WI: Peasants Revolt Successful

So what would the long term implications of the success of the english Peasants revolt (in that most if not all of their demands are met and things go relatively their way)?

As a POD I'll go with Wat Tyler living through the situation that OTL killed him, if that could happen then I could very well see the rebellion being a long term success.
 
To expand on the idea of the scenario I'm going to assume that when Wat and company meet up he does not greet the kings and company so insultingly (or atleast the provocation happens differently enough that the mayor of London ends up losing the fight). As a second idea for this just have the entire second meeting not happen and so the king is more willing or forced to go through with the demands. In the very least you won't have the immediate dispersal which led to the OTL defeat which means that London is effectively under the Peasants control for the time being.
 
The thing is unless they set up some kind of organization it's easy for the people in charge to make whatever concessions they have to in the short term and then roll back everything later once things have calmed down.
 
"For the time being". What happens when an army shows up?

Thats the question I can't really answer myself, depends how long it takes for the army to show up and how smart the rebels are. London is a defensible city and if they played their cards right they could probably scatter an attempted attack on the place. It all depends on how many peasants stay (although if word of an army marshaling to crush them reaches them my guess is more would stay), how long it takes for them to prepare for the attack (besieging London will almost certainly be a task), and whether or not the other uprisings in the country that where going on are also successful. The problem with that last one is that there really isn't any information on numbers there and besides that these events change the situation a lot in the rest of the country too.
 
Thats the question I can't really answer myself, depends how long it takes for the army to show up and how smart the rebels are. London is a defensible city and if they played their cards right they could probably scatter an attempted attack on the place. It all depends on how many peasants stay (although if word of an army marshaling to crush them reaches them my guess is more would stay), how long it takes for them to prepare for the attack (besieging London will almost certainly be a task), and whether or not the other uprisings in the country that where going on are also successful. The problem with that last one is that there really isn't any information on numbers there and besides that these events change the situation a lot in the rest of the country too.

I'm not sure they really have the force to hold the city. We're not looking at people who are trained fighters, we're looking at . . . peasants.
 
The thing is unless they set up some kind of organization it's easy for the people in charge to make whatever concessions they have to in the short term and then roll back everything later once things have calmed down.

Yeah, some idea's I'm tossing around in my head would be leashing the king far more to parliament while giving Freemen and craftsmen positions in it, the establishment of a much more heavily armed peasantry like existed in Sweden at the time (I know not totally comparable situations but it would atleast give them somewhat more power), and possibly forcing a rift in the aristocratic camp by having the regency turn against eachother forcing them to have to appease the peasant faction in order to win the fight over the position.
 
I'm not sure they really have the force to hold the city. We're not looking at people who are trained fighters, we're looking at . . . peasants.

Given the english policy at the time required all of them to be heavily proficient with a longbow and how well organized the rebels where by the standard of their era they actually have somewhat of a chance. Also remember it wasn't just peasants, the rebellion covered a huge swath of the non-noble society and was definitely well executed and planned up until the guy running it got murdered.
 
Given the english policy at the time required all of them to be heavily proficient with a longbow and how well organized the rebels where by the standard of their era they actually have somewhat of a chance. Also remember it wasn't just peasants, the rebellion covered a huge swath of the non-noble society and was definitely well executed and planned up until the guy running it got murdered.

Also remember that though the army sounds threatening, all anyone remembers is the thin crust of knights and kings, most of the army would be composed of men as poorly trained and armed as the peasants.
 
Also remember that though the army sounds threatening, all anyone remembers is the thin crust of knights and kings, most of the army would be composed of men as poorly trained and armed as the peasants.

That "thin crust" counts for a lot, however. Not so much against city walls, but the knights (and sergeants, sure) were the ones whose fighting skills were significant.

eliphas8: "Well organized by the standards of the era" - especially for someone that collapsed so easily when Tyler was killed, which does not suggest something particularly well equipped to cope with the inevitable strains of a prolonged struggle - isn't all that impressive, although if these are longbow-trained, it might amount to something.

Still leaves the issue of London falling to a siege, however.

I just don't see them as having much chance just by somehow taking London, it might be a start but it's not enough.

It seems like something that would be at best - or worst, depending - more like the Jacquerie in its impact .
 
Last edited:
Did they even have anti-monarchy sentiments? Did they want to force the elites to make concessions or did they have other forms of government in mind?
 
Did they even have anti-monarchy sentiments? Did they want to force the elites to make concessions or did they have other forms of government in mind?

From my reading, they wanted to force the elites into concessions, but the crown was seen as a good thing.

"Every figure of authority was their enemy, from lowly tax collectors and sheriffs to judges, bishops, and dukes. In particular they screamed for the heads of the two people most visibly responsible for the poll tax: Archbishop Sudbury, the chancellor; and Sir Robert Hailes, the treasurer. John of Gaunt was often added to the list as the man most obviously responsible for the mishandling of the government.


Only the King, the young innocent they looked on as their champion, was exempt from the rebels' rage. That this should be the case may be an intriguing testament to the entrenched belief that royalty ruled by "divine right"; or perhaps Richard's youth and political powerlessness under the rule of the council gave the rebels a sense of affinity with him"

http://historymedren.about.com/od/britishevents/a/Conflagration-part-2.htm
 
From my reading, they wanted to force the elites into concessions, but the crown was seen as a good thing.

"Every figure of authority was their enemy, from lowly tax collectors and sheriffs to judges, bishops, and dukes. In particular they screamed for the heads of the two people most visibly responsible for the poll tax: Archbishop Sudbury, the chancellor; and Sir Robert Hailes, the treasurer. John of Gaunt was often added to the list as the man most obviously responsible for the mishandling of the government.


Only the King, the young innocent they looked on as their champion, was exempt from the rebels' rage. That this should be the case may be an intriguing testament to the entrenched belief that royalty ruled by "divine right"; or perhaps Richard's youth and political powerlessness under the rule of the council gave the rebels a sense of affinity with him"

http://historymedren.about.com/od/britishevents/a/Conflagration-part-2.htm

That's what I figured. From my knowledge, it was usually the goals of peasant revolts of this period to force concessions rather than an outright overthrow of the monarchy. Hasn't there been several figures who've claimed distant royal blood in order to overthrow the king, merely replacing them?
 
That's what I figured. From my knowledge, it was usually the goals of peasant revolts of this period to force concessions rather than an outright overthrow of the monarchy. Hasn't there been several figures who've claimed distant royal blood in order to overthrow the king, merely replacing them?

Not that I can think of. Not from peasants and townsmen, at least.

Overthrowing a king is a huge thing in the Middle Ages, after all.
 
Not that I can think of. Not from peasants and townsmen, at least.

Overthrowing a king is a huge thing in the Middle Ages, after all.

I just meant if the goal of a rebellion was to replace an unpopular king, it was usually done by someone with at least a hoaky claim to royalty.

But totally agree with you on the big deal aspect. It was rather beyond peasants and townsfolk to imagine a society with out kings in the medieval era, with certain regional exceptions of course.
 
Top