This book explains the forms of popular protest before the Black Death in later Medieval Europe. It focuses on 'a contagion of revolts' following the Black Death from around 1355 to 1382. The book documents the best-known revolt in France before the French Revolution, the Jacquerie. The revolt spread from the Beauvaisis as far east as Bar on France's frontier with the Holy Roman Empire but lasted a mere two weeks, 28 May to 10 June 1358. The book also focuses on the best known of the urban revolts of the fourteenth century, the Revolt of the Ciompi, which set off with a constitutional conflict in June 1378, and whose regime in alliance with minor-guild artisans lasted until mid-January 1382. It then views the 'cluster of revolts' of northern France and Flanders, 1378 to 1382, concentrating on the most important of these, the tax revolts of the Harelle in Rouen and the Maillotins or hammer men in Paris. It looks beyond the 'cluster' to the early fifteenth century. While intended principally for students, the book aims to stimulate new research on popular protest in the Middle Ages. It includes a Parisian student conflict against the troops of the duke of Savoy in 1404.
broader context of the abundant evidence for popularprotest and discontent in the early years of Henry IV’s reign remains to be considered in detail. This has distorted understanding of the whole episode in certain important respects.
Some caution needs to be exercised of course in analysing the hearsay material on which much of this study is based. Some of it derives from the appeals of approvers, criminals who had already confessed to a capital felony before a coroner and were, to avoid execution, systematically informing on as many of their accomplices and co
Early modern England was marked by profound changes in economy, society, politics and religion. It is widely believed that the poverty and discontent which these changes often caused resulted in major rebellion and frequent 'riots'. This book argues for the inherently political nature of popular protest through a series of studies of acts of collective protest, up to and including the English Revolution. Authority was always the first historian of popular protest. Explaining the complex relationship between the poor and their governors, the book overviews popular attitudes to the law and the proper exercise of authority in early modern England. A detailed reconstruction of events centring on grain riots in the Essex port of Maldon in the crisis of 1629 is then presented. Urbanisation, regional specialisation and market integration were the larger changes against which disorder was directed between 1585 and 1649. The book discusses the 'four Ps', population growth, price rise, poverty and protest, explaining their connection with population explosion to poverty and protest. The major European revolts of the so-called 'Oxfordshire rising' are then analysed. Popular politics might deploy 'weapons of the weak' in a form of everyday politics that was less dramatic but more continuous than 'riot'. On the very eve of the Civil War, large crowds, with underemployed clothworkers, attacked and plundered the houses of local Catholics and proto-royalists among the nobility and gentry. In a culture that proscribed protest and prescribed obedience, public transcripts could be used to legitimise a popular political agency.
The Peterloo Massacre was more than just a Manchester event. The attendees, on
whom Manchester industry depended, came from a large spread of the wider textile
regions. The large demonstrations that followed in the autumn of 1819,
protesting against the actions of the authorities, were pan-regional and
national. The reaction to Peterloo established the massacre as firmly part of
the radical canon of martyrdom in the story of popular protest for democracy.
This article argues for the significance of Peterloo in fostering a sense of
regional and northern identities in England. Demonstrators expressed an
alternative patriotism to the anti-radical loyalism as defined by the
authorities and other opponents of mass collective action.
Although few would contend that London and its inhabitants were indispensable to parliament’s war effort against King Charles I, the matter remains to be delineated in detail. This book explores how London’s agitators, activists, and propagandists sought to mobilize the metropolis between 1641 and 1645. Rather than simply frame London’s wartime participation from the top down, this book explores mobilization as a series of disparate but structured processes – as efforts and events that created webs of engagement. These webs joined parliamentarian activists to civic authorities, just as they connected parishioners to vestries and preachers, and forced interaction between committees, Common Council, liverymen, and apprentices. The success of any given mobilizing effort – or counter-mobilization, for that matter – varied. Activists adapted their tactics accordingly, meeting their circumstances head-on. Londoners meanwhile heeded the entreaties of preachers and civic leaders alike, signing petitions, donating, and taking to the streets to protest both for and against war. Initially called upon to loan money and fortify the metropolis in 1642–3, Londoners had by 1644 become reluctant lenders and overburdened caretakers for sick and wounded soldiers. Revealed here by way of a wealth of archival and printed sources is the collective story of London’s evolving relationship to the challenges of wartime mobilization, of the evolution of efforts to move money and men, and the popular responses that defined not only parliament’s wartime success, but the arrival of novel financial expedients that gave rise to the New Model Army and eventually became apparatuses of the state.
better integrated and coordinated with urban insurgency among the lower
classes than any revolt seen two hundred years later in German-speaking
Curiously, this rich vein of popularprotest declined momentarily with
the famines of 1314–18. 2
expectations highlighted by modern historical and sociological models of
‘the pre-industrial riot’, these
commission – and cover a wide variety of popularprotest in different social, political, and economic settings. The
original purpose behind this project was to pose the question: what
difference did the Black Death and its successive waves of pestilence
make for the seeming rash of popularprotest – a new
‘violent tenor of life’ to use Johan Huizinga’s
– and in
Popular culture and popular protest in early modern England
Crown and crowd: popular culture and
popularprotest in early modern England
n early modern England, authority was always the ﬁrst historian of popularprotest. This has meant that popular political beliefs have to be recovered
from the distorting pen of the contemporary magistrate. It is of course a truism
that such records tell the historian more about the attitudes and anxieties of
authority rather than the thoughts and actions of those engaged in protest.
The dangers of such distortion should be obvious, at least since Richard Cobb
My decision to discuss the cultural politics of RAR has been motivated
by a conviction that the movement’s aesthetic and political dimensions
were enmeshed in ways that few commentators have allowed for. All
too often, RAR’s politics and its relationships with the SWP and other
organisations and individuals have been interpreted via crude assumptions regarding the left and movements of popularprotest. Insufficient
attention has been paid to the specific historical context in which RAR
operated and the political and cultural traditions that
insurgency, but also to understand and appreciate dimensions of the
popularprotest and dissent in colonial south Asia.
The Mahima movement
In the middle of the nineteenth century Orissa saw an important popular
movement called the Mahima movement. This movement seems to have been
rather narrowly labelled by most scholars as a ‘religious movement’.5 Although
there were some exceptions, in general this is the standard interpretation,
which appears to have influenced many studies related to the dynamics of
tribal protest in colonial India.6 Consequently, social historians