Peasant Revolts: Are Peasants Suffered By Social Order?

Both peasants and land owners challenged the government with the intention of generating further social changes.

Although the feudal system presented a mutually beneficial relationship at first, over time many burdens were placed on the vassals. A serf was bound to the land, thus resulting in a fixed income. Since he was unable to move to another lord, he was reliant on only what was originally agreed upon to provide monetary support. [Support was generally in kind, or in labor.] With no “right” to adjust the support needed for survival, the serf and his family experiences tremendous hardships.

Peasants were members of the lowest class, those who work. They were the most common class. They were the millers, blacksmiths, butchers, carpenters, farmers, and other trades people. Peasant women in particular, spent much of their time taking care of children, making clothes, and cooking meals. They also tended gardens, took care of animals by tending chicken, shearing sheep, and milking cows (Cels 16). Within peasants, there were two main groups of people, the serfs and the freemen. Both were employed by the lords. And serfs were people that paid more fees, and had less rights. Freemen on the other hand paid less fees and had more rights than serfs (Noiret). While freemen could leave the manor when at whim, serfs were not allowed to leave

Nevertheless, this social injustice was the reason that leads to the farmers’ Revolt, seeking to remedy their

The theme of inequality starts to develop in the first chapter where the peasants are depicted to be living in conditions, which are regarded to be wretched. These peasants only have scant clothing and the children are required by law to walk bare without any garments. Furthermore, the peasants live in filthy spaces, and they eat poor food. Iron collars are put on the peasant as an indication of slavery which is rampant among the common population (Hasty 22). The deplorable condition of the peasants sharply contradicts the life of the knights and the inhabitants of the royal court. In the royal court, there is a parade of knights residing in the

Some authors believed that the peasants’ urge to end their serfdom led to the revolt (Doc. 2, 3, 4). In Document 2, Sebastian Lotzer states that the lords should not take advantage of the peasants, but rather compensate them for their hard work. He continues by stating that the peasants should not be oppressed by their lords. In Document 3, The Parliament of Swabia, made up of peasants, was a petition. Since the petition held the demands of the peasants the document is not very reliable. It is biased because it is reasonable to assume that these were widely held views among the peasantry of this area. Within the document, the basis of religion is used to release serfs, saying that they will obey all authority “appointed by God” so serfdom must be gone. In Document 4, the Memmingen Town Council replies to the peasants demands made in Document 3, for their release from serfdom. Based on the document, the town council, made up of “educated people”, would be predictable because the

The uneven compensation for work completed by German peasants fueled their disdain for the nobility. The forced serfdom of the peasants was an undesirable situation to be in, which caused the peasants to question the motives of the nobility. “The Articles of the Peasants of Memmingen” shows how peasants were forcibly repressed into serfdom unless they paid the “lords” a “reasonable amount of money” (Doc 4). The peasants had to pay for their freedom from serfdom, which explains why “they believe the rich should share with the poor, especially those rich persons who had acquired their rich property… or had otherwise won it from the poor” (Doc 8). The peasants realized the oppression that the nobility was putting them through with unfair acquisition of land and of peasantry serfdom that the peasants felt that their

in 1350. In the face of imminent social upheaval, the parliament tried to maintain the old order by coming up with legislation to check increased wages and the movement of labour. However, such measures were limited in effectiveness and led to resentment from the serfs. The landlords also tried to reduced their need for workers by fencing off their land and reared sheep instead. The series of events eventually resulted in the Peasants’ Revolt in 1381.

One example of a change in relashonship between the communists and the peasants in when the wealthy countryside land owners had the feudal system ablohsed. In document 8 it is stated “ the landownership system of feudal exploitation by the landlord class shall be abolished and the system of peasant landownership shall be introduced in order to set free the rural productive forces.” This shows the People’s republic of Chinas desire

They were held captives of their own free will on their own lands. Overwhelmed by the Party, resistance was fruitless since they were persuaded by sleep deprivation, humiliation, and degradation. The people became broken spirits in appearance. It was a silent war between the communists and the collective farmers. Dolot exhibits a hidden pride in the farmers by writing of their subtle resistances, sabotages, and stubborn survival.

Although Appleby is wrong in this assertion, as we know that there were in fact examples of peasant struggle for rent, as Moore describes, that showed they were not utterly stagnant and resistant to change with the established feudal system. For example, in “The Peasant War in Germany” by Frederick Engels, peasants demands are listed as a result of their frustration with the current system of living conditions they are under.

The effect of the revival of traditional rural beliefs during ca. 1979 to 1984 is notable to the peasant-workers. Even the rituals discontinued to be performed, the philosophy behind transformed into strings of consciousness and self-identification whose essence is firmly kept -- the inseparability of family and the safety-shelter nature of the rural land. When peasant-workers confront unfamiliar or alien treatments in the cities, their potent emotion of land, of hometown, and of family outbursts. Traditional practices faded, but the traces stayed. Urban environment does not make the peasant-workers secular; instead, it makes them more “religious” in terms of the returned sense of land affiliation. Economic incentives drive peasants

Life as a serf or peasant was not easy. Serfs were bound to their lord's land and required to do services for him. Although they could not be sold like slaves, they had no freedom (Ellis and Esler 219-244). Peasants farmed for the goods that the lord and his manor needed. They went through difficult hardship because of this. Peasants were heavily taxed and had to provide for themselves the goods that they needed (“The Middle Ages”). According to the medieval law, the peasants were not considered to 'belong to' themselves (“The Middle Ages”). Although serfs were peasants and had relatively the same duties and similar rights, what differentiated a peasant from a serf was that a peasant was not bound to the land (“The Middle Ages”). Peasants had no schooling and no knowledge of the outside world (Ellis and Esler 219-244). They rarely traveled more than a couple miles outside of their villages. All members of a peasant family, including children, tended crops, farmed, and did some sort of work to help out (Ellis and Esler 224). Very few peasants lived past the age of 35 because of hunger in the winter and the easy development and transmission of disease (Ellis and Esler 224).

However, many peasants, although liberated, remained in their state of peasants following the old regime. These men are symbolized by Firs, an old servant for whom freedom was insignificant. He stays loyal, working in the Cherry Orchard as a serf since he had no other opportunities in life. Firs and Lohpakin on one side contrast Madame Ranevsky and Gayef her brother. The first two portraying two different ways in which emancipation affected peasants, and the last two, showing how the emancipation affected Russian aristocracy.

Stephen Hoch in a study that he conducted on a small Russian village called Petrovskie makes some insightful inferences about the serf system there. In Russia, as well as Europe in the 17th century, the serfs were ?managed? in a way that more closely represented exploitation. Very little was invested in improving the state of the land that they cultivated and instead the emphasis was placed on compelling the serfs to produce more. Meanwhile the landowner merely reaped the benefits and rarely reinvested in the venture. This study is relevant because it was taking place at the same time as the Manifesto was being written.[v] The system led to a series of revolutions because as Hoch deduced, ?Serf behavior and attitudes were in fact an integrated human response to the ecological constraints at work in the society and to the inhumane degradation of being reduced to property.?[vi]