Free Essay

The Peasant Revolt

In:

Submitted By naomi89
Words 3202
Pages 13
Assignment Two – HIST 304 | The Peasant’s Revolt and The Decline of Serfdom | Why did the Peasants’ Revolt Occur? Did the insurgents hope to abolish serfdom? How and why did serfdom decline and eventually disappear in England, notwithstanding the failure of the 1381 uprising and other influences of lower class protest against social inequality and injustice? |

Naomi Woods Student 297278812/22/2011 |

The Peasants Revolt is one of the most well known revolts of Medieval England, the revolt began as a local revolt in Essex in May of 1381, but it soon spread throughout the South East of England affecting many smaller towns along the way and having the biggest impact on London when the people turned their grievances towards the young King Richard II. This revolt was not a planned revolt but rather a spontaneous revolt fuelled by numerous grievances and sparked by the poll tax Parliament had introduced to help pay for the war in France.

Incidences in the villages of Fobbing and Brentwood in Essex are said to have triggered the uprising. On 30 May 1381 a tax collector attempted to collect the poll tax from the villagers of Fobbing, the villagers, lead by a local land owner refused to pay and he was forced to leave empty handed, later Robert Belknap (Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas) arrived to investigate and punish the offenders, On June 2 he was attacked in Brentwood. By this time the counties of Essex and Kent were in full revolt the peasants and artisans of Essex demanded the King to completely abolish serfdom and the commutation of the servile dues to a rent of four pence an acre, the revolt was also said to be sparked by the passage of the poll tax and many other numerous grievances the people had. These peasants marched into London led by Wat Tyler, John Ball and Jack Straw to present a petition calling for the abolition of serfdom to the King. The peasants had strong hopes of abolishing serfdom, but the King was never able to reach them due to the crowds and so on June 13 1381 the Peasants Revolt began.
Wat Tyler, was documented by Sir John Frossiart as the “chief of the three, had been a tiler of houses, a bad man and a great enemy to the nobility of the revolt, he was the one who met with the King to tell of the people’s wishes to get rid of villiens and many other things. Not much is known about Wat Tyler except that he was a bad man and an enemy to the noble, but we can make the assumption that he must have been a confident, well liked and looked up to, as it was he who the people chose to lead them in their revolt.
John Ball, was documented by Sir John Froissart, in Chronicles of England, France, Spain and the Adjoining Countries “as being a crazy priest in the county of Kent”, “who for his absurd preaching had thrice been confined in prison by the Archbishop of Canterbury”, had much to do with bringing forth the rebellious ideas. Ball gave the famous speech which was said to ignite the flames already burning deep down inside the people of Kent; “When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman. From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen and from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, an recover liberty” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ball_(priest) Some Historians believe that he urged his followers to kill those who were in the upper class. His words to the peasants said that they were equal to the upper classes (nobles, lords etc...) and that if God has wanted the class differences he would have made them upon creation of men, but God wanted each person to be the same and for each person to be free. Being a priest, people looked up to John Ball and believed in the words he spoke to them.
Finally, Jack Straw, not much has been documented about him but some people believe he was a preacher, some say he was a Priest, whom was second in command of the Peasants Revolt in Bury St Edmunds and Mildenhall, while others simply say he joined due to an assault on his daughter by a tax collector. Whatever the real story is to how he came to be a part of the revolt, people must have trusted and seen something in Straw that said he could help them, as they followed him from a Churchyard through the streets of Essex causing destruction as they moved. The Peasants Revolt was not just confined to London, it spread to many other places in England. Each town had their own reasons for the starting of the Revolt.
“The Peasants of Essex (as mentioned above) demanded the abolishment of serfdom among other things.
The Peasants of Kent demanded there be no lordship in but the lordship of the king and that the goods of the church be divided among the Parishioners, and that there be no villein in England.
The tenants of the Abbey of St. Albans, Hertfordshire, besieged the abbot, insisting on their rights to hunt in the woods, fish in the river, grind their own corn at home, and sell land among themselves.
The tenants of Buy St. Edmunds, Suffolk, broke into the abbey and for a time extorted their liberties from the abbot.
In Winchester, Hampshire and Beverly and Scarborough, Yorkshire, the unprivileged rose against the privileged.”
(History of England, Page 176-177)
According to Frossiart “at Canterbury the rebels entered the Church of St Thomas where they did much damage; they also pillaged the apartments of the Archbishop, saying as they were carrying off the different articles, ‘ The Chancellor of England has had this piece of furniture very cheap; he must now give us as account of his revenues, and of the large sums which he has levied since the coronation of the King” after this they continued toward Rochester, collecting people as they went, destroying houses belonging to attorneys, Kings proctors and the archbishop. Once in Rochester they went to the castle and seized a knight called Sir John de Newton, and commanded him to do whatever they wished, when he tried to refuse they said “ Sir John, if you refuse you are a dead man” (Froissart). They continued the rampage until they got to London. June 14 1381,King Richard II met the rebels in London and granted a charter that would abolish villeinage and commute labour services to rent On at four pence an acre, however the King would not honour this charter, he just wanted England to regain peace again. Some of the rebels went home, many carried creating as much havoc as possible, in hopes of getting serfdom abolished.
At the time of the revolt King Richard II was only 14 years old, but despite his age the revolt showed the determination and courage this young King had. At the age of 14, Richard was considered a minor therefore the Dukes of Lancaster (John of Gaunt), York (Edmund of Langley) and Gloucester (Thomas of Woodstock) were appointed as governors of England in the King’s name. It has been said that these Dukes were the main target of the revolt, not the King. The poll tax which was brought in to act as a means to pay for the costly war, by John of Gaunt under the name of the king was what is commonly said to have fuelled the revolt, which fuelled the revolt, which in turn led to the people’s hatred for the governors. Aside from the governors there were a few other advisers who each played their own key role in the Peasant’s Revolt. Sir Robert Hales, the Lord/Grand Prior of the Knights Hospittallers of England, became Richard’s high treasurer. Robert was responsible for collecting the Poll Tax. On June 14, 1381 he was beheaded for his role in the hated Poll Tax. Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Chancellor of England, was the supporter of John of Gaunt. For this he met his death on June 14, 1381, by being beheading by the rebels outside the Tower of London. John of Gaunt escaped death at the hands of the rebels as he was away from London during the revolt.
“There leaders, John Ball, Jack Straw and Wat Tyler then marched through London, attended by more than 20,000 men, to the Palace of Savoy, which is a handsome building belonging to the Duke of Lancaster, situated on the banks of the Thames on the road to Westminster: here they immediately killed the porter, pushed into the house and set it on fire” Froissart
“When the gates of the Tower were thrown open and the King attended by his two brothers and other nobles had passed through, Wat Tyler, Jack Straw and John Ball, with upward of 400 others, rushed in by force, and running from chamber to chamber, found the Archbishop of Canterbury, by name Simon a valiant and wise man, whom the rascals seized and beheaded” Froissart
The heads of these four persons the rebels fixed on long spikes and had them carried before them through the streets of London; and when they made sufficient mockery of them, they caused them to be placed on London Bridge, as if they had been traitors to their King and country” Froissart
Throughout the revolt, the determination of Richard to stop the revolt was shown as he met the revellers twice to come to an agreement; however the rebels continued to destroy London and surrounding areas. The king met with the leaders of the revolt at Smithfield, which was a horse market and it was there that Wat Tyler was killed. Supposedly Tyler drew his dagger and William Waldworth, Lord Mayor of London, drew his sword and mortally wounded Tyler in the neck. It wasn’t until the death of Wat Tyler that the rebels started to listen, and King Richard dispersed them away from the scene of Tyler’s death with “I am your captain, follow me.” He promised the rebels that all was well and their demands would be met and that Tyler had been knighted, if they march to St John’s Field Tyler would meet them there, which they did. With the help of militia the nobles gained control and hunted down the remaining leaders executing them, including Jack Straw and John Ball.
John Ball and Jack Straw were found hidden in an old ruin, where they had secreted themselves, thinking to steal away when things were quiet; but this they were prevented doing, for their own men betrayed them. With this capture the King and his barons were much pleased, and had their heads cut off, as was that of Tyler, and fixed on London Bridge, in the room of these wretches themselves had placed there
News of this total defeat of the rebels in London was sent throughout the neighboring counties, in order that all those who were on their way to London might hear of it; and as soon as they did so, they instantly returned to their homes, without daring to advance further” Froissart
Once the revolt had come to its end, King Richard II quickly asserted his power over the affected towns by revoking the charters of freedom and pardon he granted those involved. Although the King was young he quickly made sure that he was not to be messed with, and that he was to be treated with respect and like any other King. The decision was brave of Richard, as it could have easily backfired and he could have ended up with a bigger and more destructive revolt on his hands.
There are said to be three main consequences of the Peasant’s Revolt, the first being the beheading of the leaders. Many believe Richard wanted these people dead in fear that if they lived they may just start a bigger rebellion against him. This also let the other people involved know that even though he (King Richard) was not much older than 14, he was to be listened to and respected. The people feared that if they were to cross the King again they may also be beheaded. A second consequence was the end of the Poll Tax. Following the revolt Richard stopped the charging of the poll tax, possibly once again out of fear of another rebellion. The tax was also not needed so much anymore, as it was a tax to recover from wars and many wars around the world had come to a halt because of their own revolts, the country was now richer than before. The third consequence and probably the best for the peasants, was the rise in their wages. As many had been killed during the revolt, the peasants’ left had to work twice as hard for their lords of the manors, therefore in return for their hard work the peasants gained a little extra money.
The people of the Revolt hoped to abolish serfdom, but they were only successful in bringing to the attention of the upper class that they were unsatisfied with how things were. Serfdom was to carry on for some time after.
Serfdom is the status of a peasant under the feudal law. In the Middle Ages serfdom was the enforced labour by landowners in return for the protection of the serf and right to work on the landowner’s property. Serfs were said to be bound by the land and were the lowest social class in the feudal society.
Serfdom was introduced to England during Feudalism (1066-end of 1300) and lasted up to as late as the 1600s, there were three types of serfs: The Villein; the most common during the middle ages, who usually rented small houses with or without land, which they were tied to until their lord gave them permission to move. They were expected to farm their lord’s fields as well as their own. The Cottagers; usually they didn’t posses any land, but spent their days working their lord’s fields in return for shelter and food. The Slaves; they had the least rights of all peasants. They had no land and worked exclusively for a lord to prove their existence was worthy.
Although many of the peasants were against serfdom, it did have some benefits for them. Serf’s did have some freedom, they could still accumulate property as well as wealth to a certain extent, and a well-to-do serf could even buy their own freedom. A serf could also rise what they wanted on the land they would oversee for the Lord of the Manor, of within reason. Finally, a landlord could not dispose of his serf without a reasonable cause and they were to protect their serfs from depredations of outlaws and other lords. They were also expected to support their serf during hard times of famine.
During the Black Death which hit England in 1348, saw the beginning of the decline of serfdom. The Black Death ripped through England when infectious rats came into contact with people. It wiped many places and people out in England leaving many Lord’s struggling to find peasants to tend their fields. Even though the Black Death was devastating plague, it helped the peasants (serfs) greatly; it gave them bargaining power against the gentry. They could now demand higher wages due to the lack of labourers, Lords were now encouraging peasants to leave their villages and work for them instead of their current Lords. Finally, serfdom was slowly declining and peasants were gaining more rights through the Lords needing them more than what they now needed them.
In 1351 the government introduced the Statute of Labourers, in hopes of curbing the serfs behaving and bringing them back under the feudal law. The Statute of Labourers stated:
‘No Peasants could be paid more than the wages paid in 1346.’
‘No Lord or Master should offer more wages than paid in 1346.’
‘No Peasants could leave the village they belonged to.’
The statue enforced the law that was instilled upon them when they were declared serfs under the Feudal Law. The statue enraged the peasants and thus became one of the reasons for the Peasants Revolt of 1381. The Revolt would go on to gain them nothing, mainly as the peasants had no support from the gentry and nobility but it did give then the satisfaction of knowing that the Upper Class now knew how unhappy they were and how much damage they could cause.
During Henry VII reign villienge was almost extinct by the 1500s; peasants were starting to accumulate land for themselves, while others were driven to the cities as labourers. By 1500, Serfdom had died out as a personal status, but lived on as a legal one until 1600. However the land that serf tenure held went on to be held by a copyhold - tenure of land according to the custom of the manor (owned by a Lord) – up until it was abolished in the 1900s.
The Peasants Revolt, the most well known revolt of medieval England, may have started as a backlash against the Poll Tax and it may have been unsuccessful to some extent, but it did bring to light the hatred for Serfdom throughout England and it did rid England of the word Poll Tax for many years to come. Although Serfdom died out as the times changes and new Kings took over with new ideas, the Black Death saw the beginning of this decline along with the help of The Revolt of 1381. After these two big events the less fortunate started to negotiate more with their Lord of the Manor, the peasants started to branch out more into the towns where the wages and quality of life were much better.

Bibliography

Author Unknown. Jack Straw. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. December 8, 2011
Author Unknown. John Ball. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. December 8, 2011
Author Unknown. Peasants’ Revolt. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. November 25, 2011
Author Unknown. Serfdom. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. November 14, 2011
Author Unknown. Wat Tyler. Wikipedia, n.d. Web. December 8, 2011
Author Unknown. The Peasants Revolt, Chronicle of the Revolt, 1381. Marxists Internet Archive, n.d. Web. November 15, 2011
Froissart, Sir Jean (John). Chronicles of England, France, Spain and the Adjoining Countries, From the Latter Part of the Reign of Edward II to the Coronation of Henry IV. Translated from the French by Thomas Johnes, (rev. ed., vol 1). New York: The Colonial Press, 1901.
Roberts, Clayton. Roberts, David. Bisson, Douglas, R. A History of England Volume I Prehistory to 1714, Fifth Edition. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Pearson, 2009.
Trueman, Chris. Peasants Revolt. History Learning Site, 2000-2001. Web. November 25, 2011

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Peasant Revolt

...Peasant struggles in British India Can be classified into following groups: Before 1857’s Mutiny | * East India: Sanyasi Revolt, Chuar and Ho Rising, Kol Rising, Santhal Rising, Pagal Panthis and Faraizis Revolt * West India:  Bhil, Ramosis * South India: Poligars | After 1857’s Mutiny | * Indigo Movement (1859-60) * Pabna Agrarian Unrest (1873-76), * Deccan riots (1874-75), * No-Revenue Movement  Assam, Maharashtra, and Punjab: (towards the end of 19th century) * Champaran Indigo Satyagraha (1917) | In the 20s and 30s | 2nd Moplah, Awadh Kisan Sabha, Eka movement, Bardoli etc. | During and After WW2 | * Congress Ministries in provinces such as Bihar, UP and Bombay (will be discussed separately in third article) * Faizpur Congress session (1936) * All India Kisan Congress * Tebhaga Movement in Bengal * Telangana Outbreak in Hyderabad * Varlis Revolt in Western Indi | Peasant Revolts before 1857 Sanyasi Revolt, 1772 * British government restricted people from visiting holy places. Sansyasi got angry * Joined by farmers, evicted landlords, disbanded soldiers * Focal point: Rangpur to Dhaka * Leader: Manju Shah Fakir * Sanyasis defeated a company of sepoys and killed the commander. They overran some districts, virtually running a parallel government. * This rebellion continued till the end of the 18th century. * Governor General Warren Hastings launched a military campaign against Sansyasis. * From 1800,...

Words: 3145 - Pages: 13

Free Essay

Peasants Revolt of 1381

...The Peasants’ revolt of 1381 was an attempt to break away from a futile system of government and, a fight to stop the never ending injustice and oppression faced by the lower class on a daily basis. During their age of oppression the peasants faced ridiculous taxes and fees which made living more than unbearable , the lack of reforms promised by the king , and the use of god and religion to justify the choices of the church and government. This display of injustice ignited a flame in the hearts of lower class citizens for centuries to come and it would not go unnoticed as both time and people progressed. During the period of time in which the peasants’ revolt of 1381 occurred the Parliament of England levied high and ridiculous taxes on the middle and lower classes of the social pyramid. On top of that pyramid stood the “warrior” class which included royalty, nobles, and knights. These wealthy nobles were unaffected by the taxes hurting the less fortunate citizens because they were the ones establishing the taxes in the first place. A peasant farmer or “villein” was entirely subject to unfair dues which he had to pay to their lord or noble in exchange for a small piece of land. Most of the peasant’s crops were taken, they made no money, and they lived off of the miniscule amount of food left to them by their lord. Since the water at the time was unfit for drinking because of its unsanitary state, ale was the main drink available to the lower and middle classes. There was a tax...

Words: 1163 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

German Peasant Revolt Dbq

...German Peasant Revolt DBQ  The German peasants of the 1524-1526 revolts were caused by interpretations of Lutheran ideals, the peasants desires to break free from serfdom, and the general search for equality in the eyes of god. The response to the peasant revolts varied among the social, political, and religious affiliations, ranging from cruel condemnation to fervent support of their cause. The rebels organized swiftly and fought hard, this determination helped achieve social reform, which the most important German reformer, Martin Luther, was completely opposed to.  Though the revolts were blamed on Lutheran reforms (Doc 1), Luther himself vehemently refuted the dispute (Doc 7). He refers to the peasants as dogs and is generally cruel towards their cause. Though a religious reformer, his dependence on the German nobility would not allow him to support the peasants; therefore his point of view is one in support of quelling the rebellions. The peasants may not have had the support of their greatest religious inspiration but they still drew on his word in order to justify their fight. The peasants claim that because all men are equal under the eyes of god, they have just as much divine right as the nobles do (Doc 3). These religious drives were set out in the Articles of The Peasants of Memmingen and would be responded to by the nobles, thus connecting Docs 3 and 4.  The nobles would retort to the religious grounds of the peasants by ensuring them that their salvation was not...

Words: 799 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Serfdom Dbq Analysis

...In 1524 the peasants of central Germany rose up against the nobility in the name of Luther. By this time Luther had published his Ninety-Five Theses, breaking away from the Catholic Church and it’s authority. Much like Luther and the Church, the peasants didn’t like the noble authority rose up against the nobles. The nobles fought back with ruthless and crushing armies. There were many causes of the peasants revolt. The ideas of Martin Luther and the hatred toward nobles and serfdom were major parts of cause of the revolt. The removal of serfdom, the punishment of nobles involved, and their portrayal as devils were all responses to the peasants revolt. Martin Luther was one cause of the peasant revolt. Martin Luther himself was more of an...

Words: 942 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Protestant Reformation Dbq Analysis

...the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524-1526 in Germany. This savage war was not only sprung up from the religious ideas of Martin Luther, but also from the dissatisfaction of peasants about their poor working conditions and the unfair treatment from their lords. German peasants had been displeased of their living conditions with being continuously faced with ludicrous feudal dues and state taxes. Upon hearing Martin Luther’s remarks, the peasants’ economic troubles and religious beliefs? combined to be the sparks that were...

Words: 1038 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Short Term Effects Of The Black Death Essay

...Which all lead to the Peasant revolt. Depopulation caused a loss of peasants, merchants and knights etc. Which affected trade and production of food. The less people around the less things and food to sell, impacting the economy. Leading to a loss in resources and skilled craftsmen which ultimately lead to further weakening of feudalism. Due to the huge loss of priests, nuns and monks not many still had faith in the church. Religious leaders became more ineffective and weren't leading the church properly. Therefore not many people were left to have faith in the church. Having ineffective leaders, no church to look up to and a weakening social system the peasants began to revolt. Lords created new laws regarding the cost of food and wages. Many peasants were unhappy with these changes so they revolted. The peasant revolt took place in 1381. This shows how the short term effect carried on to make long term effects of Europe and its society, especially...

Words: 520 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Black Death

...was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” Charles Dickens’ introduction to his novel, A Tale of Two Cities, describes the lives of the peasantry in Europe between 1300 to 1650. For many peasants, their lives could be depicted as overwhelming, depressing, discouraging, and hopeless; yet, many events during these 350 years opened up opportunities for the peasantry to improve their lives. Events ranging from the Hundred Years War to the Black Death, and up until the beginning years of the Renaissance, changed the lives of the peasantry dramatically, all for the better. Before the Black Death reached Europe, peasants’ lives were very difficult. They usually never left the manor on which they served without the master’s permission. It was illegal for them to even move to another city or manor, if they so desired. They were forced to pay rent to their landlords for the land they cultivated themselves. In addition to the rent that was required of them, “they were also required to provide free labor on the lands used by the lord, known as a demesne.”[1] Although there were rewards to living on a manor, the peasantry had more advantages when the manorial system began to break down at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Even though the nobility still dominated rural Europe, peasants were beginning to move out of their status as servants. The Black Death, striking Italy in 1347, was one of the events that began to shape the lives of the peasantry. It is seen throughout history...

Words: 2275 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

How Did the Tsar Survive the 1905 Revolution?

...the Russian army during the period. Without the reliance he had upon the Army, the Tsar may not have been ultimately successful in surviving the revolution. The army remaining loyal to Tsar Nicholas was indeed crucial to him keeping his power, as they were able to majorly control the opposing threats; the disturbances throughout Russia were crushed by the army. For example December saw an armed uprising in Moscow, largely involving the Bolsheviks; this revolt resulted in over 1000 people being killed as Tsarist soldiers controlled the situation. Loyal units identified in the army were used to close down the St Petersburg Soviet that represented 96 factories, while mutinies within the army were met with brutal suppression. Through the use of the army, over the next year the Tsarist Government were able to overpower all revolutionary activity. Their actions included the killing and exportation of thousands of workers, beating up children, arrest of thousands of workers and peasants, raping women and girls and hanging of peasants without a trial. Tens of thousands of people were affected in some way by the radical actions of the army; from execution to deportation. The 1905 revolution was seen to prove that the Tsar could not be brought down as long as the control of the Tsarist Government was kept strong; this was achieved as the loyalty of the army...

Words: 1048 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

The Overthrow of Tsarist Regime in Imperial Russia

...A workers’ revolt; a mutiny of peasant soldiers; a political revolution? Which of these best describes the February revolution, and why did the Tsarist system fall in February 1917? The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. Its causes, nature and effect are complex and critical in the analysis of twentieth century international history. The revolution began in Petrograd as a workers’ revolt in response to bread shortages, and was aimed at the Tsarist system because it was believed that the government was hoarding the bread in order to drive up prices. However a workers’ revolt, by itself, is very unlikely to result in the abdication of the Tsar, and a critical phase of the revolution was the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison, and the loss of control over Petrograd that the Tsar experienced. Marxist historians have grossly exaggerated the extent of political involvement in the revolution, and it would be fair to say that only at a very late stage of the revolution did socialist political parties become involved. The Tsarist system fell for many reasons: the war against Germany meant that troops could not be deployed in force against the revolutionaries; the Tsar underestimated the extent of the revolts in Petrograd until it was too late; and the Tsar was convinced by his generals that only the Duma could deal with the situation. All of these events were necessary to bring down an autocratic system centuries old, and deeply...

Words: 1715 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Ring Around The Black Plague In Europe

...Ring Around The Rosie “Ring around the rosie, pockets full of posy; ashes, ashes, we all fall down.” This renown nursery rhyme is known well around the world, but it’s origins are much darker than they seem. The Black Plague was one of the deadliest epidemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1348 and 1350. It is said to most likely have been carried by Oriental rat fleas living on black rats who got onto merchant ships. Thousands of people suffered a painful death that dramatically decreased the population in and around Europe. The plague created a series of religious, social, and economic conflicts, all profound effects on the course of European history. At the time the Black Plague affected Europe, the church’s authority was an...

Words: 510 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Essay on Human Resource Development

...material (goods) should be cheaper. The system of exploiting their labour also is an extra burden for the farmers.2 The process of proletarianisation of agricultural labourers has increased during the last few decades and they are more dependent on wage labour while losing the extraeconomic relations with their employers which govern the conditions of their work and life. Barrington Moore Jr. in his celebrated work Social Origins Dictatorship and Democracy; Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world questions the revolutionary potential of the Indian peasantry. He observes that the landed upper classes and the peasants played an important role in the bourgeois revolutions leading to capitalist societies in England and France, the abortive bourgeois revolutions leading to fascism in the Germany and Italy and the peasant revolutions, leading to communism in Russia and China. But peasant rebellions in pre-modern India were relatively rare and completely ineffective and where modernisation impoverished the peasants at least as Ghanshyam Shah. “Social Movements in India-A Review of Literature”, Sage Publications, New Delhi, 1990, p.32. 2 Siva Venkata...

Words: 11290 - Pages: 46

Premium Essay

Tokugawa Ieyasu Research Paper

...to a feudal system like the European social and political structure. However, its governance was characterized by warrior bureaucracy . The shogun was the head of state of feudal Japan. Most of the decision making and control was command by Tokugawa, however, the emperor was still the absolute leader over Japan and it was always necessary to advise the emperor of any decision; the emperor wasn’t very much active in the shogun’s governance, which it made the emperor’s orders not important within Tokugawa’s system. Daimyos were territorial lords, they oversaw taxation, control, order and discipline of their lands and its citizens. Below the Daimyos, we have:“4 systems ‘which are the samurai (also known as Bushi – hereditary soldiers ) peasants, craftsmen and merchants. Samurai were the military. Their duties were protecting their lord and his land by any circumstances, similar like the knights in Europe. Samurai ( or Bushi ) were always...

Words: 1250 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Crimean War Critical Essay

...The Crimean War as a Turning Point in the Development of Modern Russia The Crimean war was a conflict that occurred between the Russian Empire, and an alliance made up of the French Empire, the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia. The war, which took place in 1854, is seen as a trigger point of the changes that began to take place in Russia after 1854. The Crimean war led to Russia encountering a loss of almost 500,000 men, all due to the country wanting to gain influence in the Balkans and the Turkish regions. In addition, the Crimean War is considered one of the first 'modern' wars. The defeat in the Crimean war caused Russia to bring about social change and political change to keep up with modernizing Europe, including the abolition of serfdom, the introduction of the Zemstvos, and changes within the Russian Army. The members, who were a part of the Russian army, were none other than Serfs themselves. The allies' had won victory in the Crimean war by having professional soldiers who were highly skilled, whereas the Serfs who severed as part of the Russian army had no skill at all and were frail, and had been forced into serving for the Russian Army, which led to the Russian defeat. The conflict made it evident that Russia's known bureaucracy was instead filled with corruption and was poorly organized. Thus in 1861 the Emancipation of the Serfs took place, which was the most significant and most important of the liberal reforms which were brought...

Words: 1047 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Why Did the 1905 Russian Revolution Fail

... for a new system. However, this simply cannot be possible if the state authority (controlled by the government) does not collapse. The survival of state authority was fundamentally the reason for the failure of the 1905 revolution. Trotsky once said “although with a few broken ribs, (the Tsarist system) had come out of the experience of 1905 alive and strong enough." This quote shows that although the revolt unsettled the government and was the biggest indication of the lack of support for the regime, it wasn’t actually strong enough to break it. In 1905, the armed forces hadn’t yet become sufficiently disillusioned by the Tsarist regime in the same way that many peasants and working class had. The army stayed loyal to the Tsar, crushing revolutionary disturbances and arresting thousands of revolutionaries. The Black Hundreds, a counter revolutionary pro-government terrorist group also helped the military to hunt down and ‘execute’ thousands of known reformers. Apart from the Tsarist system remaining strong, there was also a problem with the revolution itself. The revolt lacked any central coordination. The spontaneity of the revolutionary outbreaks meant that the armed forces, the police and the Black Hundreds could suppress them one by one. Not only was there the problem of...

Words: 534 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Protestant Reformation

...Social and Political Consequences of the Protestant Reformation The Catholic Church had become increasingly corrupt due to the selling of indulgences, clerical ignorance, pluralism and absenteeism. In desperate need of improvement and restructuring, a man named Martin Luther began a religious reformation. Luther was opposed to the selling of indulgences, believed the key to salvation was by faith alone and that the scriptures of the bible held all authority. The ideals of Martin Luther, radically different from those of the Roman Catholic Church, created a religious reform disturbing politics throughout Europe and changing society. Numerous political effects occurred because of the Protestant Reformation, which consequently happened because of Luther’s reforms. The area that was affected most by the Reformation was Germany. Luther was favored there and he gained support by appealing to German patriotism and evoking a national pride and feeling that influenced many princes. Luther stated that the only way Reformation could come about was by the princes to abolish papal power. This happened when Charles V excommunicated Luther and the German princes did not enforce the banning of Luther’s teachings. Charles V was also to blame for the disintegration of imperial authority because during his reign, he never took an interest in the constitutional problems of Germany that were left over from the Middle Ages. Germans princes used the religious issues as a way to extend political...

Words: 589 - Pages: 3