The Law of Winchester

Blood of Kent, by Harold Middlemore (University of Maidstone, 1972)

Of course, the seeds of victory for the peasants was laid not in London, or even later in Warwickshire, but in Kent. And the man who truly turned the peasants from a rabble of angry farmers primarily concerned with their taxes into a proper revolting army was not Wat Tyler but John Ball. His barn-storming performance in Blackheath drew hundreds if not thousands more to the cause, and with demands that they return home rejected, the people of Kent spread the revolt and a great army gathered itself for the invasion of London.

The young king and his advisors had cloistered themselves in the Tower of London, an innocuous name for what was in fact a formidable fortress of great size and complexity. Attempts to negotiate were stymied by the King's refusal to leave his barge. His fears were not unfounded. The Kentish armies were large, if untrained and poorly armed. But the King had few men at his command and the cream of the English military guarded the frontier against Scotland or were abroad in either Ireland, France or Germany.

At the same time that the Kentish army crossed the Thames into London, with the intention of seizing the Tower, lesser armies from Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk had surrounded the city from the North. A revolt of Londoners also broke out, aiding the armies in their campaign. The Kentish army hunted down those who had perpetrating crime against the peasantry, a list including bishops, advisors and officials. John Fordham, the Keeper of the Privy Seal was seized and executed. Foreign mercenaries were rooted out[1], the prisons were opened, and the Tower was surrounded. The King and his advisors were prisoners within their own fort.

The fortress' garrisson opened the gates as the King decided to negotiate, and soon afterwards, the peasants took control of the Tower. Here, they put to death those who had worked to destroy their liberties, looted the armoury and massively improved their own arsenal and kept the King and those close to him under house arrest in the Tower[2]. Wat Tyler only now asserted himself as leader of the Kentish revolters, and directed those from other counties to return home, and spread word of the King's agreement to their demands throughout England.

Wat Tyler notably began the destruction of those who opposed him in the city. Cleverly he had removed the non-Kentish armies and their commanders who could potentially challenge his policies. The legal system was assaulted, foreign saboteurs were killed where they could be found, and the hated John of Gaunt was killed one thousand times in his absence, either through the death of his son Henry, the sacking of his opulent mansion or the killing of his employees. All of these dramatic events had occurred in just two days, and in that short time, England had changed.

At this point, Wat Tyler was willing to accomodate the King and quit London. He was convinced not to however, by another great Kentishman, Jack Straw. Straw told Tyler that the charters the King had signed were not stringent enough, they were too weak to be relied upon. Tyler met with the King, and a circle of his advisors but he soon came up against treachery as the Mayor of London, William Walworth made an attempt on his life. That he should make such an attempt, in the Tower of London, at this point under revolter's command beggars belief. But it is believed that if he had succeeded, then the fortress's small garrisson would have rallied and with the King at their head have been able to disperse the revolt. Instead, Tyler had the Mayor executed, and the remnants of the Tower's garrison thoroughly purged. The Tower was then razed to the ground, and Tyler established his base of operations in what was formerly Newgate Prison. With London secure, the story of the Revolt passed out of Kentishman's hands and into the counties where the lesser armies had dispersed with their message of the Law of Winchester...

[1] This isn't some 'Woo, yeah, modern democratic attitudes for the win' TL. These 'foreign mercenaries' have been misremembered by the historians of this world, and are in fact, nothing more than Flemish weavers, put to death for their accents and the crime of unEnglishness.
[2] The POD proper. There are some small tweaks before this, but the real change is a less trusting attitude that puts the King and his supporters in a far more vulnerable position.
 
So this is a TL which has festered in my head for quite a while. Slightly implausible I know, but I am curious to see where a more successful Peasants' Revolt takes me.
 
Honestly I think modern Democracy isn't the best way to put it but definitely more "Peasants and Upper Peasantry fuck yeah" which is honestly more interesting than any "and they establish democracy forever.
 
Honestly I think modern Democracy isn't the best way to put it but definitely more "Peasants and Upper Peasantry fuck yeah" which is honestly more interesting than any "and they establish democracy forever.
I don't think Mumby is doing that. In fact:
[1] This isn't some 'Woo, yeah, modern democratic attitudes for the win' TL.

I'm interested to see where this goes. In TTL, the revolt is obviously held in some reverence, hence the "foreign mercenaries" and such. I wonder whether this will come to be seen as a second Magna Carta, this time for the yeomen, townsfolk and peasants of England...
 
The Unconquest by Toby White (Canterbury Press, 1979)

With London secured, and the King safely placed under the 'protection' of the Revolters, the story of the peasants moved out of the city and into Eastern England. Each county soon had a commander of sorts, appointed not by the capitol but by the assembled men. One of the most influential and talented of the Revolter's commanders was John Wrawe of Suffolk. Due to the complexities of feudal law, nobles found it hard to put down the rebellion, and fortifications were taken with ease. Armouries were looted, garrisons defected or were otherwise purged, and local militias were absorbed.

Under Tyler's authority, not only legal and noble authority was challenged. With his explicit support, the people of St Albans tore down the abbey which dominated their town. Ecclesiastical power was unpopular and the destruction of monkish tyranny is well remembered. But what is often forgotten is the loss of knowledge that went with it. Records were destroyed, the abbey was occuppied, the inhabitants turfed out. England was to suffer from this loss for many decades, as anti-clerical violence spread.

The worst of these losses was the destruction of the University of Cambridge. Wrawe's men had joined forces with local revolters and the old University, administrated by monks was hated by the people of the town. The library and archives, which were of incalculable value were burnt. The royal privileges of the university were stripped away.

Everywhere, legal authority was challenged. Justices of the Peace were executed, peasants sat were nobles once made law. Court records were burned and local officials were murdered. By 19th June, it could be said that the revolters had control over London, Kent, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. This would be to ignore the lack of control of any central authority whatsoever, and when one was established, the lack of financial, legal or clerical records would leave England in a dire position.

The North is Revolting! by Fatima Smith (Knickerblocker Books, 1995)

While the history we are taught focusses on London and Suffolk, there is another great siege of the Revolt that took place in the North. York was taken over by the poor townspeople, and unlike the comparatively savage mob violence of the southern revolt, the new York government made a truce with their former masters, arbitrated by the Archbishop of York, an individual who if he had been in the south would undoubtedly have been put to death. Traditional historians tend to glaze over the deaths in the southern revolt, referring to 'foreign mercenaries' and the tragedy of the loss of documents. But what they forget is that if the documents were destroyed, where did they get their sources from, where did the large community of Flemish weavers of London go, why did the South suffer financial ruin while the North did not.

That is not to say that the areas outside the Southeast did not suffer in the same way Cambridge did. The clash of armies in Peterborough between the bishop Hugh Despenser and the revolters of Cambridgeshire was notable as an orgy of carnage, whipped up into an epic battle between artificial and natural nobility by subsequent authors. What happened afterwards is less well-documented. The armies of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, having come dangerously close to destruction, now marched on Stamford, what is now a small market town in Lincolnshire but what was then a major borough in its own right. The revolters had heard Despenser had come to Peterborough from the town, and while he had left with only a scarce few retainers, they nonetheless put the town to the sword.

The Rape of Stamford had the same affect as Genghis' or Attila' hordes. When the wrathful army of peasants came upon a town, they would usually surrender, out of fear of receiving the same fate. Lincolnshire soon fell to the Revolt, and Leicester suffered much the same fate as Stamford. The castle and its contents were thoroughly destroyed, and the Mayor and the entire garrison were executed.

The much maligned John of Gaunt fled into Scotland, while Yorkshire was secured under the rebels. They failed to take his castles in Yorkshire until later, but the Midlands were by this point either imitating York, or suffering the fate of Leicester and Stamford as revolters from other counties destroyed rival county towns 'to set an example'. By July, much of England was under de facto Revolter control, but at this point, bands of nobles and knights attempted to retake towns and even in the North, acts of repression took place, particularly against monastic orders.

By mid-summer, the rabble armies of peasants, armed and armoured with loot began to organise under men from each county, and the most formidable of these armies was from the largest county of all, Yorkshire, which had seized Gaunt's castles and used their resources to equip their men.
 
I don't think Mumby is doing that. In fact:


I'm interested to see where this goes. In TTL, the revolt is obviously held in some reverence, hence the "foreign mercenaries" and such. I wonder whether this will come to be seen as a second Magna Carta, this time for the yeomen, townsfolk and peasants of England...

Zigackly. Though, as I've touched on in my latest (or rather, second) update, not everyone thinks the Revolters were pure-minded revolutionaries.
 
Good stuff! also interested on how this goes. I like how you have the slightly differing viewpoints on the same events.
 
Good stuff! ...I like how you have the slightly differing viewpoints on the same events.
Me too!
Zigackly. Though, as I've touched on in my latest (or rather, second) update, not everyone thinks the Revolters were pure-minded revolutionaries.
Ah, I was expecting an airbrushed official account, with any such questions posed by historians who would be considered somewhat revisionist - even if they were accurate in their findings.

Those Southerners have a lot to answer for. Sacking Cambridge, Stamford and Leicester, plus executing Richard's faithful cousin Bolingbroke...

I imagine John of Gaunt will react, possibly with Scots help. After all, his descendants weren't above giving away border castles and towns in exchange for troops when times got rough. Obviously, at the minute, if the rebels hold Richard, action against them can be interpreted as treason. This gives Lancaster something of a conundrum to manage. What of the other nobles?
 
Me too!

Ah, I was expecting an airbrushed official account, with any such questions posed by historians who would be considered somewhat revisionist - even if they were accurate in their findings.

Those Southerners have a lot to answer for. Sacking Cambridge, Stamford and Leicester, plus executing Richard's faithful cousin Bolingbroke...

I imagine John of Gaunt will react, possibly with Scots help. After all, his descendants weren't above giving away border castles and towns in exchange for troops when times got rough. Obviously, at the minute, if the rebels hold Richard, action against them can be interpreted as treason. This gives Lancaster something of a conundrum to manage. What of the other nobles?

The Revolters have some support from the gentry and indeed, the nobility. This is because some hope to settle old scores, climb the social ladder, etc, rather than establish the sort of autonomous pseudo-anarchist republic that Straw, Tyler and Ball have in mind.

John of Gaunt will be back, but while Richard lives, and is held by the revolters, he is still King and recognised as such by the revolters. The charters he has signed also establish Tyler's actions as lawful.
 
Blood of Kent by Harold Middlemore (University of Maidstone, 1972)

By the end of summer, most of England with the exception of those areas bordering Wales and Scotland had fallen under Revolter control. The challenge for Tyler and his council now, was to centralise authority in a country which the Revolters had taken over largely through local movements. And in different counties, the Revolters behaved differently. In the Southeast, the most thorough purging of the old government took place, with monasteries, holy universities, and courts all destroyed as totems and arbiters of feudal tyranny. The further north and west you went, the more the local revolters had accomodated the old government. In the Midlands, many high noble families had preserved their privileges by coming to accomodations with the Revolters. In Yorkshire, a council of the lower orders was founded, but the Archbishop of York had a great deal of power despite the destruction of the monastic orders within the county.

Not only was their impurity in the Revolts outside the southeast, but in Wales and Scotland, there were those who drew their plans against the new government. In Wales, a nationalist uprising threatened the peace of the newly conquered territory, but the castles of John of Gaunt remained secure, and so long as that remained the case, Wales would be a knife at the throat of the Revolt. And the man himself was in Scotland, promising the king, Robert II, control of the English enclaves within his borders and maybe even territory in the North of England. Cumberland and Northumberland had already made a pragmatic decision to place themselves under Scottish protection.

Further afield, France took advantage of England's tribulations to attack her French domains, with a great degree of success as no reinforcements were forthcoming from England. And in Ireland, the local Gaelic lords pushed back the English lordships, who had little prospect of relief. Tyler and his compatriots had little interest in the French territories which were the main reason for the taxes that they had so unjustly suffered. But the nobles and clerics further north had vested interests in these territories.

The purest example of Tyler's vision for England was in Kent. Since the revolt began, the ancient form of autonomous hamlets populated by free peasants had returned, and land had been placed under common governance. People had dispersed from the fortress-villages of the Norman conquerors, and while a less efficient form of agriculture, it was broadly observed to bring greater happiness. Serfdom and slavery was abolished. Even in the rest of the southeast, the revolters had not established such a radical settlement.

Tyler and Ball saw that while a decentralised country governed only by the 'Law of Winchester' by which they meant local traditions and practice was what they wanted, such a solution would be impossible while they were threatened by Scottish invasion or Welsh insurrection. So Tyler built an army first from the core of Kentish troops in London, then travelled into the southeast, bringing together those commanders who had planted the Revolt there, and bringing government in those counties into line with his vision.

Tyler's army swelled and he lead an army against 'counter-revolts' lead by nobles. The Midlands in particular suffered from this war, and while this conflict was prosecuted, the Scots crossed the border, and into Westmoreland and Yorkshire. The idealism of the patriots and early revolters would subside during this second period of the Revolt, and people with darker desires would take power...
 
Not only was their impurity in the Revolts outside the southeast...
Any prizes for guessing which side our Kentish academic is on? ;)
John of Gaunt...himself was in Scotland, promising the king, Robert II, control of the English enclaves within his borders and maybe even territory in the North of England. Cumberland and Northumberland had already made a pragmatic decision to place themselves under Scottish protection.
Not particularly surprising. The border regions would rather help the Scots armies get into the land further South as quickly as possible than have them causing death and destruction on their own turf. Will Lancaster himself be marching with the Scots army? If he does, then the best defence he has is one similar to that used by the Lords Appellant (I'm not taking up arms against the King, but his treacherous advisers)
Tyler and his compatriots had little interest in the French territories which were the main reason for the taxes that they had so unjustly suffered. But the nobles and clerics further north had vested interests in these territories.
Which could cause rather a lot of bickering. Especially as these great Lords have a lot of men with swords to further their own interests...
The purest example of Tyler's vision for England was in Kent. Since the revolt began, the ancient form of autonomous hamlets populated by free peasants had returned, and land had been placed under common governance. People had dispersed from the fortress-villages of the Norman conquerors, and while a less efficient form of agriculture, it was broadly observed to bring greater happiness. Serfdom and slavery was abolished. Even in the rest of the southeast, the revolters had not established such a radical settlement.
Interesting. A rejection of the last three-hundred years or so, and a return to Saxon ways? How much of that is true, and how much is propaganda or hindsight, I wonder?
The idealism of the patriots and early revolters would subside during this second period of the Revolt, and people with darker desires would take power...
Those less idealistic than the one who has just sacked much of the Midlands to make it follow the plan he has in mind? I do like the bias of Middlemore, even if it reminds me rather too much of some history books I have read in the past...
 
The Revolters have some support from the gentry and indeed, the nobility. This is because some hope to settle old scores, climb the social ladder, etc, rather than establish the sort of autonomous pseudo-anarchist republic that Straw, Tyler and Ball have in mind.

That always seems to happen with peasant revolts, and the gentry/minor nobles who join the revolt can often rise to leadership positions because of their resources and military skills. There will probably be conflict between the "pure" Kentish rebels and some of the gentry in the outlying country.

I wonder if Kent will look like medieval Dithmarschen for a while, although the Kentish peasants are in a more exposed position than those in Dithmarschen.
 
Any prizes for guessing which side our Kentish academic is on? ;)

Yeah, Middlemore is pretty convinced that Kent is the best county in England, and everyone else is a pretty weak copy. And he is a committed adherent to what is a traditional historic account of this period.

Not particularly surprising. The border regions would rather help the Scots armies get into the land further South as quickly as possible than have them causing death and destruction on their own turf. Will Lancaster himself be marching with the Scots army? If he does, then the best defence he has is one similar to that used by the Lords Appellant (I'm not taking up arms against the King, but his treacherous advisers)

That is pretty much Lancaster's justification. He can also imply that Richard is held against his will, and that the Revolters are usurpers, which is pretty much correct.

Which could cause rather a lot of bickering. Especially as these great Lords have a lot of men with swords to further their own interests...

Yeah that going to cause problems both for Revolting England, and for France in the long-run.

Interesting. A rejection of the last three-hundred years or so, and a return to Saxon ways? How much of that is true, and how much is propaganda or hindsight, I wonder?

Pretty much just propaganda. There has been a degree of purging, but in fact at this point most of Kent's men are in Tyler's armies. The remaining population have little interest in leaving their homes.

Those less idealistic than the one who has just sacked much of the Midlands to make it follow the plan he has in mind? I do like the bias of Middlemore, even if it reminds me rather too much of some history books I have read in the past...

Exactly, the sackings are seen by Middlemore as righteous destruction of enemies of liberty. He sees them as acts of great idealism. Needless to say, Tyler's centralisation of England has actually come at the cost of a great deal of freedom for those outside the Southeast.
 
That always seems to happen with peasant revolts, and the gentry/minor nobles who join the revolt can often rise to leadership positions because of their resources and military skills. There will probably be conflict between the "pure" Kentish rebels and some of the gentry in the outlying country.

I wonder if Kent will look like medieval Dithmarschen for a while, although the Kentish peasants are in a more exposed position than those in Dithmarschen.

Never heard of that, thats really interesting.
 
Top