Talk:Popular revolt in late-medieval Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Middle Ages  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Terminology[edit]

The section on terminology contained a definition of only one word, as of June 28, 2006. The definition is a generic one, not specific to the topic at hand. Furthermore, it is redundant: See the more detailed definition at Peasant. The section has been removed, and should not be recreated. MrZaiustalk 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant to this article. There are historiagraphy issues. -- Stbalbach 04:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammar[edit]

I made a minor edit, but maybe someone else can chip in and help rework some of the sentences that are grammatically shaky and/or difficult to parse. E.g., "A new attitude emerged in Europe, that "peasant" was a pejorative concept, it was something separate, and seen in a negative light, from those who had wealth and status." Thanks. - BLHersey 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlettered babble. A peasant is a peasant. These middle-class anxieties about the designation "peasant" are modern ones. --Wetman 06:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy[edit]

I tagged this article with the 'accuracy dispute' template, because I believe it gives a false impression about the causes of medieval rebellions. I've only studied the English rebellions, not those in other countries, but none of them was driven principally by anger about the gap between the rich and poor. The Cornish Rebellion was a tax rebellion; Wyatt's Rebellion, the Pilgrimage of Grace and the Prayer Book Rebellion were principally religious rebellions, although they had dynastic elements as well. This article seems to me to be an attempt to inaccurately impose modern views about wealth on medieval people; where is the proof that any of these rebellions was mainly about a poor-vs-rich dispute? A more neutral approach would recognise that local economic issues, religious disputes resulting from the Reformation, and dynastic rivalries were all more important as causes of medieval rebellion. (Also, let's not forget that many rebellions were not driven by the common people at all, but by the nobles - several of the rebellions against Elizabeth I fall into this category, such as the Revolt of the Northern Lords and Essex's Rebellion.) Terraxos 16:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The article reflects a standard historical interpretation that can be found in numerous basic textbooks, nothing out of the ordinary or unusual, although certainly the article could be improved and expanded on. The article makes no mention of the rebellions being "mainly" about anything, it is fairly general and seems to show multiple causes in a nuanced manner, given the wide general scope of the article in time and place. Elizabethian era kinda falls on the outside the range here, for England anyway, this is more 14th and 15th century. The gap between rich and poor was very much on the mind of John Ball when he said "when Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" I'm going to remove the disputed tag over the entire article, please be more specific if you can but keep a broader view than just England. -- 71.191.47.120 20:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I've re-added the disputed tag. The John Ball example is famous but not representative. Terraxos' concerns should have been addressed with references, if at all. I've filled the "Causes" section with "Citation needed" tags. The section reads like someone copying out from a basic textbook - none of the explanations make sense.

"inflation had become rampant (in part due to population pressures)". Non sequitur, and also not true. Long term inflation is only caused by currency debasement, and prices of the time were quite stable. "To address this nobles illegally raised rents, cheated,". Illegally? The author appears to have limited knowledge of the period. "by cutting silver and gold coins with less precious metal, which resulted in increased inflation and in the end, increased taxations". Currency debasement caused inflation, yes (indeed, *is* inflation), but why would this necessitate increased "taxations"? "a popular ideological view of the time that property, wealth and inequality was against the teachings of God". No, there wasn't. The Franciscans are hardly representative.

"It was a cry for a leveling of society where no man is above any other." The whole thing sounds like it was copied out of a rather selective left-wing textbook by someone who has swallowed the whole thing, hook, line and sinker. 91.84.223.128 (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dating[edit]

Should this page have a 'cut-off date' as it were? I noticed that the amongst others, the Swiss Peasant's War of the 17th century has been added to the list of great rural revolts, but the 17th century has been regarded in nearly every history text book I've read as the early modern period, not the medieveal period. I think we should not discuss revolts after, let's say 1500 in this page and create a new page exclusively for Early Modern Revolts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist student 594 (talkcontribs) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

I've added cleanup tags reflecting the general class of issues noted in the discussion above. This page has unrealized encyclopedic potential, and hopefully the tags will attract the necessary attention. Michael Robinson (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

This article seems to have a very strong Marxist strain. More sources should be added and references to Robert Hinton qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.82.239 (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)