The Law of Winchester

[Mumby]

The North is Revolting! by Fatima Smith (Knickerblocker Books, 1995)

Tyler's March to the North is remembered in traditional histories as one of Britain's founding moments, a tale of epic courage against terrible odds. In reality, it is probably one of the most flagrant acts of political terror in British history. Tyler's path through the Midlands in 1382 lead him through the ashen remnants of Leicester, a place which would presage the fate of many who opposed Tyler and the Revolters. With little in the way of a supply train or money, Tyler paid his men by doing what the English had done in France for decades. He brought the terror of the chevauchee to English shores.

Where Tyler and his men saw a town or county that did not suit their vision of the Law of Winchester, they put it to the sword. Villages were sacked for food, and those who opposed them were tarred as Counter-Revolters. The army swelled with men who shared his vision, or simply wanted a slice of the spoils. The North suffered the most, as here councils had formed to arbitrate between those who had ruled before, and those who had risen to rule. These places did not conform to the Kentish ideal of a peasant's republic and Yorkshire suffered for it. And it was in this county that John of Gaunt's army from Scotland met the Horde of Tyler.

The battle did not end well for either side. John's men were well-trained, but unsure of their purpose as they did not stand to gain land from England aside from what they already held, and they lacked in numbers. Tyler's army was far larger, but was poorly trained, poorly armed and armoured, and lacked in experience. Tyler ultimately carried the day, but his Horde was butchered. The Scots were badly bloodied but managed an organised retreat to Northumberland. Tyler himself fell in the Battle, and with the man who directed England dead, his lieutenants dispersed, returning to their respective counties to establish themselves, secure their position then contest over who would replace Tyler as highest man in the realm with the exception of the King.

The man who would ultimately grasp Tyler's crown was an unknown at the time. He was a man from Wales, who had migrated across the border with a raiding party, and encountered Tyler's Horde. The prospect of beauty and booty drew him and his gang of miscreants, and they marched alongside the Horde, and fought in the Battle of Yorkshire. When the Horde dispersed however, he did not return to Wales. In the battle, he was impressed by the ideals of Tyler, but like any good marauder saw a good opportunity. He went to Kent with the men he had gathered around him, a vague sense of destiny possessing his actions. His name? Owen Wiston.

The Scottish Revolts: A Short History by Andrew Ellis (Baylis & Sons, 1983)

Whenever you mention the revolts, everyone remembers Kent, and Stamford, and Yorkshire, and Wales. But Scotland is sadly forgotten. Her importance in the story of Britain, and Revolting England is so crucial, that it would be no exaggeration to say that without the Scottish Revolt, the English Revolters would ultimately have been crushed by John of Gaunt and Robert II, and the experiment of the Revolt would have been cut short. While the Scots had been badly bloodied in the Battle of Yorkshire, she had managed an orderly retreat, and Robert could gather more men to march south. England was badly ravaged in the North and the Midland, the Horde had dispersed into much weaker bands which could have been mopped up with little fuss, and by 1383 Richard II might have been released from the Tower and the English Revolt would be little more than an interesting footnote in the history books.

But Robert and John's plans were scuppered when the clans of the Highlands rose in rebellion. While not a Revolt per se, it was followed a proper Revolt in the Lowlands. Robert was forced to pull his troops back to put his own house in order. The Revolters, who drew upon resources of the Border Reivers crossed the border into England, and spread the Revolt to this last region of England which stood apart from the Revolting State. The combination of rebelling clansmen and zealous reivers was a terrific combination and the opportunity for Robert II to attack England was lost. John of Gaunt became little more than a plaintive voice in the King's court. Meanwhile, in England, the county commanders had either returned home or the military governors which Tyler had put in place had secured their rule over the counties that they had been granted. The northern counties, commanded by zealous Kentishmen worked to support the reivers in Cumberland and Westmoreland, establishing a healthy buffer against Scotland that would prove useful later on.

 

[Shawn Endresen]

Fascinating stuff. The Scottish rebellion seems absurdly convenient, and in any case likely won't keep Scotland busy long, but a few more years can make all the difference in the South.

I hope you continue with this.

 

[Mumby]

Fascinating stuff. The Scottish rebellion seems absurdly convenient, and in any case likely won't keep Scotland busy long, but a few more years can make all the difference in the South.

I hope you continue with this.

Seems convenient yes, but the border was terribly fluid, and these notions of freedom and whatnot would seem terribly attractive to people who don't like the somewhat Norman notions of feudalism the Stewarts were bringing.

 

[Mumby]

Blood of Kent by Harold Middlemore (University of Maidstone, 1972)

The fall of Wat Tyler on the field of battle was a turning point. The army he had built dispersed, returning to their respective counties. But a change in the peasant army had occurred. Before they were many county forces, each with differing ideas. Now they were reforged, with common purpose. While their commanders sought to establish themselves as rulers of their respective counties, they also saw the bigger picture. They had come within inches of being defeated by the Scots, and the precarious state experiment would have come to an end. They would have been executed as traitors.

Throughout 1382 and 1383, these commanders had time to consolidate themselves, and purged their counties more thoroughly of Counter-Revolt elements. This triggered the Exile, which is famous enough and has been covered enough in other media that we won't touch on it here. But the Exile was part of the dramatic transformation of England into a radical new form of government.

Of course, Kent and her people played a disproportionate part in this transformation. In Lancashire, County Durham and Westmoreland, the revolts had been weak and impure, and Wat Tyler had appointed Kentishmen to command these counties. These men followed the pattern that had been started in Kent, and through a process of diffusion, revolting ideals spread south from these northern strongholds, and northwards from Kent and the Southeast.

In 1383, the Convention of London was held, in which the county commanders or their representatives came together to try and form a cohesive, more centralised state. But that will be covered in the next chapter...

The Unconquest by Toby White (Canterbury Press, 1979)

One of William the Conqueror's most infamous acts, impressed on the youth from an early age in modern Britain, is the Harrowing of the North. No thought is given to how similar Wat Tyler and his lieutenant's March to the North was to this act of Terror. The Harrowing is given as an example of the brutality of feudal rule, of the injustice of aristocracy, and most importantly of the Norman yoke. But what came with the Harrowing of the North was the displacement of the native nobles and their replacement with Norman counterparts. In the Great Revolt's reversal of the Norman Conquest, the remaining recalcitrant nobility was purged. Normally this meant execution, but this time they were allowed to flee. This event was known as the Exile.

And where did the Norman aristocracy of England flee? The options were few. There was Scotland, where John of Gaunt had fled, but they were dealing with their own Revolt, and while it was being dealt with more competently than it had been in England, no-one wanted to run the risk. Wales was another possibility, still stubbornly unoccupied by the English Revolters. But a revolt of sorts was occurring there, one which was being supported by their English neighbours and the idea of heading to Wales was nigh on as foolish as heading to Scotland. The third option was Ireland. Many Exilees ended up in the Lordship, joining the Anglo-Irish Norman aristocracy who already existed there. But most of the Exilees fled to the last and safest option. The English French territories, while being assaulted by the French under the regency of Charles VI, were reasonably well-defended. The Exilees hoped that by making an oath of fealty to the King of France they might be able to cling to some shred of hope.

These Exilees found a chilly welcome in France. Many of these lords had helped wage war on France, and the regency could have refused, having reduced English possessions to some scattered coastal enclaves. However, as in England, they had problems with internal dissent amongst vassals over taxation and they wanted an end to the war. They agreed to peace with the remaining English possessions in return for vassalage. Each territory elected a hereditary Duke to rule over them, who in turn answered to an overlord (supposedly King Richard, but in fact a representative of him) who then answered to the king of France. This complex set up technically added England to the list of French vassals, and therefore made Charles V supreme overlord of Scotland and Ireland as well.

Tensions would flare between the Anglo-Norman exiles, and their French overlords in time, and the precarious peace would eventually collapse but for now, the exilees had secured themselves and gained a powerful ally in a hypothetical future invasion to crush the Revolters.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I knew it. This was all a French plot to annex the united kingdoms to France! I predict that when this TL reaches the Napoleonic Wars we shall see an Anglo French Nelson defeat the Austrian-Russian fleet off Naples

 

[Komnenos002]

This idea of throwing off feudalism before the enlightenment and following years spread anything we would recognise as democratic is absolutely intriguing.

I have no idea what's going to emerge from this upheaval, but I'm sure I'll be entertained.

 

[Mumby]

Blood of Kent by Harold Middlemore (University of Maidstone, 1972)

The Convention of 1383 was attended by the leaders of counties across the Southeast, and representatives from areas of England further afield. Also attending in an observing capacity were representatives from Wales and Scotland, as well as King Richard. The young king continued to rest uneasily under the protection of his Revolting 'councillors'. The Convention was held in London, and worked to put together a set of basic rules to govern the fragile Revolting State. The idea that the only law which should govern was local law, or the Law of Winchester had fallen by the wayside, but a belief remained that the powers of central government should be strictly limited and circumscribed, with most law-making capacity being exercised at a local level.

It was inevitable of course that coming up with Fundamental Laws for England would be seen in a religious context. The downfall of the bishops and the monastic orders had caused a religious reawakening across England. A small minority believed that recent presaged the End Times. The Convention began to talk of writing English Commandments. There was even a proposal to carve the laws onto stone tablets and keep them in an Ark to represent the Covenant being government and the governed.

An individual attending the Convention was Owen Wiston. This is one of the earliest point at which we have hard evidence where Wiston surfaces. There are stories of adventures in the Midlands and even Yorkshire, but they are anecdotal at best. What is known even at this early stage is that Wiston was a Welshman and that he had travelled alongside Kentish troops returning to their home county. At the convention he sat on the Kentish delegation, which befitting the county's powerful presence had a large number of delegates. How a Welshman who had only arrived in the county under a year ago had ended up representing the county is unknown. It is believed that Wiston had been elected by Kentish troops he had won over.

Wiston's presence is only touched on, and it seems he did little if anything that was greatly noticeable. However after the Convention, Wiston crops up in all sorts of records. The Convention was the point at which he emerges from history and after then he begins to make his presence felt across not only Kent but all across England.

The Convention agreed that there are ought to be a new Parliament, but that it be unicameral and composed of men elected by the people. By people, they meant men, and then they had to be citizens. Now the Revolting State came up against what was to be considered a citizen. There were a number of men at the Covention who had been educated in the Classics, and they drew their inspiration from the example of the Roman Republic. First of all, to be a full citizen at all, one had to be born in the country. Migrants lacked the right to vote or stand for civil/public office. Then a citizen had to be of a certain age, at least thirty. Those younger than that had far fewer freedoms, rights or obligations. Those who paid no taxes were excluded from citizenship. Unfree individuals obviously did not enjoy citizenship. Finally, former members of the military were considered citizens. People could be stripped of their citizenship. On a local level, inspiration was taken from the Swiss. Counties would have councils composed of representatives of localities, and those localities would be governed by a form of direct municipal democracy in which all citizens could participate.

Two other major problems stook out for the Revolters. The first was the problem of serfdom. Nearly all delegates wanted to abolish unfreedom, but the expansion of the military had depleted England's labour reserves and men were needed to work the fields. So old serfdom was abolished and was replaced with a form of debt bondage and penal servitude which was referred to as helotage. The state of unfreedom was seen as a temporary condition though it often wasn't. The other big problem was the responsibilities of the King. Ultimately, the decision was made to make the King the sole executive with explicitly described powers such as the power to declare war. In a way, the Revolters had given King Richard far more powers than he would otherwise have enjoyed, unlimited as he was by the feudal system. He even maintained the power to dismiss Parliament for an indefinite period. The King was also given control over the Church in England.

An independent judiciary was set up, formed from the hastily constructed tribunals that replaced the old legal system. These tribunals included a jury and a council of judges. There were local, county and national tribunals and the jury decided whether a defendant could appeal a ruling. Precedent based law continued and test cases would add to the statute book.

 

[chr92]

Just a couple of details about this interesting tl. Someone who knows more about this period might disagree, but I don't think the Revolters would look to Classical precedent.

Also, I think there would be plenty of farmers willing to farm, as long as they were given some security, and allowed to make a reasonable living from it.

 

[arctic warrior]

The king becoming head of church!!! When do we see England excommunicated and crusade preached all over Europe.

 

[Mumby]

The king becoming head of church!!! When do we see England excommunicated and crusade preached all over Europe.

Drawing inspiration from Ditmarshen here. They quickly developed ecclesiastical independence (some kind of early Jansenism) and when they had the opportunity turned to Lutheranism.

 

[arctic warrior]

Drawing inspiration from Ditmarshen here. They quickly developed ecclesiastical independence (some kind of early Jansenism) and when they had the opportunity turned to Lutheranism.

Though they had the good fortune of generally in-accessability!
Anyway numbers count. When's the invasion taking off?

 

[Mumby]

The Revolting Wars by Ariel Shipton (Auk Histories, 1999)

The situation as of 1383 was tense, and getting worse. The Revolters had established a reasonably secure state in England, with a constitution which had officially abolished feudalism and put power firmly into the hands of the people through their counties and through Parliament. But while England has established itself, it was beset on all sides by threats. Wales was in the depths of civil war, a southern Revolting government battling against a northern nationalist government, and both fought a remnant Loyalist government centred around Gaunt's strongholds. Scotland was also suffering civil war, which regularly spilled over the border. Ireland sat as a bastion of pre-Revolt feudalism. And across the Channel, France was mustering an army built on the backs of English exiles, plotting to invade and overthrow Richard.

If Revolting England was to survive, it could not be complacent. They would have to wage war to survive. As most counties were now firmly under the control of men who had marched in the Horde of Tyler, a standing army could be mustered. This was one of the odd things about the Revolters. They repudiated feudalism, but one of the first acts of the Revolting Wars was for Parliament and the King to call on the county 'Sheriffs' to muster armies, in a manner distinctly similar to the way armies had been mustered in the past.

But unlike in the past, these armies were officered by the peasantry. A spirit of patriotism and revolting ideology spread among the ranks, building a vast army in a matter of months. This operation produced a colossal quantity of correspondence, and a bureaucracy emerged in London to manage the mustering and movement of troops in every county. This system obviously couldn't be carried out centrally. Local offices of the central bureaucracy were set up across England, organising county militias into larger armies, and establishing the roots of the new provincial system.

The new army of England was unprecedentedly large, and introduced militarism to every family in the kingdom, whether they had any members in the army or not. Garrisons became a key fixture in towns across England, and economies were irrevocably altered to fuel the war effort. A further irony of the Revolters is that their initial grievances were built on taxation raised to fuel wars against the French. Now taxes were imposed to fuel wars in Wales and Scotland.

England entered Wales first, finding it a relatively easy country to win. They first united the Loyalists and the Revolters to crush the nationalists before overwhelming the Loyalists and putting the local revolters in command and holding elections. New troops were added to a swelling army. Other armies in England were being drilled and physically trained (few English generals had much knowledge of tactics).

The Revolting Wars would begin in earnest with the invasion of Scotland...

 

[Mumby]

The Scottish Revolts: A Short History by Andrew Ellis (Baylis & Sons, 1983)

The main reason the Scottish Revolts are forgotten in modern Britain is because of the English invasion and the wider Revolting Wars. In this period most of the focus was on the conflict between Britain and France, rather than on events on the periphery. But it is the English invasion of Scotland and the beginning of an organisation of a Revolting State on English lines north of the border that caused the French declaration of war, and the calling of a crusade upon the heretic English by the Pope.

The initial invasion went swimmingly. John of Gaunt had worked as an effective fighter for King Robert II, and had successfully oppressed the Scottish revolters up until this point. With a renewed Horde, far better equipped and trained spilling over the border in the summer of 1384, his oppression tactics collapsed. The revolters crawled out of the woodwork, utterly bent on revenge and calling for Gaunt's head. Withdrawing to Edinburgh, he mustered a large army and waited for the Revolters. The fact of the matter was that the Revolters had not prepared for siege warfare. Few of their commanders were great warriors or had experience, and the fall of the castles in Wales and elsewhere in the country had either been carried out by others or had fallen because of other reasons. Rather than sit and wait for Edinburgh to starve, they repeatdely threw themselves on the walls of Edinburgh, exhausting their troops and demanding more forage from the countryside. Entirely by accident, a brutal chevauchee was enacted around Lothian, which earned the ire of many Scots.

After a few months, the Revolters withdrew and settled around the Southern Highlands. Gaunt had successfully held off the English from conquering and adding Scotland to the Revolting State, but he was not safe either. But now England had other things to distract her. In 1385, the French declared war, and they had the backing of a higher power...

The Revolting Wars by Ariel Shipton (Auk Histories, 1999)

It should have come as no surprise that the Pope should call a Crusade upon England, when the Convention of 1383 voted to place all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the King and fully separate from Rome. What was more surprising was when the Anti-Pope in Avignon also called a crusade. What with the Exile, and the numbers of English nobles on their land, as well as essentially seized all of formerly English France, the French now had an opportunity like no other. They could invade England, overthrow the young King Richard, reimpose (their) Catholicism, and established the British Isles as a series of loyal vassal states. The doorway was open to French domination of Western Europe and of the Catholic Church. This obvious calculation caused the Western Schism to worsen, as they were torn between supporting France and repudiating the Anti-Papacy.

Essentially, the situation was the two crusades were called, one from Rome and one from Avignon. The one from Avignon called only for the overthrow of the heretical revolters and the reimposing of holy order. Rome took note, and called for the removal of King Richard's 'evil advisors' and reimposition of order with new advisors to steer the youthful and naive king back on to the correct path of righteousness. This confused situation resulted in the two sides often making open war on one another and causing the Schism to go from a diplomatic and religious conflict to one of proper flame.

This conflict was somewhat mirrored in Portugal where the Avignonese and Roman Catholic Churches warred openly over the Portuguese succession. Of course the difference was that in Britain, an entirely different religious order was being erected, a potential threat to both. The Avignonese forces would be drawn from France, Castille, Aragon and Naples, whereas the Roman forces would be drawn from the Holy Roman Empire, the northern Italian states, Hungary and Poland. The situation would worsen the feuds in the Holy Roman Empire, though the Emperor found it much easier to impose Roman Catholicism, it would be three years before he could put the whole empire's forces to use in the English Crusade.

Of course, with two crusades called by hostile powers, the Revolters had something of an advantage. They could attempt to play one side off against the other and send agents abroad to stir the pot of chaos in the more divided states like Portugal or the Holy Roman Empire. Revolts cropped up across Europe, hence why this period is known as the Revolting Wars.

 

[Mumby]

The situation in Europe on the eve of the Revolting Wars.

 

[eliphas8]

This is one of the most fascinating ideas for a timeline I've ever seen. Seriously, this is an idea almost as unique and interesting as Male Rising and Lo the Poor Rejoice.

I don't like the revolt being used as an ideological name though. It just sounds wrong. I don't know I'm picky with my word choice but couldn't something different be picked by ITTL's historians?

 

[Mumby]

This is one of the most fascinating ideas for a timeline I've ever seen. Seriously, this is an idea almost as unique and interesting as Male Rising and Lo the Poor Rejoice.

I don't like the revolt being used as an ideological name though. It just sounds wrong. I don't know I'm picky with my word choice but couldn't something different be picked by ITTL's historians?

Its just so deliciously ironic though.

 

[Mumby]

The Revolting Wars by Ariel Shipton (Auk Histories, 1999)

Three separate armies landed in England during the Revolting Wars. Two of these were Crusading armies, respectively forces of Avignon and Rome. The third was the army of John of Gaunt. The perennial thorn in England's side had left Scotland after the English invasion was curtailed, and gone first to Ireland where he marshalled the restive Lordship, and then heading to Castille. Here, he promised to drop his claim to the throne, and to use the forces that he had (an army of his own men, along with Scots and Irish forces he had acquired along the way) to aid in the war on Portugal. Throughout 1385 and 1386, he fought alongside the Castillians against the Portuguese, ultimately crushing the rebellion and bringing Castille and Portugal into personal union. John of Aviz was executed for treason and his whole court was either executed or exiled. Gaunt personally enriched himself by looting the fortresses and manses of those nobles, and rewarded the army which had followed him lavishly.

Now he aimed to get something from Castille in return. As a strong ally of France and being loyal to the Avignon Papacy, he hoped to get the ear of the French as well. If Richard II was removed from power in England there would be a void. And who better to put upon the throne, than a man proven in loyalty to the Avignon Papacy? John of Castille cautiously agreed, but when he received word from France that Gaunt's proposal had been accepted, the pieces began to move.

Castillian and French troops bolstered Gaunt's army, and he was equipped with a fleet. He set sail for Ireland, determined to impose his claim as Lord of Ireland, and use the island as a staging ground for his invasion of England itself.

The other two invasions took place in southern England, with the Avignon army landing in Sussex, largely composed of French troops. The Roman army was far more ambitious, and was formed from Hungarians and Poles largely. It sailed up the Thames and attacked London directly. The Parliament of England was forced to flee and much authority had to be delegated directly to the provincial offices initially set up merely to direct troop movements. But almost as soon as the Roman army had occupied London, they had to deal with the Avignon army marching north. A confused and chaotic situation broke out as both Papal armies clashed in Southeast England.

Meanwhile, Gaunt had landed in Ireland and secured the loyalty of the Irish lords. He promised them land and titles stripped from those treacherous nobles who had thrown in their lot with the Revolters. He schemed with Robert II of Scotland and the exiled Welsh nationalists to take control of England while avoiding the possibility of being reduced to a French vassal state.

At the same time that Gaunt was resupplying his armies and planning a strategy in Ireland, and the Southeast was being torn apart by the two clashing Papal armies, Owen Wiston was writing his own name into history. He took control of the militias in the counties surrounding London and waged a war against the occupiers that mirrored the banditry that he had learned in his native Wales. He moulded the army of peasants into a sleek efficient weapon of war, which melted in the countryside before the Papal armies could react.

In 1387, Robert II ordered his armies to push the English occupiers and their shaky Scots collaborators back across the border. The English suffered once more from their lack of experience in siege warfare and were forced back over the Tweed with relative ease. Gaunt then launched an invasion of Wales, landing in Anglesey and stirring up a renewed nationalist uprising by promising Wales it would it would enjoy his suzerainty rather than his sovereignty. With the exception of Wiston's war with the Crusaders, things looked very dark for Revolting England.

Relief came with the breakout of open war between the Roman and Avignon Papacies over the succession of Naples. In 1381, Joan I had been overthrown by the Roman Papacy and Charles III put on the throne. He had since been crowned King of Hungary and Croatia and while the Holy Roman Emperor put down Anti-Papal sympathisers, Charles III had become the enforcer of Rome. But in 1386 he was assassinated and the throne of Naples was left unoccupied. Rome supported Ladislaus, the young son of Charles III. Avignon backed Louis II, the equally young son of Louis I, Duke of Anjou. Whoever won Naples would gain a significant advantage over the other in terms of confirming the legitimacy of their respective Pope. War broke out as neither side could agree to negotiate.

As war broke out in the Mediterranean, and heated up in Germany, so the eye was taken off the ball in England. The clashing Papal armies were withdrawn to fight what were seen as more critical battles elsewhere. Chaos briefly reigned, before Owen Wiston took control of London with his army. While his victory was somewhat hollow, as thousands had died and London was terribly damaged by the conflict, and he had taken control of London because the occupiers had simply left, he was still hailed as a national saviour. He worked to restore order and by the beginning of 1389 the Parliament returned to London. Wiston had now placed himself at the heart of English politics. He was placed at the head of an army tasked with defeating Gaunt's invasion of Wales.

England received another lifeline at this point. With armies loyal to Avignon continuing the conflict, and the possibility of John of Gaunt becoming a Avignon loyal King bringing the British Isles entirely under French and Avignon rule, Rome decided to send aid to the Revolters. Hungarian mercenaries were sent to aid the ailing Horde in northern England and southern Scotland. These mercenaries trained the Horde in siege tactics and hammered a certain degree of discipline into them. This could be seen in the battles of 1389 as the Scots were driven back into Scotland and a renewed invasion began.

In Germany, order was finally imposed by the Emperor in 1389, and armies were sent to Naples. However, battles against the French in Lorraine held him back from acting too unilaterally. With Rome distracted by the rise of the Ottomans and wars in Lithuania and Poland, Avignon slowly gained the advantage, with Naples being entirely occupied by the end of 1390. But in 1390, two deaths took place which altered the situation for Avignon considerably.

The first was the death of John I of Castille, Leon and Portugal. The young Henry III took the throne, and his regents had to deal with rebellion in Portugal. Castille essentially withdrew from the conflict, with more of the muscle requirements being put on Aragon. But the King of Aragon, Martin, would have preferred to add Naples to his own growing Mediterranean empire, rather than simply hand it over to a relative of the King of France. Tensions grew within the fighters for Avignon which caused their war effort to slowly break down.

The other death was Robert II of Scotland. With his death, his son Robert III succeeded to the throne. His accession was marked by rebellions among the Gaels of the north and among his lieutenants who prevented him from directly ruling the kingdom. A renewed Scottish revolt came at the same time as an invasion by the rejuvenated Horde. Their invasion pushed into the Scottish Lowlands, taking Edinburgh and Lothian. Wiston had also succeeded in pushing back Gaunt's army in Wales, and he was considering fleeing back to Ireland.

When 1391 came round, peace was on everyone's lips. The kingdoms of Europe were exhausted. The Congregation of Pisa assembled leaders from across Europe to agree on peace. Ireland was separated from the throne of England and John of Gaunt was recognised as Lord John II of Ireland. He was made a vassal to the Kingdom of France. The Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland and the Principality of Wales were abolished, and the Kingdom of the Britons set up in its place. A deal had been reached between the Revolters and the Stewarts, where they would recognise the titles and autonomous nature of the Stewart dominated northern lordships. Louis II of Anjou was crowned King of Naples, though intermittent conflict with Sicily would continue. Most importantly, a formal schism between Avignon and Rome was recognised, with a situation similar to the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches developing. From then on the Avignon Papacy became the centre of what was known as the Narbonensian Church. The religious situation in Britain was also recognised with the Church of Britain being set up.

A number of revolts occurred across Europe after the Revolters had successfully established Britain as an independent and secure kingdom. These were put down rapidly, with few kingdoms wishing to see themselves meet the fate that so many nobles did in England, Wales and Scotland.

 

[eliphas8]

Its just so deliciously ironic though.

But at the same time it makes it sound like england is really smelly. And while yes this is before indoor plumbing or shampoo where things in England so it probably is, but it just doesn't sound good as an ideological name.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

1) Surely Wycliffe and the Lollards should have been mentioned by now.
2) Avignon is France's pet pope. Your comment about France using the crushing of the Revolters to solidify power in (their) church suggests Avignon lasts longer and is more powerful.
2.1) which also suggests lasting Schism, which ought to lead to e.g. the Castillians eventually setting up their own pope, the the HRE, then....
3) why are most places 'Kingdoms', but Aragon and Castille 'Crowns'?
4) peasant revolts are less likely to end up in democracy, and more likely to end up with a dictator, a Tyrant in the Greek sense, at best, in the modern sense at worst. This is what I expect Owen to end up as.

 

[Mumby]

Blood of Kent by Harold Middlemore (University of Maidstone, 1972)

The success the men of Kent and others in their neighbouring counties had in destroying the invading Papist armies cannot be understated. From here on, the armies of the Revolters were no longer a disorganised rabble, but a finely tuned army of exquisite skill. Their impeccable fighting skills would be further demonstrated first in Wales, and then in Scotland. The bloody defeat of John of Gaunt before his flight across the sea to Ireland is an emblematic moment in our history.

But after the Revolting Wars were over, and the Kingdom of the Britons set up, the real work of building a Revolting State began. And here the rot set in, the fine clean dream of a free England forgotten by the greedy and the ambitious. Scotland and Wales were integrated in England, but in Scotland half the country was put under the rule of arbitrary nobles. Nobles began to reassert themselves in northern England putting the greater resources at their command to squeeze out competition from peasants. Military men also rose in power, forgetting the cause they fought for and using force to acquire power for themselves.

The North is Revolting! by Fatima Smith (Knickerblocker Books, 1995)

While much emphasis has been put on the return of nobility and clergy, as well as the emergence of hard military men, to the halls of power, the prominence of helotage has been somewhat forgotten. Many thousands of young men found themselves impoverished and many thousands more were imprisoned for counter-revolts. These people, either due to poverty or due to resistance to the new state ideology, found themselves bound into servitude.

The religious wars which would plague Britain throughout the 15th century also began as the new Church of Britain found itself up against Catholics and Narbonensians as well as Wycliffites and more extreme radicals. And the King was no longer so young, and his own role in circumventing the nominal rule of the people and in rebuilding his personal power has also been forgotten.