http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JacquerieAlmost no peasant revolts before 1336 (local revolts were known, but almost none against more then one "Noble" house i.e Peasants against their liege lord NOT against the Nobles as a class)
The main reason for the change was that before the 1300s, the difference between a "Noble", a "Knight" and a "Peasant" was NOT as clear as it would become after about 1300. Emperor Frederick II of Germany who ruled in the 1200s, was of a family that had been peasants just 100 years before. Ability was more important then blood lines and your "network" of friends. Starting about 1300, the "Nobles" started to view themselves as separate from the peasants (as time went on this could be quite severe, for example by the 1600s Nobles in Poland consisted themselves descendant from the ancient Sarmatians, but that the Polish Peasants were NOT, one of the more sever example of this line of thought).
Another factor was the general drop in income do to the start of the Mini-Ice Age and the drop in population do to the Black death (less peasants, less total income, but the Nobles wanted the same amount of Income they had before both events, at the expense of the peasants).
These two threads may sound independent of each other, but are often inter-related. The reason is that as a person loses power, he or she then starts to wear the symbol of Authority. For Example Augustus was the absolute ruler of Rome. All he ever wore was the symbol of being the First Senator, i.e. the large purple slash on his toga. Augustus did NOT need to show that he was all powerful, for he was. 200 years later Diocletian became Emperor of a much weaker Empire, and thus adopted the robes and trappings of an Eastern Monarch. Why? Diocletian hold on the Empire was weak AND the Empire was much weaker then it had been under Augustus (Result of the growth in Power of the Goths and the Persians AND the start of the Dark Age Cold Period which saw the general decline of agriculture and thus wealth of the Roman Empire).
A more recent example was the last years of the Soviet Union, Stalin was NEVER the President of the Soviet Union (a title only invented for Gorbachev in the late 1980s), nor was Stalin "Chairmen of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" the predecessor title to President of the Soviet Union. Stalin did NOT have to be, he was all powerful. Now their was a "Cult" built around Stalin as a "Great Leader" but while parts of it survived into the 1950s, most of that "Cult" ended with the end of the Show Trials of 1938 (Those show Trials showed everyone who was in charge of the Soviet Union and that was Stalin, thus he did NOT need to further the "Cult" of Stalin after that date, but everyone in the Soviet Union did so, do to the fact Stalin was All Powerful). Given that situation Chairmen of the Communist Party was all Stalin ever wanted to be, like Augustus he did NOT need the trappings of a ruler, he had complete power. Gorbachev, on the other hand, had to deal with a rapidly deteriorating situation. Oil production had peaked in 1987, and with that peak came a drop in production AND a drop in foreign currency (Used to pay for US Wheat and other items needed by the Soviet Union but produced in the West). About 40% of the Soviet Economy was tied in with the military, 10% is generally considered as high as you can go without serious economic problems. Gorbachev tried to cut back military spending, but that lead to attacks from inside the Country. Thus Gorbachev position as head of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was much weaker then Stalin had ever been. Thus to show he still had power Gorbachev invented and had himself elected to be the President of the Soviet Union. It did not help, the Soviet Union dissolved under December 21, 1991. It is another example of a weak leader going for the Trappings of Power in order to hold onto power. A strong leader does NOT need such trappings.
As with Stalin-Gorbachev and Augustus-Diocletian, the nobles of the 1300-1500s were slowly losing power do to a general decline in wealth. To maintain their position over the peasants the Nobles adopted the trappings that they were better then the Peasants, something the nobles of the Dark Ages, Roughly 450 AD to 1000 AD, and the High Middle ages, about 1000 AD to 1300 AD, did NOT have to do for they had more wealth to share with the peasants and the need for such Nobles were clear (i.e. to protect the peasants from raids from people outside the local area to raid the peasants).
Please note in both the Dark Ages and the High Middle Ages it was NOT unknown for the invading raiders to stay and become the protective nobles. Sometime with the peasants inviting the invaders, sometimes the Church, sometimes the old Roman Nobility. It did not matter HOW the Nobles became the Nobles of the Dark Ages and High Middle Ages, the peasants and the Nobles quickly came to an understanding. The Nobles were entitled to payment from the peasants, but that payment was in exchange for protection. By 1300 this understanding were under strain, the Nobles were deemed to be less needed (given that no one was invading Europe once the Viking raids ended about 950 AD and Crusades ended for all practical purposes with the only Papal Condemned Crusade, the Fourth Crusade sacked Constantinople in 1204 AD) but the Nobles still wanted the same income they had always been entitled to, even as total income fell after 1300 with the start of the Mini-ice age. Thus you have a situation much like today, the poor is being told to pay more, through today the economy is still growing and thus the pressure on the working class is NOT near as bad as it was between 1300 and the late 1600 when the Mini-ice Age bottom out and agriculture started to expand (Supported by the new crops, Potatoes and Beans, that can survive in a more hostile environment then the traditional Grain crops of Europe). Please note, France was one of the last Country to embrace the Potato and that failure lead to the great Famine of 1787 which lead to the French Revolution of 1789. Thus economic hardship continued throughout the period till the end of the Mini-ice age about 1850 and only with the general improvement in Agriculture do to the end of the Mini Ice Age do you see the end of Peasant revolts (Through the Peasants of China and India revolted throughout the 1800s and was the force behind the Boxer rebellion of 1903 and the Communist movement in China from the 1920s till the Communist took over China in 1949).
List of Peasant revolts in Europe, 1275-1653:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolt_in_late_medieval_EuropeSome more on the Sarmatians:
http://www.silk-road.com/artl/sarmatian.shtmlhttp://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Anthropology/Sarmatians/sarmatians.htmhttp://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Sarmatians.htmlMore on the Mini ice age:
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.htmlhttp://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdfReport of a 536 AD Meteorite might have caused the Dark Age Cold Period:
http://medievalnews.blogspot.com/2010/02/did-meteorite-cause-mini-ice-age-in.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
