John Ball's slogan during the English Peasants' Revolt — 'When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?' — represented what kind of argument against feudal hierarchy?
AAn economic argument that peasant labor produced all wealth and therefore deserved compensation
BA theological egalitarianism: hierarchy was not divinely ordained but man-made, since Adam and Eve had no lords
CA legal argument that the Magna Carta guaranteed equal rights to all English subjects
DA humanist argument drawn from classical philosophy about the natural equality of men
Ball's slogan was theological rather than economic or legal. By pointing to Adam and Eve — who farmed and spun thread without lords or gentlemen — he argued that the original human condition was one of equality, and that aristocratic hierarchy was a human corruption, not a divine institution. This gave the argument moral force within a deeply Christian society: the existing order was not God's plan but a departure from it. Note that this argument is conservative-radical: it appeals to an original, more perfect state rather than a wholly new order — a recurring pattern in premodern social resistance.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
The English Peasants' Revolt of 1381 was militarily suppressed and the promised concessions were withdrawn. What does the aftermath reveal about the power dynamics of feudal social resistance?
AThe revolt was completely ineffective — its military defeat left feudal relations unchanged
BThe poll tax that triggered the revolt was not reimposed, suggesting that even crushed revolts could extract real policy concessions
CThe king was permanently weakened, leading to a parliamentary system within a decade
DThe revolt succeeded in abolishing serfdom, which ended across England shortly afterward
The revolt was militarily crushed — Wat Tyler was killed, promised concessions were revoked, and ringleaders were executed. But the poll tax was not reimposed. This outcome illustrates the key insight: feudal order depended on peasant cooperation (planting, harvesting, provisioning), not pure military domination. Lords could suppress a revolt, but they could not indefinitely ignore the mass withdrawal of that cooperation or the demonstration that peasants were willing to resist. Revolts frequently ended in military defeat but forced retreat on specific triggering policies — a pattern repeated across the Jacquerie, Ciompi, and German peasant revolts.
Question 3 True / False
Medieval peasant revolts typically appealed to custom and traditional rights rather than demanding a completely new social order.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is one of the most historically important features of premodern social resistance. Medieval peasants had a detailed understanding of customary rights — what lords could legitimately demand and what crossed a recognized line. Even radical figures like John Ball argued that the present order was a corruption of a more just original, not that hierarchy should be abolished entirely. Revolts were framed as restoration of proper custom, not revolutionary transformation. This distinguishes medieval social resistance from modern revolutionary politics, where the demand is often for a fundamentally new order rather than a return to an idealized past.
Question 4 True / False
The Black Death weakened the peasantry's position because it reduced the population available to work the land, making surviving peasants more economically vulnerable.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The opposite is true — this is a common intuition error. Before the Black Death, labor was plentiful and land was relatively scarce, giving lords leverage. After the plague killed 30-50% of the population in some regions, labor became scarce and land relatively plentiful. Surviving peasants had bargaining power they had never before held: they could demand wages for customary unpaid labor, negotiate lower rents, and move between lords. Lords responded by trying to legislate pre-plague wage rates into law (e.g., England's Statute of Laborers, 1351), which was experienced as an attempt to legally re-impose what the plague had economically dissolved — and was one of the direct triggers of the 1381 revolt.
Question 5 Short Answer
How did the Black Death alter the balance of power between lords and peasants, and why did this make revolt more likely rather than less?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Before 1348, labor was abundant and land was scarce, giving lords the upper hand — there was always another peasant. The Black Death killed 30-50% of the population in some regions, inverting this: labor became scarce and land relatively plentiful. Surviving peasants could command wages, move between manors, and resist customary labor obligations. Lords responded with repressive legislation (wage caps, movement restrictions) designed to restore pre-plague conditions by force of law. This legislation was experienced as an injustice — an attempt to legally confiscate gains that the labor market had delivered — and was a direct trigger for revolts like England's 1381 uprising. Revolt became more likely because peasants now had genuine leverage, a sense of having been wronged, and a concrete grievance (new taxes and wage laws) to organize around.
The key analytical move is to see that the same economic shift that gave peasants grievances also gave them the confidence and capacity to act on them. A completely powerless group does not typically revolt; revolt requires some sense that resistance is possible. The Black Death raised both the stakes (lords were trying to re-enslave them by law) and the peasants' sense of their own indispensability. This combination — worsening treatment coinciding with improved structural position — is a recurring precondition for collective resistance across history.