English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Comparison and Trustworthiness
Conclusion
Bibliography

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.

“Medieval Sourcebook: Anonimalle Chronicle: English Peasants’ Revolt 1381.”Internet Medieval Source Book. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

English Peasants’ Revolt of 1381

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)