Updated:

English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

Introduction

The comparison of multiple historical texts can reveal the differences and inconsistencies in the stories discussing old events. The two primary sources, The Chronicles of Froissart: Wat Tyler’s Rebellion and “Anonimalle Chronicle: English Peasants’ Revolt 1381” present two descriptions of the Peasants’ Revolt that happened in England in 1381.

In both chronicles, the central persons are presented in similar ways. However, some major parts of these events diverge from one another. It is unclear whether one source can be trusted over another – both authors mention different names and details about the situation, although the overall description of the revolt is the same in both sources.

Comparison and Trustworthiness

In his work, Froissart explains all actions of peasants and the royal court in detail, presenting both points of view and discussing the plans and beliefs that both sides had at the time. The author shows the “commons” as unwise and uncultured and describes their actions as incontinent. For example, Froissart discusses the idea for the rebellion, introducing one of its originators as “a foolish priest in the country of Kent called John Ball, for the which foolish words he had been three times in the bishop of Canterbury’s prison.”

Thus, it is made clear by the writer he does not agree with the rebels’ cause. This tone of narration suggests that the author could present his biased opinion, thus making the source untrustworthy. In Anonimalle Chronicle, the peasants are also introduced as foolish, although the author focuses on one of the leaders of the rebellion, Wat Tyler (Tighler), and his lack of manners. In this case, Wat’s actions are described as “very rude and disgusting” and improper in the presence of his king.

Although presenting the king as smart and the peasants as foolish, the authors of the two sources tell the story of the last meeting between Richard III and Wat Tyler with several differences. First of all, Froissart calls the mayor of London Nicholas Walworth, while in the Anonimalle Chronicle the mayor is named William Walworth. This inconsistency makes both sources unreliable, as the reader is unable to determine which name is correct without consulting another primary source. Second, the moment of Wat Tyler’s death is also described in different ways.

In Froissart’s book, Wat Tyler does not dismount his horse and is struck by the mayor after threatening the king’s squire. The rebel is killed by the mayor and the squire instantly – “the mayor drew out his sword and strake Tyler so great a stroke on the head, that he fell down at the feet of his horse … Then a squire of the king’s alighted, called John Standish, and he drew out his sword and put it into Wat Tyler’s belly, and so he died.”

On the other hand, the Anonimalle Chronicle’s author states that Wat Tyler was not killed by the mayor instantly, and the rebel rushed at the squire with his dagger first. “And for these words Watt tried to strike him with his dagger … the Mayor of London, William Walworth, reasoned with the said Watt for his violent behavior … and arrested him.”

Then, the writer argues that the mayor was struck by Wat, for which Walworth counterattacked and wounded the rebel. Tyler escaped and was captured by the mayor in a hospital, from which he was “carried out to the middle of Smithfield, in presence of his fellows, and there beheaded.” These descriptions of Wat Tyler’s death differ significantly, making both authors unreliable narrators.

Conclusion

The primary sources describing the Peasants’ Rebellion of 1381 have similar descriptions of peasants and royalty regarding their behavior and intelligence. However, the retelling of particular events and names differ greatly between the two works, making both authors’ narrations unreliable. It is unclear whether one author is more trustworthy than the other. Readers may need to consult a third source to see which narrative is supported by another person.

Bibliography

Berners, John Bourchier, Jean Froissart, William Harrison, and Thomas Malory. Chronicle and Romance: Froissart, Malory, Holinshed (The Harvard Classics Series). Edited by William Caxton and George C. Macaulay. New York: Project Gutenberg, 2004. E-book.

Internet Medieval Source Book. Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2021, June 30). English Peasants' Revolt of 1381. https://ivypanda.com/essays/english-peasants-revolt-of-1381/

Work Cited

"English Peasants' Revolt of 1381." IvyPanda, 30 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/english-peasants-revolt-of-1381/.

References

IvyPanda. (2021) 'English Peasants' Revolt of 1381'. 30 June.

References

IvyPanda. 2021. "English Peasants' Revolt of 1381." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/english-peasants-revolt-of-1381/.

1. IvyPanda. "English Peasants' Revolt of 1381." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/english-peasants-revolt-of-1381/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "English Peasants' Revolt of 1381." June 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/english-peasants-revolt-of-1381/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1