Talk:Peasants' Revolt

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matildaelizabeth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(Killing millions)
Removed the reference to the Black Death "killing millions" in 1348-1351, since it was vague and excessive, or a guess. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_England the population of England decreased from 3,750,000 to 2,500,000 during this period, a difference of 1.25 million.

Title
This page title is confusing. I think there needs to be a way to distinguish this from the German Peasant's Revolt of 1525, which is more important. Should the revolts be categorized by date? By location?

-Alex S

The Title is not confusing, the English uprising is known as the Peasant's Revolt, the German uprising some 150 years later is almost always referred to as the Peasant War, it was a far, far larger conflict.

Trotboy 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)]]


 * The title is not confusing in terms of which event it refers to, but it is inaccurate. Very few historians now would accept the label 'Peasants' Revolt', since members of the lower orders of the clergy and London townspeople (not to mention the burgesses of Cambridge) were involved.  However, I don't reccommend changing the title because it's known to non-specialists (ie most people) as the 'Peasants' Revolt'.  The common alternative, 'the 1381 risings', is too obscure for most people, I think. - DH


 * Agreed, titles of articles are a matter of convenience, to allow for the widest audience to understand what it means (see Medieval science, there was no "science" in the Middle Ages). The opening paragraph provides alternative names and clarifications. -- Stbalbach 13:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now noted the general context, which is popular revolt in late medieval Europe, in the heading. A better title for this article would not be capitalized and would be dated: English peasants' revolt of 1381.  Would there be any objections to such a title, if I fixed the redirects? --Wetman 17:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on your perspective - as an editor, your right, English peasants' revolt of 1381 fits the scheme of things better and is more logical. As a general reader, Peasants' Revolt is how most people know it by. --Stbalbach 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Peasants' Revolt would remain as a redirect, of course: let no one be left behind. --Wetman 01:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Six weeks later: any objections to English peasants' revolt of 1381? --Wetman 06:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds ok to me. In fact we could even make Peasants' Revolt (and Peasants Revolt and permutations) a disambiguation page, since outside an English history context it has more meanings. -- Stbalbach 15:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (common names). It's generally referred to as the Peasants' Revolt, and I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the title. It's a proper name (like the Second World War, the Wars of the Roses and the Rising of the North) and so should be capitalised. And it may not be entirely accurate, but then these things seldom are: the Hundred Years' War didn't last 100 years, and the War of 1812 didn't just take place in 1812. Proteus (Talk) 15:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is controversial, there are many things on Wikipedia that have been called Peasants Revolt, it is confusing and leads to disambiguation problems. Restoring to previous until there is consensus. -- Stbalbach 16:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I can only see two, this and 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt, which seems quite happy there. All the others seem to be called different things. This is undoubtedly the primary topic for this particular name in the English-speaking world. Proteus (Talk) 16:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Many things can be called a "peasant revolt", either colloquially or directly. See Popular revolt in late medieval Europe. They all have various and different names depending. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus says on this as good arguments can be made either way. -- Stbalbach 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * But this isn't called "a peasant revolt", it's called "the Peasants' Revolt" (it is also, of course, "a peasant revolt", "a peasants' revolt", "a popular revolt", and many other things, but they aren't its name). Articles are generally named by the name of a subject, if it has one, not by a description of it (which is what the current title is). And while there are other similar revolts, they are all generally referred to by more specific names, whereas this is simply called "the Peasants' Revolt" (in the English-speaking world, obviously). And there's no need for Peasants' Revolt to be a disambig page &mdash; we already have one at a different name, and it's been a redirect for six months pointing to the very article that's apparently not allowed to use it as a title... (Of course it would be difficult to change it from that, since so many articles link to it expecting to get here, which is a good indication that this is indeed the primary topic and thus not in need of disambiguation.) Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * peasant revolt is a dab page which lists all the revolts and wars that could be easily confused when someone types in the general term "peasant revolt". The redirect of "Peasants' Revolt" to this article is fine for anyone who types in the correct term "Peasants' Revolt" (with the apostrophe and Capitalization). The end goal of article naming is to decrease confusion and make it easier for the user to find what they are looking for. With the current arrangement anyone who types in "Peasants' Revolt" will get to the assumed right place (here), anyone who types in "peasant revolt" will get to a dab page which then lists the more specific name. However, if this article was called "Peasants' Revolt", it would increase confusion because it is so similar to peasant revolt which is a dab page. This is kind of similar to the Norman Conquest -- which one? Normally when people say Norman Conquest, they mean the one of England, but there are others, so the article is called more properly Norman Conquest of England. But "Norman Conquest" still redirects to Norman Conquest of England since that is what most people know it by. -- Stbalbach 15:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That article's at the wrong place too. I can see why people might want to do it this way, but it's simply not the way Wikipedia policy says it's supposed to be done. Variants are supposed to redirect to the most commonly used name, not vice versa. Proteus (Talk) 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * <--continued..

Your probably right. The contradiction of the rules is this: we would have Peasants' Revolt (article) and Peasant revolt (dab page) which are two different articles, yet they are too closely named for dab purposes and easily confused, which is the reason this article was renamed, to adhere to the Dab MoS on that point. Probably the correct solution is to do the following: Let me know what you think. -- Stbalbach 23:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Rename this article to Peasants' Revolt
 * 2) Rename Peasant revolt to Peasant revolt (disambiguation)
 * 3) Redirect other permutations of "peasants revolt" to Peasant revolt (disambiguation).


 * That would seem ok, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I think Peasants' Revolt is different enough to peasant revolt that that the latter can be validly used as a redirect on its own. Proteus (Talk) 10:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So much for the neutral descriptor English peasants' revolt of 1381, which is at least a redirect. "English" cannot be tacitly assumed in an international English-language encyclopedia, though it suffices in a History of Medieval England.--Wetman (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Details on how third poll tax differed from earlier ones?

 * The third poll tax, unlike the two earlier, was not levied on a flat rate basis (as in 1377) nor according to schedule (as in 1379), but in a manner that appeared more arbitrary and hence unfair.

Can someone expand on this? --Jim Henry | Talk 21:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

need expansion
Might want to get into how this and other revolts up through the reformation affected political thought then and since. It;s all quite important to marxist historiography. Dan Knauss

Popular revolt in late medieval Europe, a more general article, though not covering that aspect yet. --Stbalbach 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Legacy needed
Anyone for added another section about the legacy of the revolt? Dermo69

Trigger
Added a section on Brentwood, and the actions that lead to the formation of the revolt. Duellist

recent additions
I reverted the recent additions. They are poorly written for one and I don't think really improved what is here. Also the social factors about the black death etc are general to all revolts and discussed in the popular uprising article. -- Stbalbach 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

semi-protection needed?
Hi. we have had about 5 or 6 unhelpful edits in the last hour or so, anyone think we should go for semi-protection of this article? Thanks!  AC Best  My Contributions  17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for expansion
For a such a significant event in history, there really is more that could be said about this. Mrmoocow 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was reviewing this for Version 0.7; I think it needs some work & more content before it's ready, though it's certainly getting there. Walkerma 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Brentwood or Fobbing?
The BBC web site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/voices/voices_revolt.shtml) says "The Peasants' Revolt began in the Essex village of Fobbing in May 1381. It started with the arrival of a royal tax commissioner, John Bampton, enquiring into evasion of the new poll-tax. As a JP and former sheriff of Essex, Bampton was typical of the local notables against whom the risings were directed. Supported by men from nearby villages the rebellion had begun." The current article gives roughly the same events, but places them in Brentwood. Does anyone have access to a good source that can help? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I will edit the section based on a Google Books entry. Probably deserves a better source if one is available. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC).

I have come across many articles and as a history student have been taught that it was Fobbing. I have just added a reference to it on the page itself.

The last poll tax?
The Poll Tax article says "The poll tax was essentially a lay subsidy (a tax on the movable property of most of the population) to help fund war. It had first been levied in 1275 and continued, under different names, until the 17th century." Thus, according to Wikipedia, poll taxes continued to be levied after the Peasant's revolt. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tempore Rumoris
The term "Peasants' Revolt" is one coined by historians in the nineteenth century and is un unreflective of the variety of rebels. Wat Tyler and John Ball both came from large towns, and townsmen and low clergy were numerously included in the ranks of those rebelling. In Norfolk there is an uncommon example of members of the titled gentry joining in as two knights and an esquire were among those in revolt.

Contemporary commentators refered to to the events as "Tempore Rumoris" or "The time of whispers/rumours". This epithet reflects much more effectively the widespread criticism levelled at governmental activity during the period, and is irrespective of any social distinctions between those taking part and indeed those who may well have passively supported the rebels too. - MJC - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Slave rebellion
Do you people mean you really don't think this was a slave rebellion?? What will it take? Stars4change (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A reliable source that says it was? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Plus, it would probably have taken some slaves rebelling to be a slave rebellion. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The revolt outside London
There is little mention of the revolt outside London or post Smithfield. I've added a section on this and made the briefest of starts on the Norfolk revolt. There is a lot more to be said and I hope others will take up the challenge of expanding the coverage. Monstrelet (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beginning of the end of serfdom
Currently the article says in the lead:

This needs a citation as it is not an accurate summary of the body of the text, and is not supported by the economic profile of many of the known participants in the rebellion. -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing Project
I just wanted to let the editors of this page know that me and a few of my classmates are doing an editing project for our English Literature class and we have chosen this page on the Peasants' Revolt. If there are any questions regarding the project, you can contact our professor, his username is redcknight. (Lynn2468 (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Linking User talk:Redcknight. Rivertorch (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kappalovin, I suspect that you're probably one of these students. If you haven't already, have a look at Close paraphrasing. Basically, you can't take someone else's work (Melissa Hogenboom's in this case) and copy it extensively, including in terms of structure and style. Have a look at the examples on the linked page, and feel free to leave me a message here if you can't spot the problems. The BBC News Magazine isn't an ideal/reliable source for late medieval history, and you may find the original article by Ferrour more suitable for your work - it's “The Imaginary Society: Women in 1381” in the Journal of British Studies, 2001.
 * Lynn, when you're adding references like "Eiden, Herbert. "Norfolk, 1382: A Sequel to the Peasants' Revolt." The English Historical Review 114.456 (1999): 370. Literature Resource Center. Web.", remember to include the web link you're referring too, as otherwise the citation is incomplete. Good choice of source, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know what we need to change. We are working on fixing the errors we have made. (Lynn2468 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)) I am one of the students and I am attempting to edit the page and an automated message continues to pop up afterwards preventing me from doing so. I would like to know what the problem is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappalovin (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What does the message say? Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Expansion
I've given the article an over-haul. I think it now reflects the current literature, and is fully referenced. It will certainly need a copyedit, etc. however, as I'm certain there a range of typos left in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't spotted your typos, but I wonder whether the sentence "At the end of the 20th century there was a surge in historical interest in the Peasants' Revolt, spurred by the contemporary growth of the labour and socialist movements.[275] " should be at the end of the 19th century? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep - thanks, and changed! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Lords and Commons...
I've added a reference in to support the identification of two groupings here. The terms "the House of Lords" and "the House of Commons" first come from the 16th century, but aren't typically used to describe the 14th century institutions; the terms are a bit anachronistic for the 14th century, carry a number of assumptions based on later parliamentary practice, and I'd argue you'll typically find historians of the 14th century being quite specific about how they refer to the 14th century versions. There is some variance about whether they are capitalised or not ("the commons" versus "the Commons"), with the latter being more common and more widely used by modern historians, I think. I agree, by the way, that the Commons link should have been more specific to the English parliament. I think this should also have made reference to the clergy, and I've added them in. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Joan of Kent, not Joan of England
This article links "Lady Joan" to Joan of England who was an unfortunate princess who died at the age of 14, without issue. The woman who encountered the peasant army was "Joan of Kent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Kent

I don't want to fix it myself because I am afraid I will mess it up. Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the editing process can change this. Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.105.153 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! I've fixed as per your suggestion. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

About taxation
Hello! I have some questions about taxation. I can do some mistakes in English, because I`m Russian, please be careful.

"the poll tax, which was levied at the rate of four pence" - for which period people had to pay that amount? Also, what does "with a deduction for married couples" mean? They didn`t pay, or only one human in couple paid? "his round of taxation proved extremely unpopular but raised £22,000" for which perod?--Schetnikova Anna (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The question was asked a long time ago, but here is a partial answer. The poll tax was a one-off tax ie each time it was only collected once. If more revenue was needed, a new poll tax was levied. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Better source?
I put this in because I think that the speech's reported text is quite illuminating. I noticed that the article refers to Sumption, who in turn refers to Froissart a lot if you look at his footnotes.  Wik idea  17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The usual problem with Froissart as a source for this period is that he wasn't there in person, he has clear biases and he does tend to embellish the details (see Jones's commentary on him as a primary source). There are no perfect sources for the revolt, though, so every modern historian I've come across uses a combination. Sumption uses a combination of primary sources for his paragraph on the sermon, including Anonimalle, Walsingham, Knighton and Froissart; he doesn't quote the text used by Macaulay. Dunn describes some of the differences in the chroniclers' accounts of Ball, which gives a sense of the problems of interpreting the sources of this period. The most famous bit of the sermon, "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then a gentleman?" is now known to have been common before Ball used it (see Hilton's description of this background). If you'll allow me a bit of OR (given this is a talk page!) there isn't a commonly agreed text of what Ball actually said, which is why modern specialist historians of this period are so cautious about quoting anything at length (I only know of one historian that has, and that's in a relatively "popular" work, and footnoted as being potentially unreliable). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it matters too much - even if Froissart isn't quoting Ball (and of course he's not), because Froissart was writing in 1385 this makes his account relevant in itself. You've done a great article, but don't be precious about people like me making improvements. I take it that you don't have a better source. (And Sumption, quotes the phrase you do, and attributes it to him.) I leave it to you.  Wik idea  18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wikidiea. It's not that I think there's a better source - it's rather that I don't believe that current historians think that there is any good source for what Ball actually said (as opposed to the broad themes he put across, where there is consistency across most of the accounts). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead should be shortened
It's too long - hit the main points, incorporate the rest into the article's body. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd agree with you; it summarises the totality of the article, its length is in line with the MOS on leads for articles of this size, and all the points are already cited in the main body. Were there bits that caused particular concern? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Queries
Hchc I have looked at this with a view to nominating for TFA, and I have a few queries.
 * The article doubts Jack Straw was a real person but also says a Jack Straw was executed. Presumably the man executed may not have been the leader but I think it is worth spelling that out.
 * The article is inconsistent between advisor and adviser. Personally I prefer adviser, but obviously both are correct so long as they are consistent.
 * Note 8. "After the revolt three aldermen were put on trial by the authorities, including John Horn, Walter Sibil and William Tongue" As all three are named I think "including" should be deleted.
 * Note 10. "Winchester," a former capital of England until c. 1100" Historians of Anglo-Saxon England regard the idea of Winchester having been the capital as a myth - e.g. Stenton p. 539 where he says that in the 11th century the court was mobile and the idea of a capital had not yet emerged.
 * Any view on this article as a TFA? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would dispute your assertion that "Historians of Anglo-Saxon England regard the idea of Winchester having been the capital as a myth" since this is not at all the case and a vast number of reliable specialist sources may easily be produced contradicting Stenton's thesis, and fully verifying Winchester's status as the capital of England. It is also easily documented that William I maintained Winchester as the old capital alongside London as his new capital, however following his reign London was the only capital. This is what the great preponderance of scholarship says and Stenton's objections here are a clear minority. Mr. Lunt (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Which specialist sources? This claim is constantly put forward but whenever I have asked for sources they are either popular works or by historians of later periods (as no doubt applies in this case). I read extensively on Anglo-Saxon history and I have never seen Winchester described as the capital of Wessex or England. The article on Winchester by the leading Winchester historian John Crook in the 2014 edition of The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England says nothing about it being the capital. Oxford University professor Sarah Foot in her 2011 biography of Æthelstan says p. 78 that it was not the capital, but "just one of the West Saxon king's many royal residences, albeit apparently a favourite one". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jack Straw - I'll check the sources tomorrow to see how they phrased it; it's certainly accurate as currently put, but we might be able to be stronger/clearer.
 * Advisor and adviser actually carry slightly different meanings, but I doubt if I was being that precise when I drafted the article. I'll check over it tomorrow.
 * Aldermen - well caught, corrected.
 * I'll double check the Winchester bit, but from memory I think we've addressed this before in discussions on either this or a similar page, and I think Frank Stenton's views are slightly outdated now.
 * I'm neutral on the TFA question; from an editorial perspective, the day in question can be a bit stressful/hard work...! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've fished the books out. Will check through (a bit more slowly than normal, though, as I'm rather knackered from work...) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can find a range of references which discuss Winchester as a former capital, but, as you say, the argument is certainly disputed, and it is far from critical here, so I've cut back. I've sorted the adviser/advisor bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the Jack Straw wording - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the change helps. The question that comes to my mind when I read that sentence - after reading that historians doubt whether Jack Straw existed - is what do they think of this one? Is it significant that the man executed was a London leader and Jack Straw was identified with Kent? Was Jack Straw a common name in that period? I would like a clarification such as who is not thought by historians to be the same man as the famous one, or who may have been - depending what historians make of him. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hchc and Mr. Lunt - do you have any sources for Winchester? Otherwise I propose to delete it and nominate for TFA. The Jack Straw query is not crucial and Hchc hopefully it should not be a problem for you. Any vandalism I and others can deal with. The only problem will be if someone raises a point which requires your expertise. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dudley, see the change and my note above. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of the Jack Straw bit, I've added a footnote with some more details; I'm not sure we can go much further without starting to enter OR, but will keep an eye out for someone that makes a clearer statement about this. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks hchc. The applications section is full at present so I will have another look after Christmas. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know,it certainly strikes me as intellectually disingenuous to state 'Do you have any sources for Winchester otherwise propose we delete' when it has already been noted that the majority of historical sources do confirm this fact as may easily be found with little effort. So I would reject your proposal. Mr. Lunt (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

the temple...systematically destroyed the buildings
It is my understanding that the rebels brought the Hospitaller documents out of "the Temple" on Fleet Street and destroyed the documents, then left the Temple in tact. In fact, that Temple is still in tact in London today, and is quite famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpydoo5 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The Temple was rebuilt afterwards; at the time, the attackers even took off all the roof tiles. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The Black Death
A month ago the image being used to depict the Black Death was removed as it shows leprosy. If the editors of this article would like an alternative image, the one on the right shows victims of the Black Death. While you can't see the symptoms, it might help convey it was a fatal disease with a large death toll. Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Very often fatal, but there were some survivors - the pneumonic form of the plague, however, was always fatal at the time (and most of the time today.)50.111.23.144 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Richard II meeting rebels
The lead image is captioned as representing a meeting on 13 June 1381. The text has the first such meeting on 14th, and another on 15th. Davidships (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of references
I reverted some edits by because it removed some of the existing references in the article. In addition, it removed four new sources which might be relevant to the article. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic so I can't assess how good the references are.

It might be better if we discuss things on the talk page. Its good to get an expert on the subject but it might take some getting use to the way wikipedia works. For example, we have seen an example of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. OneProfessor did a good faith bold edit, this was reverted by myself and others and its how time to discusss to find a consensus for what should go in. --Salix alba (talk): 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing section in Events->March on the capital
There is a line which reads "Word of the revolt reached the King at Windsor Castle on the night of 10 June.[90] 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.[94] 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.[90]"

notice the various references to "He". I would edit to be correct but I don't know who "He" is.

AirmanEpic (talk)


 * I am not clear what the problem is. All references to "he" clearly to refer to the king so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Gower's Prediction of the Peasants' Revolt
The article contains the sentence: The poet John Gower feared England might see an uprising similar to the French Jacquerie revolt of 1358, in which the peasants had risen up against their masters.[61]NOTE 61= Sumption 2009, p. 419

I suggest replacing the existing sentence with: The poet John Gower warned against a future revolt in both Mirour de l'Omme and Vox Clamantis. CITE (Wickert 1953 p18-19)

Bibliography ADD:

Observations on preceding:

 * Perhaps Wickert should be credited via In-text attribution with discovering these two warnings.
 * My reason for dating the footnote 1953 is that Wickert original publication was in 1953 in German. 2016 is the publication date of the second edition of Meindl's translation.
 * The line numbers in the references to MO and VC may be overly specific and could be deleted (or reformatted).

Problem with Sumption page 419:
The principal problem is that quotation from Gower is inappropriate. It is from Confessio Amantis prologue lines 498-501 is:
 * “Betwen the men and the godhiede.
 * Now forto speke of the comune,
 * It is to drede of that fortune 500
 * Which hath befalle in sondri londes:”

Excerpt From: John Gower. “Confessio Amantis, or, Tales of the Seven Deadly Sins.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/book/confessio-amantis-or-tales-of-the-seven-deadly-sins/id498715691?mt=11 Confessio Amantis was probably written after 1381. I don't know of any allusion to the Jacquerie in Mirour or Vox.

passage from Sumption:
The English political community did not imagine that the revolt of Flanders held any lessons for them, any more than the court of France had done. When popular rebellion erupted in their own island, the event took them by surprise. But it did not come out of a clear sky. Most of the economic problems of the countryside ultimately sprang from the drastic depopulation which followed the Black Death: falling 418                      THE REVOLT OF THE TOWNS 1380-1382. rents and agricultural prices, accompanied by strong upward pressure on wages. The lords of rural manors responded by systematically enforcing their surviving manorial rights and zealously invoking the Statute of Labourers which had been enacted in the aftermath of the first epidemic in order to limit the wage demands of labourers and restrict their mobility. These measures were only partly effective but they provoked sharp conflicts, sometimes breaking out into physical violence. The shadow of the Jacquerie of 1358 darkened men’s thoughts and fear of revolution became a recurring theme of political discourse. That lugubrious conservative poet John Gower warned that the common people would one day break their bonds, ‘which hath befalle in sondri londes’. France was undoubtedly the chief of the sundry lands that Gower had in mind. He was not alone. After a rash of incidents in the south and west in 1377 the Commons in Richard II's first Parliament reported that peasants were forming sworn associations to oppose the demands of their lords and were openly resisting the bailiffs of the manors. They voiced their fear of rural revolution ‘as happened some time ago in France’, even as they called for stronger measures of repression.8 NOTE8 refers to Froissart.

Gower translation
Mirour de l'omme 26485-26496 Fisher translation
 * It seems to me that lethargy
 * has so put the nobility to sleep
 * that they do not guard against
 * the folly of the common people,
 * but permit the nettle to grow
 * which is so violent in its nature.
 * He who observes the present time
 * may soon fear that,
 * if God does not give help,
 * this impatient nettle
 * will very suddenly sting us,
 * before it can be brought to justice.

Vox Clamantis V.653-54 Stockton translation
 * I believe that in a short time the lords will submit to them,
 * unless justice shall have been obtained by means of fear.

Rdmoore6 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Translation of Latin
The article mentions "derogatory Latin terms such as serviles rustici, servile genus and rusticitas". I think we need a decent English translation of these. I gather they are something along the lines of "slave-like rustics", "slave race", and "rustics", but I don't know enough about Latin to navigate the subtleties of meaning. Iapetus (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources of paragraph.
"The historian Sylvia Federico, translating Latin court documents from The National Archives, named Johanna Ferrour as the leader of this force that took the castle. Alongside her husband,[140] she is described as "chief perpetrator and leader of rebellious evildoers from Kent".[141] She arrested Sudbury and dragged him to the chopping block, ordering that he be beheaded as well as ordering the death of the treasurer, Robert Hales. It has been speculated that her name does not appear in the work of contemporary chroniclers as they may have felt that a female leader would be perceived as trivialising the revolt.[141] From then onwards, however, comments Marc Boone, women were more regularly accepted in contemporary literature as playing a role in societal violence.[140]"

This paragraph has two sources, one a book in Italian with no page numbers given, and the other a BBC news magazine article. These are not reliable sources for an FA historical article, especially for a subject which has so many reliable sources in English. One comment is quoted as the view of Marc Boone, but he is not the author of the book cited. The citations are also the only ones which do not comply with the standard format for the article. The paragraph deals a topic which appears to be neglected in the article, but if the information is reliable it should be possible to provide sources which are academic and in English, like all the other sources for the article. I think this paragraph as it stands should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

John Bampton MP = John Brampton, archdeacon?
The article John Brampton is about an archdeacon, but claims to be about the same person as the John Bampton who started the Revolt (and is linked from here). I can't seem to find any sources predating these two articles who make that connection. Can someone find the source which makes the connection between those two, or is this some WP:OR which has since spread outside enwiki to Town and County Magazine, 2018? Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this is just someone's assumption. An early and poor version of the John Brampton article at makes the connection and only cites the Diocese Clergy Lists as a source. It is also interesting that he is not listed in MPs 1386 to 1421 at, although the period 1422 to 1504 is not yet available. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I feared. I'll remove the link from this page, and the info from the target page. Of course, if someone finds a good source predating the info here (i.e. pre-2015 or so), then it can be readded! Fram (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is correct to change John Brampton to a redirect to the clerical article. The one who was involved in the Peasants Revolt is significant and well referenced, whereas the archdeacon is just a name. I think you should revert the redirect and delete the archdeacon, the first two refs and the succession box. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Peasants' Revolt one called John Bampton (without the R)? Better to create a new article (or, if they are the same, to use John Bampton (theologian) as is already done now). Using the "bRampton" article to contain this information is not helping, I think. Fram (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not the theologian. He was active much earlier. The usual spelling of all three men seems to be Bampton. I suggest restoring the John Brampton article and moving the name to John Bampton (tax collecter). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sheep pen (Luttrell Psalter).png

Move to 1381 Peasants' Revolt
Any opposition to changing the title to 1381 Peasants' Revolt, to distinguish it from other similar revolts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * How about "Peasants' Revolt (1381)" or "Peasants' Revolt of 1381"? Nathan43 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take this as no opposition to any title including the year. Wikipedia articles of events normally have dates at the beginning, when applicable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I oppose a change. The current title is used by reliable sources, not the proposed new one. If you want to change it you should make a formal proposal using Template:Requested move. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I oppose the change too. Nathan43 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Most reliable sources use the year in naming the event. More importantly, a disambiguation is needed to differentiate this event from other events which can be described as a peasants' revolt. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at Google Books, few if any use 1381 Peasants' Revolt. The most popular seem to be Peasants' Revolt and Peasants' Revolt of 1381. However, any change would be controversial, and under Wikipedia rules no controversial name change should be made without going through a formal consultation, as I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per several above. If you want to do this, start a proper WP:RM, better researched than this, and notified to projects. If a change is desired I would also prefer the date at the end. Note there is no Peasants' Revolt (disambiguation), though there is a list. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)