each primary source is either a law, personal account, court records, or literature. The last chapter are the various interpretations of the Peasants' Revolt and how historians have different accounts and views of how the revolt began. His monograph gave a grand narrative voice that allowed future historians to analyze and research on a smaller focus. Each future historian would add a new layer to the historiography that may cover a cultural, social, or economic direction and constantly change the grand narrative of what was the Peasants' Revolt and how it may changed over time. Richard Barrie Dobson and his compilation of primary sources The Peasants' Revolt of 1381 provided a foundation and framework for the historiography of the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Future historians have taken different directions but also added to the historiography that Dobson have revised. This allowed different variations of the interpretation of how the Revolt impacted England. Charles Oman and his monograph fell into the trap of a grand narrative though he added to the historiography by looking at relationship between King Richard and the rebels. However this fell into the narrative that Oman's argument was that theorizing the king had a helping hand in the revolt. This trap was later correct by Miriam Muller when she chose to focus on the local relationship that the bishop of Ely have built with his peasants over a long term relationship and how that relationship gave way to the various "day to day" petty rebellions. It added a cultural and personal view point by looking at the daily interactions between the bishop and peasants. Future historians are able to take the framework of what each of these historians have provided and should be able to use it for further revisions as new information and evidence are introduced. Whether it is new agents that was not noticed before or new relationships between two parties that were ignored. Historiography is always open to new interpretations and revisions.
Maintaining feudal conditions through violence and intimidation, the army holds the populace in a constant state of fear. Guaranteeing that the peasants stay ill and in need furthers the necessity that they work to stay alive, but prevents them from doing so. This is the paradox of the poor worker, but one the army does not see. The army blindly kills anyone who tries to help the peasants, murdering all the doctors and priests that enter the villages. They do so to keep the peasants in need and in ignorance, to prevent them from learning another way of life. Lacking knowledge of the outside world ensures that the peasants will remain in the plantations, because fear of the unknown is stronger than fear of the known. Acting as feudal knights, the army forces people into the feudal plantation relationship using fear and intimidation.
The peasant’ revolt in the German states during 1524-1526 consisted of peasants, unwealthy soldiers, and craftsmen. These rebels authored Articles and met in Memmingen, Swabia, during 1525, which was known as the Peasant Parliament. Many rebels and others were killed in several battles that ultimately led to the revolts being terminated by authorities. The causes of the peasants’ revolt included lack of compensation for services, feelings of spiritual inequality, lords refusing peasant freedom without reimbursement, and the peasants’ manipulation of Lutheran principles; while the responses to the revolt incorporated negativity, violence, and authority intervention.
Revolution Is Not a Dinner Party, a historical fiction book written by Ying Chang Compestine, exceptionally portrays the horrors and torture the Chinese people endured during the "revolution," or the Communist control and building of a new China.
The Causes of Popular Protests Between 1815 and 1822 There are several causes of popular protest in this period as at this time there was considerable discontent which was the ultimate product of the industrial revolution and post-war depression. However the government often instead of making the situation better they made it a lot worse which encouraged popular protests for reform. One of the major factors contributing to this discontent and causing protests was the fact that Britain had changed from an agricultural nation to an large industrial power in the space of a extremely short time this changed average peoples lives drastically as many people moved from the country into the city in search of work but this only made their lives even worse because they often lived in poverty surviving on the most basic wage supplemented by truck shop tokens which they could exchange for food in the company owned shop which was often expensive and of poor quality. Their accommodation was also no better as they lived in factory owned housing which was cramped, dirty and ridden with damp as they were built as cheaply as possible.
During the election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson succeeded in defeating the incumbent, John Adams, and assumed the presidency. In terms of elections though, the election of 1800 itself was a fascinating election in that it a heavily-contested election and was effectively the first time political parties ran smear campaigns against each other during an election. The Republican Party attacked the Federalists for being anti-liberty and monarchist and tried to persuade the public that the Federalists were abusing their power through acts such as the Alien & Sedition Acts and the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion (Tindall and Shi 315). The Federalists, on the other hand, attacked Jefferson for his atheism and support of the French Revolution and warned that his election would result in chaos (316). By the end of the presidential election, neither Adams nor Jefferson emerged with his reputation completely intact. Still, rather than an election between Adams and Jefferson, the election of 1800 ultimately boiled down to a deadlock between Jefferson and his vice presidential candidate, Aaron Burr, who each held seventy-three electoral votes, resulting in the election was sent to the House of Representatives. In the end, the deadlock was resolved only by Alexander Hamilton, whose immense hate for Burr allowed Jefferson to claim the presidency. However, the election of 1800 was more than just a simple presidential election. The election of 1800 was the first peaceful transfer of power from the incumbent party to the opposition and represented a new step in politics, as well as a new direction in foreign policy that would emerge from Jefferson’s policies, and to this extent, the election of 1800 was a revolution.
As simply stated, a rebellion is an effort by many people to change a government or leader of a country by the use of protest or violence. In 1786, one man had returned home from serving his country in the American Revolutionary War to find that the same government he was fighting for had turned against him. With heavy taxes, loss of livestock, and possibly his social status at risk he sold his most prized possessions in hopes of one day regaining control of his livelihood. This man was Daniel Shays; in the late summer of 1786 he banned together a group of likeminded farmers who were about to lose everything they had worked so hard to achieve to an unruly elite. Shays’ Rebellion was an armed uprising that was triggered by financial difficulties brought out of post war economic depression, a credit crunch caused by a lack of hard currency, and financially harsh government policies.
Agrarian Discontent 1880 to 1900. The period between 1880 and 1900 was a boom time for American politics. The country was finally free of the threat of war, and many of its citizens were living comfortably. However, as these two decades went by, the American farmer found it harder and harder to live comfortably.
Throughout history, countless uprisings have occurred. Historians classify any forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system as a revolution. The success or failure of a revolution is directly related to the revolution’s causes and consequences. The French Revolution was more successful than the Nicaraguan Revolution, because the Nicaraguan Revolution left the country in social and financial ruin, foreign powers had much greater interference, and it precipitated a period of political unrest with multiple leadership changes. One cause of both revolutions was that people from all social classes were discontented.
The Consequences of the Revolt in Hungary Background The Hungarian uprising took place in October to November 1956. The Hungarians wanted free elections, an end to the collectivisation of farms, the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the AVO (Hungarian Secret Police) to stop its persecution of anti-communists. Also the last demand that they made, which Khrushchev could not agree to, was the removal of Hungary from the Warsaw pact. When these demands were refused Khrushchev also sent in the Red Army to flush out the resistance fighters, who had already driven out a previous division. The consequences for the USSR The USSR faced many consequences as a result of the harsh treatment that they had dealt the Hungarians during the rebellion.
The most intriguing article within the stimulating documents was William Stearns Davis’ “The Life of a Peasant” (Davis, 1922). Which offers an unaltered view of the lives of peasants in the middle ages. In his article, Davis introduces the idea of deadly bacteria through a description of the Black Plague, a disease caused by the bacterium named Yersinia Pestis. The Black Plague devastated the kingdoms of the middle ages. Yersinia Pestis was able to do this as at the time of its major outbreak, poor hygiene was commonplace, and antibiotics were non-existent. The question that stood out from the article was “To what extent, would it be possible for superbugs to create an environment today absent of effective antibiotics?”
The most serious revolt upon all the revolts that Medieval England has experienced is the Peasants’ Revolt, which erupted in June 1381. Despite being described as the first step towards democracy, the demerits of the Peasants' Revolt overcome its merits (that are overemphasized.) Peasants did not achieve all their rightful demands at the time and it is not certain that its effect is ongoing till this day.
Social activism existed in this country of the United States of American since its Founding Fathers, and it continues to exist today as American citizens strive for improvement for the future. With this long history, citizens have joined various social movements. Social movements result from the unity of people to strive for a change for certain problems. The gatherings for a change can inspire and can scare the reality that already existing. The struggles for change first must evolve from a person’s resolve. The reasons of why people communicate, collaborate, and go into motion must be understood to further the understanding of why social activism continues to occur. Three theoretical claims have enlighten society
Any author's primary goal in story writing is to convey an idea or topic to their reading audience. The conventional wisdom on this thought is that the clearer this is conveyed, the greater the appeal to the reader. However, some authors feel the need to resist this trend and forge new paths that sometime leaves the meanings of their stories obscure and hidden from the average reader. Donald Barthelme has taken this optional approach with his story "The Indian Uprising". There are several reasons that I did not fully enjoy this post-colonial short story.
The modern revolution has had more positive impacts than negative. If you think about it our world today is evolved because of the modern revolution and the anthropocene of humans. During the modern revolution many good things came from it such as population growth, inventions and discoveries and the acceleration of knowledge.
The Agricultural Revolution The population of Britain from 1750 onwards increased immensely. therefore causing the Agricultural Revolution. Part of the problem was due to the fact that there were just too many people to feed purely by relying on farmed food. The Agricultural Revolution was the particular period of time when farming and producing enough food for everyone became a major problem. The four main stages of the Agricultural Revolution enclosure, machinery, improvements in.