Points to improve
Lead
edit- "The Battle of North Walsham was a mediaeval battle fought near the town of North Walsham in the English county of Norfolk on June 25 or 26, 1381." - I reworded this slightly, but between whom?
- - between a large group of peasants rebels from the local area and a force of armed men led by Despenser (initally his own retinue from Burley (http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/oman/revolt.pdf Oman, p. 90) but ultimately 'All the knights and men of gentle blood who had hid themselves for fear of the commons' (Oman, p. 92), who undertook upon himself the task of 'restoring order and punishing the offenders' (http://www.archive.org/stream/risingineastangl00poweuoft#page/36/mode/2up (Edgar Powell, p. 37.))
- "was utterly defeated by a heavily armed force raised by Henry le Despenser" - "by the heavily armed forces of Henry..." would be better, but I wanted to check first that they were his forces.
- - they were (see above).
Events leading to the battle
edit- This might be better titled simply as Background, but I'll leave that to your better judgement.
- - change to Background, (less wordy).
- "The uprising in Norfolk was part of the English Peasants' Revolt" - what uprising exactly? Remember, the lead is a bit of a mini-article, you need to start afresh here as some people might not have read it.
- - expansion of 'The Uprising in Norfolk' required (use Historical Atlas of Norfolk, Powell and Omen)
- "The causes of the revolt in Norfolk are complex." - repetition of "revolt in Norfolk" - can you rephrase?
- - use 'insurrection', 'rebellion', 'insurgency',
- The Norfolk insurrection was part of the English Peasants' Revolt, a major rebellion that spread throughout England during the summer of 1381. The causes of the Peasants' Revolt are complex.
- "In the years following the Black Death, a national shortage of workers had led to higher wages." - I know the black death caused a labour shortage, but could you mention that?
- - mention that the BD caused a labour shortage.
- "The Statute of Labourers (1351)" - was this an Act of Parliament? We need to know that this is a law.
- - The S of L (given in full in Dobson, pp63-68) was a law, which was enacted during the first parliament of Edward III of England and was later revised and re-issued, it made the labour laws more precise and detailed how they were to be enforced: (Dobson, p63) Statute of Labourers (1351) Whereas, to curb the malice of servants who after the pestilence were idle and unwilling to serve without securing excessive wages, it was recently ordained by our lord the king, with the assent of the prelates, nobles, and other men of his council, that such servants, both men and women, should be bound to serve in return for the salaries and wages that were customary in those places where they were obligated to serve during the twentieth year of the reign of our said lord the king, that is to say, five or six years earlier; and whereas the same servants, on refusing to serve in any manner, were to be punished by imprisonment of their bodies, as is more clearly set forth in the same ordinance ...; and whereas our lord the king has now, by the petition of the commons in this present parliament, been given to understand that the said servants have no regard for the said ordinance, but, to suit their ease and their selfish desires, refrain from serving the lords or other men unless they receive double or triple that which they were accustomed to have in the said twentieth year and earlier, to the great damage of the lords and the impoverishment of all men of the said commons, who now pray for remedy of these matters: therefore in the same parliament, by the assent of the prelates, earls, barons, and the other lords, and of the same commons there assembled, the following measures are ordained and established to curb the malice of the said servants.... (http://www.constitution.org/sech/sech_062.htm)
- "Discontent increased with a deterioration in the respect held for the Church, which became generally hated by the peasants, as many priests lacked education and the bishops and abbots were themselves landowners." - who originally held respect in the Church?
- - priests, particularly John Ball (Oman, p.32) criticised the Church and common people flocked to listen (Powell, p.3, 34) - however this sentence needs to be changed to avoid the implication that there was general respect for the Church prior to the Peasants' Revolt.
- "The revolt in England started after a succession..." - is this the Peasant's Revolt still? I'm not absolutely certain.
- - This line refers to the Peasants' Revolt (clarification needed).
- "The imposition of a third poll tax in 1381 prompted riots all over England." - this is my rewording, can I just check with you that the tax prompted the riots, or was it a coincidence?
- - No coincidence. According to the Anonimalle Chronicle (in Dobson, p. 123), The 'evil actions' of the commons in both Essex and Kent were 'because of the exceptionally severe tenths and fifteenths and other subsidies lightly conceded in parliaments and extortionately levied from the poor people'.
- "Richard's promises were retracted." - by whom, or under who's will?
- - Richard himself went back on his word before the promises he made could be ratified: On the following day he was at Waltham, and there published a curious proclamation, warning all his subjects against rumours put about by the rebels to the effect that he approved of their doings and that they were acting in obedience to his orders. Richard in no measured language declares that he has not, and never had, any sympathy for their riotous and treasonable conduct, and that he regards their rising as highly prejudicial to his kingdom and crown. All true men are to resist, arrest, and punish any bands found under arms, as rebels against their sovereign lord. This proclamation was perhaps provoked by the arrival at Waltham of a deputation sent by the Essex insurgents, with a demand for the ratification of the promises made at Mile End on June 14, and a request that they might be granted the additional privilege of freedom from the duty of attending the King’s courts, save for the view of frankpledge once a year.139 Richard spoke out roundly to this embassy; he told them that the pledges made during Tyler’s reign counted for nothing, having been extorted by force. ‘Villeins ye are still, and villeins ye shall remain.’ he added, ending with a threat that armed resistance would draw down dreadful vengeance. It is clear that the sentimental sympathy for the oppressed peasantry attributed to the young King by some modern authors had no real existence. He was incensed at the duress which he had suffered on June 14–15, and anxious to revenge himself. (Oman, p.59)
Background
edit
The Norfolk insurrection was part of the English Peasants' Revolt, a major rebellion that spread throughout England during the summer of 1381. The causes of the Peasants' Revolt are complex. The drop in population caused by the Black Death, which arrived in England in 1348, resulted in an acute labour shortage. The national shortage of workers then led to higher wages. The Statute of Labourers (1351)[1][2] was a law, which was enacted during the first parliament of Edward III of England in order to make the labour laws and their intended enforcement more precise and detailed.[3] It was imposed by the government to control wages. It had the effect of making life more difficult for the peasants and more profitable for the wealthy landowners.[4] Further discontent erupted from the behaviour of those nobles who ruled on behalf of the boy-king Richard II. The Church became generally hated by the peasants, as many priests lacked any education and the bishops and abbots were themselves landowners. Feelings were stirred up by rebellious priests such as John Ball, who criticised the Church wherever the common people flocked to him to listen to his words.[5][6]
The Peasant's Revolt of 1381 started after a succession of highly unpopular poll taxes were levied against the English population. The expense of the Hundred Years' War caused the government to introduce in 1377 a poll tax of four pence. By 1380 this had tripled, but as many refused to pay, revenues dropped.[7] The imposition of a third poll tax in 1381 prompted riots in Essex and Kent, which then spread all over England. According to the Anonimalle Chronicle, the 'evil actions' of the commons in both Essex and Kent were 'because of the exceptionally severe tenths and fifteenths and other subsidies lightly conceded in parliaments and extortionately levied from the poor people'.[8] Most serious of all were events that occurred in London.[9] During the summer, rebels from Kent and Essex marched to London and, once admitted to the city, managed to capture the Tower of London. King Richard, who had promised to agree to all the demands of the peasants, met the rebels outside the city, where the peasants' leader, Wat Tyler, was killed and the rebellion was ended. Once they were defeated it became clear to the rebels that they had failed to gain Richard's support. Whilst the king was at Waltham (in Essex), a proclamation was issued condemning the rebels and denying that he had ever approved of the their actions. At Waltham Richard refused to ratify the promises he made, as he believed they had been extorted by force, adding, ‘Villeins ye are still, and villeins ye shall remain' and threatening vengeance upon those who had rebelled.[10]