The Powder Keg of Fourteenth-Century England

In the late fourteenth century, England stood at a crossroads between medieval feudalism and emerging social consciousness. King Richard II, merely fourteen years old when the uprising erupted, ruled over a kingdom still reeling from the Black Death that had decimated the population decades earlier. This demographic catastrophe had inadvertently empowered the laboring classes, as scarce workers could demand better conditions and wages. However, the ruling classes responded with repressive legislation, particularly the Statute of Laborers of 1351, which attempted to freeze wages at pre-plague levels and restrict worker mobility.

The year 1380 witnessed the third poll tax in four years, a crushing financial burden that fell disproportionately on the common people. Unlike modern income-based taxation, the poll tax required every adult to pay the same amount, making it exceptionally burdensome for peasants and artisans. This taxation policy, combined with ongoing economic restrictions and social inequality, created tinder waiting for a spark.

The Man Behind the Name

The rebellion takes its common name from an unlikely leader whose true identity reveals much about medieval society. The man history remembers as Wat Tyler was actually named John Walter, a roof tiler by trade. In an era when occupational surnames were common, he became known as John Walter the Tiler, which gradually shortened to Wat Tyler through local pronunciation and popular usage. This naming tradition reflected how ordinary people were identified by their work rather than lineage.

Tyler emerged as one of several leaders during the uprising, though contemporary chroniclers and subsequent historians often overstated his singular importance. The rebellion represented a broad-based movement with multiple leaders across different regions, united by common grievances rather than following a single commander.

Voices of Dissent

Several key figures joined Tyler in leading the discontented masses. Historical records mention Jack Straw, William Raw, Jack Shepherd, John Milner, Hob Carter, and the radical priest John Ball as prominent leaders. Many historians believe these names were pseudonyms adopted both for protection and to foster camaraderie with the common people. The use of familiar, everyday names helped bridge the social gap between leaders and followers in a society strictly divided by class.

Contemporary chroniclers, invariably writing from aristocratic perspectives, portrayed these leaders as vicious criminals and troublemakers. Without access to writing materials or the education to record their own stories, the rebels’ perspectives have been largely lost to history, filtered through the prejudiced accounts of their social superiors.

The Social Landscape of Medieval England

English society in the 1380s rested upon a foundation of serfdom and strict hierarchy. The majority of the population lived as villeins—peasants bound to their lords’ land, required to work specific days each week on the lord’s demesne, and subject to numerous fees and restrictions. They needed their lord’s permission to marry, to leave the land, or even to educate their children.

While some peasants had achieved free status, they faced their own burdens. Free peasants struggled under heavy taxation and the arbitrary exactions of tax collectors, whose methods often crossed into extortion. When rebellion broke out, both serfs and free peasants found common cause against their oppressors, creating a powerful coalition that crossed traditional social boundaries.

The Preacher of Rebellion

Long before open rebellion erupted, John Ball traveled through the English countryside preaching radical ideas about social equality and the rights of common people. A renegade priest who had been excommunicated for his teachings, Ball became the intellectual and spiritual voice of the discontented masses.

Ball regularly spoke at market crosses and village greens, gathering crowds to hear his message about the sufferings endured under noble oppression. His famous refrain, “When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?” challenged the very foundation of medieval social hierarchy, suggesting that all people were equally descended from biblical ancestors and therefore social distinctions were human inventions rather than divine ordinations.

The preacher advocated first for peaceful petitioning, urging crowds to collectively appeal to the young king. “I am certain that if we go together to speak with him, the king will listen to us,” Ball declared. “But if he turns away from our pleas, then we must take the best course to end these sufferings.”

The Rhetoric of Revolution

Ball inspired numerous other speakers who traveled throughout southeastern England, particularly in Kent and Essex where the rebellion would first ignite. These popular orators employed sophisticated rhetorical techniques to mobilize audiences. They began by condemning the wealth and arrogance of the nobility, contrasting aristocratic luxury with peasant deprivation.

The speakers then highlighted specific injustices: the rich enjoying fine wines and white bread while peasants subsisted on coarse grains and water; nobles dwelling in splendid manor houses while laborers crowded into crude huts; aristocracy wearing silks and jewels while commoners owned barely more than the clothes on their backs. This systematic comparison of lifestyles made abstract inequality tangible and immediate for their audiences.

Finally, the orators questioned the very principle of social hierarchy. “England will never be well governed,” they argued, “until these distinctions are eliminated. Only when there are no more lords and landowners, when the proud nobility are no longer our masters but treat us as equals, will our country improve.” This radical egalitarianism struck at the heart of medieval social organization.

The Spark of Rebellion

The immediate trigger came in May 1381, when tax commissioners arrived in Brentwood, Essex to investigate widespread tax evasion. The third poll tax in four years had met with massive resistance, with many communities reporting suspiciously low adult populations. When commissioners tried to enforce collections, violence erupted.

The confrontation began when John Bampton, a royal tax commissioner, attempted to collect unpaid taxes from residents of Fobbing, Corringham, and Stanford-le-Hope. The villagers, already stretched to their financial limits, refused to pay further. When Bampton threatened them with arrest, the situation escalated rapidly. The commissioner and his clerks were driven from the village, and the angry crowd soon swelled with supporters from surrounding communities.

This local resistance quickly spread throughout southeastern England. In Kent, rebels marched to Maidstone and released John Ball from prison, where Archbishop Simon of Canterbury had confined him. The freeing of the popular preacher symbolized the rebellion’s growing organization and confidence.

The March on London

By early June, coordinated groups of rebels from Kent and Essex began converging on London. Estimates suggest between 30,000 and 100,000 people participated in the march, though contemporary chroniclers likely exaggerated these numbers for dramatic effect. The rebels displayed considerable organization, appointing leaders and maintaining discipline during their advance.

Their demands crystallized during the march: abolition of serfdom and all feudal services, removal of the king’s “evil counselors” , free access to markets, and a fixed rent of four pence per acre of land. These practical economic demands reflected the rebels’ concrete experiences of oppression rather than abstract political theories.

The rebels from Kent, under Tyler’s leadership, paused at Blackheath while their Essex counterparts gathered at Mile End. From these positions, they could coordinate their approach to the capital while sending messages to sympathetic Londoners.

The King Responds

The young King Richard II initially underestimated the seriousness of the rebellion. On June 13, he traveled by barge from Westminster to Greenwich to meet with the rebels, but aborted the meeting when he saw the size and anger of the crowd. This failed encounter further inflamed the situation, convincing many rebels that peaceful negotiation was impossible.

The king then attempted communication through Sir John Newton, whom the rebels had taken hostage. Newton’s mission to the Tower of London and subsequent return to the rebel camp demonstrated the unusual dynamics of the confrontation. The rebels treated their noble captives with a mixture of respect and threat, reflecting their paradoxical position as both loyal subjects and armed insurgents.

The Storming of London

On June 13, the London population, itself sympathetic to the rebels’ cause, opened the city gates. The rebels poured into the capital, initially maintaining discipline and focusing their anger on specific targets. They first attacked the Marshalsea Prison, freeing inmates imprisoned for debt or feudal violations.

The rebellion’s destructive phase began with targeted attacks on properties belonging to particularly hated figures. The Savoy Palace, home of John of Gaunt—the king’s uncle and the most powerful noble in England—was systematically destroyed. Contemporary accounts emphasize that the rebels prevented looting, instead throwing Gaunt’s luxurious possessions into the Thames or smashing them in the streets. This deliberate destruction of wealth symbolized their rejection of aristocratic privilege rather than simple theft.

Further violence erupted when the rebels located and executed several officials they considered responsible for their oppression. Richard Lyons, a wealthy merchant and tax farmer, and Robert Hales, the Lord Treasurer, were discovered in the Tower of London and beheaded. Archbishop Simon of Canterbury, who had imprisoned John Ball, met the same fate. These executions demonstrated the rebels’ specific grievances against individuals they viewed as corrupt administrators.

The Mile End Meeting

On June 14, the king agreed to meet the rebels at Mile End, just outside the city walls. This location offered more space and security than meeting within the crowded city. Richard, showing remarkable courage for a fourteen-year-old, faced the angry crowd accompanied by only a small retinue.

At Mile End, the rebels presented their demands directly to the monarch. They called for the abolition of serfdom, the elimination of all feudal services except a fixed rent, free trade throughout the kingdom, and pardons for all participants in the rebellion. Most significantly, they demanded the right to deal with “traitors” they blamed for misleading the king.

Remarkably, Richard agreed to virtually all their demands. Clerks immediately began drafting charters granting manumission to serfs and pardons to rebels. This apparent victory might have ended the rebellion, but many rebels remained suspicious of the king’s sincerity. Meanwhile, violence continued in the city as some rebels hunted down and executed officials who had taken refuge in the Tower.

The Smithfield Confrontation

The following day, June 15, brought the decisive confrontation at Smithfield. Wat Tyler met with the king outside the city walls, presenting additional, more radical demands. These included the disendowment of the church and redistribution of ecclesiastical property, the elimination of all lordship except that of the king, and legal equality across social classes.

The meeting turned violent when William Walworth, the Mayor of London, struck Tyler after perceiving disrespect toward the king. Royal guards then finished the mortally wounded rebel leader. In the ensuing chaos, Richard displayed remarkable presence of mind, riding toward the rebel ranks and declaring himself their leader and champion. This bold move prevented immediate bloodshed and allowed the royal party to regain control.

Aftermath and Legacy

The rebellion collapsed rapidly after Tyler’s death. The king revoked the charters he had granted at Mile End, declaring they had been made under duress. Retribution followed as royal forces tracked down rebel leaders across southeastern England. John Ball was captured, tried, and executed in a particularly gruesome manner intended to deter future rebellion.

Despite its apparent failure, the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 left a profound legacy. While serfdom continued for another century, the rebellion demonstrated the potential power of collective action by common people. The events forced the ruling classes to recognize the limits of exploitation and likely moderated subsequent feudal demands.

The rebellion also revealed deep cracks in the medieval social order. The radical ideas expressed by John Ball and other leaders—particularly about equality and the rights of common people—continued to circulate in popular memory, resurfacing during later upheavals like the English Civil War.

Most importantly, the revolt established that political power ultimately rested on popular consent, however reluctantly acknowledged. The spectacle of tens of thousands of armed commoners dictating terms to their king fundamentally challenged medieval theories of divinely ordained hierarchy. This recognition that authority required at least minimal popular acceptance would gradually transform English politics over subsequent centuries.

The Great Rising of 1381 stands as a watershed moment in English history—not because it immediately achieved its goals, but because it demonstrated that ordinary people could organize, articulate their grievances, and challenge the most powerful institutions of their time. In this respect, the rebellion marked an important step in the long, uneven journey toward modern democracy.