The Peasant Revolt in England, 1381

Revolutions are always a numbers game. They're about economics, demographics and technology. When social disparitiees of wealth are enormous, when there are large numbers of people having the education and training and skills necessary to recognize this, and when technology, particularly military technology, gives these people the opportunity to mount an effective assault on the established order of things, they tend to do just that! No big surprise there, is there? The French Revolution is probably the most straightforward example of this. A large educated middle class, an obsolete over-empowered Nobility, a large and desperate underclass, and a military technology -- the musket -- which was cheap, portable and easy to maintain and manufacture. The French Revolution was quick and comparatively easy, because the perfect storm of conditions existed for it to succeed. The Russian Revolution had the first two conditions -- massive disparities of wealth, and a sufficiently large educated middle class -- however, military technologies did not particularly favor the underclass. It was largely because everyone was already armed as a result of WWI that the Russian Revolution was even possible, and there was still a long term civil war that lasted almost ten years before it was finally decided. The American Revolution actually was NOT the result of massive disparities of wealth, at all. If anything, the revolting Americans were on the whole rather better off than the British overlords they were revolting against. So, why did they revolt at all, then? Well, the wealthier more ambitious Americans wanted even more, and they knew they could get it! Most Americans either didn't really care, or actively supported the British. It was only because Louis XVI of France was willing to bankrupt his own nation supporting these wealthier, more ambitious Americans that the American Revolution was successful in the first place. And, this principle may explain the plutcratic leanings of many Americans, ever since. An interesting example of a failed Revolution is the Peasant Revolt in England, in 1381. Following the disruptions caused by the Black Death, there had been widespread peasant uprisings throughout Europe, but these were easily crushed because of their lack of any real organization. The English Peasant Revolt was a bit different. It actually was a very temporarily successful coup against the established government of England, that was quickly suppressed simply because the middle class wasn't large or powerful or wealthy enough to sustain it, at the time. Also, again, the military technologies of the time didn't particularly favor the underclass, great castles and mounted knights were highly effective in suppressing mass uprisings. The interesting thing about the English Peasant Revolt, is that all its leaders were actually up and comers, middle class town leaders, successful tradesman, yeoman farmers with their own land -- people with some money, education and social influence. So, they were able to organize a real army, and to operate it fairly effectively. However, not quite effectively enough! It would be another 250 years before the English middle class would arise and destroy the feudal system, and even then there was backsliding until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 turned England into a Constitutional Monarchy, well on the road to true democracy. Today, we may be seeing rumblings of Revolution around the world, for the same reasons that have always obtainded -- massive disparities of wealth, large numbers of people with the education to recognize them, and military technologies that are cheap and effective, and favor the underclass. It should be very interesting to see what happens! #history #economics #sociology #politics