When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?

What if the peasant revolt of 1381 had been successful in ending English serfdom.

Could something like a bill of rights been created? Would they be better off killing Richard II? How would relations with the rest of Europe evolve?
 
There was no realistic prospect of a peaceful settlement with Richard II, or any high lord. Those... people felt they had no obligation to keep their word when dealing with mere peasants in rebellion; 1381 was by no means the only bottom-up revolt that collapsed when the ruling elites lured the leaders into negotiations only to slaughter them under flag of truce. Almost invariably, this meant that the rebellion agreed to halt its own momentum, and in return they were betrayed, dispersed and subjugated again. In some cases, like 1381, the oppression actually worsened, at least in the short to medium term.

To win, the 1381ers would have to extirpate all or most of the military aristocracy, and fend off invasions from the continent as well as Scotland and Ireland (particularly the Anglo-Irish lords there).
The secular and ecclesiastical authorities of the time had a deeply vested interest in not allowing the peasants any kind of political success or voice, much less allowing them to topple an entire large, important kingdom.

Tl, dr: Revolt can only win if it gets lucky a lot of times, and even then it will be a long, destructive civil war to the knife, followed by a long, destructive period of "regular" war, also to the knife.
 
[ Picturing the Lollards managing to sieze power like the fanatics in Game of Thrones, but then lured into cathedral for trial of King Richard then blown up ala Gunpowder Plot. ]
 
What if the peasant revolt of 1381 had been successful in ending English serfdom.

Could something like a bill of rights been created? Would they be better off killing Richard II? How would relations with the rest of Europe evolve?
IIRC, their demand was that the King should do away with the feudal nobility and rule the country directly. Which was probably too big a change to be successfully implemented, but that's what they were aiming for.
 
I always wondered what would happen if the peasants gad started a terrorist approach in the modern sense. Every noble had to rely on servants, and had to interact with peasants, which makes him vulnerable to such attacks. So what if they had started a conspiracy with the goal of killing as many nobles as possible?
 
I always wondered what would happen if the peasants gad started a terrorist approach in the modern sense. Every noble had to rely on servants, and had to interact with peasants, which makes him vulnerable to such attacks. So what if they had started a conspiracy with the goal of killing as many nobles as possible?
It's not terribly easy to become an effective assassin. Cheap guns and explosives nowadays can make any fool a dangerous man. That is less true in the Middle Ages.
 
I always wondered what would happen if the peasants gad started a terrorist approach in the modern sense. Every noble had to rely on servants, and had to interact with peasants, which makes him vulnerable to such attacks. So what if they had started a conspiracy with the goal of killing as many nobles as possible?
What's in it for the servants? Servants who were important and trusted enough to gain access to their nobleman were probably already living decent lives by medieval peasant standards, and it's unlikely that they'd find a better job after the aristocracy are wiped out.

They don't have nearly the sort of long range you need to be pretty sure of evading capture, which is the objective of most people who have just shot somebody important.
Plus, they're bigger and bulkier than guns, and so more difficult to hide.
 
Top