The Tudor revolution
- This topic has 313 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
When I was 14 I was getting all the magazines and books from the Chinese Embassy: CHINA PICTORIAL, CHINA RECONSTRUCTS, CHINESE LITERATURE, PEKING REVIEW, all the works of Mao and Stalin. I did a project on the Chinese civil war when I was 12, and studied Japanese history.
Despite your dismissal of the Dalai Lama, his book on science is brilliant, and he is a keen astronomer.
“There were several peasant rebellions against enclosures. They weren’t “scratching their balls.” Hundreds were dying, being branded and mutilated, starving, hanged. And they knew their enemy: the Cranmers and the Cromwells.”
That’s what i am interested in as always – the resistance.
Anything online that you would recommend?
The late Peter Newell did write this on his family history
Kett’s Rebellion in Norfolk, 1549
https://marxthecoldwarandthespooks.blogspot.com/2013/04/symond-newell-and-ketts-rebellion-in.html
Thanks. Kett’s is the big one. The Pilgrimage of Grace was led by nobles but with many commoners enthusiastic and desperate.
Have you read Cobbett’s book?
And, for those leisurely moments, a novel:
The monasteries:
In the cell next to More’s (who could hear their screams) were two monks, their loins tightly bound to prevent defecation. They were force-fed until they died in agony.
And why so many nobles in rebellion, if the old system remained until the 1640s?
No details by reign, but the revolutionary process was well in place.
Sparking revolts nationwide, including remnants of the old nobility being joined by peasants against the new rural bourgeoisie appointed by the king.
Wikipedia:
Beginning with Kett’s Rebellion in 1549, agrarian revolts swept all over the nation, and other revolts occurred periodically throughout the century. The popular rural mentality was to restore the security, stability, and functionality of the old commons system. Historians would write that they were asserting ancient traditional and constitutional rights granted to the free and sturdy English yeoman as opposed to the enslaved and effeminate French. This emphasis on rights was to have a pivotal role in the modern era unfolding from the Enlightenment. D. C. Coleman writes that the English commons were disturbed by the loss of common rights under enclosure which might involve the right “to cut underwood, to run pigs”.
Midland RevoltEdit
In 1607, beginning on May Eve in Haselbech, Northamptonshire and spreading toWarwickshire and Leicestershire throughout May,<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact”>[<i>citation needed</i>]</sup> riots took place as a protest against the enclosure of common land. Now known as the Midland Revolt, it drew considerable support and was led by John Reynolds, otherwise known as ‘Captain Pouch’, a tinker said to be from Desborough, Northamptonshire.<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact”>[<i>citation needed</i>]</sup> He told the protesters he had authority from the King and the Lord of Heaven to destroy enclosures and promised to protect protesters by the contents of his pouch, carried by his side, which he said would keep them from all harm (after he was captured, his pouch was opened; all that was in it was a piece of green cheese). Thousands of people were recorded at Hillmorton, Warwickshire and at Cotesbach, Leicestershire. A curfew was imposed in the city of Leicester, as it was feared citizens would stream out of the city to join the riots. Agibbet was erected in Leicester as a warning, and was pulled down by the citizens.
Newton Rebellion: 8 June 1607Edit
The Newton Rebellion was one of the last times that the non-mining commoners of England and the gentry were in open, armed conflict.<sup id=”cite_ref-monbiot_19-0″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup> Things had come to a head in early June. James I issued a Proclamation and ordered his Deputy Lieutenants in Northamptonshire to put down the riots.<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact”>[<i>citation needed</i>]</sup> It is recorded that women and children were part of the protest. Over a thousand had gathered at Newton, near Kettering, pulling down hedges and filling ditches, to protest against the enclosures of Thomas Tresham.<sup id=”cite_ref-monbiot_19-1″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup>
The Treshams were unpopular for their voracious enclosing of land – the family at Newton and their better-known Roman Catholic cousins at nearby Rushton, the family of Francis Tresham, who had been involved two years earlier in the Gunpowder Plot and had by announcement died in London’sTower. Sir Thomas Tresham of Rushton was vilified as ‘the most odious man’ inNorthamptonshire. The old Roman Catholic gentry family of the Treshams had long argued with the emerging Puritan gentry family, the Montagus of Boughton, about territory. Now Tresham of Newton was enclosing common land – The Brand – that had been part of Rockingham Forest.<sup id=”cite_ref-monbiot_19-2″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup>
Edward Montagu, one of the Deputy Lieutenants, had stood up against enclosure in Parliament some years earlier, but was now placed by the King in the position effectively of defending the Treshams. The local armed bands and militia refused the call-up, so the landowners were forced to use their own servants to suppress the rioters on 8 June 1607. The Royal Proclamation of King James was read twice. The rioters continued in their actions, although at the second reading some ran away. The gentry and their forces charged. A pitched battle ensued in which 40–50 people were killed; the ringleaders were hanged and quartered. A much-later memorial stone to those killed stands at the former church of St Faith, Newton.<sup id=”cite_ref-monbiot_19-3″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup>
The Tresham family declined soon after 1607. The Montagu family went on through marriage to become the Dukes of Buccleuch, enlarging the wealth of the senior branch substantially.<sup id=”cite_ref-monbiot_19-4″ class=”reference”>[19]</sup>
Western Rising 1630–32 and forest enclosureEdit
Although Royal forests were not technically commons, they were used as such from at least the 1500s onwards. By the 1600s, when Stuart Kings examined their estates to find new revenues, it had become necessary to offer compensation to at least some of those using the lands as commons when the forests were divided and enclosed. The majority of the disafforestation took place between 1629–40, during Charles I of England‘sPersonal Rule. Most of the beneficiaries were Royal courtiers, who paid large sums to enclose and sublet the forests. Those dispossessed of the commons, especially recent cottagers and those who were outside of tenanted lands belonging to manors, were granted little or no compensation, and rioted in response.<sup id=”cite_ref-20″ class=”reference”>[20]</sup>
“According to medievalist historian Joseph R. Strayer, the concept of feudalism can also be applied to the societies of ancient Persia, ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt (Sixth to Twelfth dynasty), Islamic-ruled Northern and Central India, China (Zhou dynasty and end of Han dynasty) and Japan during the Shogunate. However, Wu Ta-k’un argued that the Shang-Zhou fengjian were kinship estates, quite distinct from feudalism.<sup id=”cite_ref-wudagun_4-0″ class=”reference”>[4]</sup> James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing dynasty (1644–1912) as also maintaining a form of serfdom.<sup id=”cite_ref-5″ class=”reference”>[5]</sup>
Melvyn Goldstein described Tibet as having had serfdom until 1959,<sup id=”cite_ref-TibetGoldstein1_6-0″ class=”reference”>[6]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-TibetGoldstein2_7-0″ class=”reference”>[7]</sup> but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy that qualified as serfdom was widespread is contested by other scholars.<sup id=”cite_ref-TibetBarnett_8-0″ class=”reference”>[8]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-TibetSamuel_9-0″ class=”reference”>[9]</sup> Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as having officially abolished serfdom by 1959, but he believes that less than or about 10% of poor peasants were incopyhold situations.” (Wikipedia)<sup id=”cite_ref-BhutanWangchuk_10-0″ class=”reference”></sup>
Wikipedia:
<section id=”content-collapsible-block-1″ class=”mf-section-2 collapsible-block open-block”>From the Qin Dynasty to the late Qing Dynasty(221 B.C.- A.D. 1840), the Chinese government divided Chinese people into four classes: landlord, peasant, craftsmen, andmerchant. Landlords and peasants constituted the two major classes, while merchant and craftsmen were collected into the two minor. Theoretically, except for the position of the Emperor, nothing was hereditary.<sup id=”cite_ref-1″ class=”reference”>[1]</sup>
During the 361 years of civil war after the Han Dynasty (202 B.C. – 220 A.D.), there was a partial restoration of feudalism when wealthy and powerful families emerged with large amounts of land and huge numbers of semi-serfs. They dominated important civilian and military positions of the government, making the positions available to members of their own families and clans.<sup id=”cite_ref-2″ class=”reference”>[2]</sup><sup id=”cite_ref-3″ class=”reference”>[3]</sup> After the Tang dynasty’s yellow<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template”>[<i>clarification needed</i>]</sup> emergence, the government extended the Imperial examination system as an attempt to eradicate this feudalism.<sup class=”noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact”>[<i>citation needed</i>]</sup>
</section>
Song dynastyEdit
<section id=”content-collapsible-block-2″ class=”mf-section-3 collapsible-block open-block”>
During the Song dynasty social strata was clearly divided and enforced by the law. At the bottom of the pyramid were the commoners who were categorized into two groups: Fangguo Hu (city dwellers) and Xiangcun Hu (rural population). Fangguo Hu and Xiangcun Hu had ranks. The first rank, commoners (both Fangguo and Xiangcun), were the wealthiest. The ranks of commoners could change over time, as one who acquired more wealth could be promoted to a higher rank.
On the other hand, gentries and government officials were not commoners. They and their families belong to Guan Hu (Gentries). Guan Hu was not an exclusive social stratum likeEuropean nobility; by participating and passing the imperial exam, one can be qualified as a member of Guan Hu. In addition, relatives of a government official can become a Guan Hu through the system ofEn Yin. In some rarer cases, a commoner can become Guan Hu by donating a large amount of money, grain or industrial materials to the imperial court. In 1006, Guan Hu accounted for 1.3% of the entire population. The percentage of Guan Hu increased to 2.8% by the year of 1190. The growing population of Guan Hu was partly due to the system of En Yin which allows a relatively easy entry into the stratum of Guan Hu.<sup id=”cite_ref-4″ class=”reference”>[4]</sup>
At the top of the social pyramid was the royal house of Song dynasty. The royal house consists of the Emperor, Empress, concubines, princes and princesses. The royal house enjoys the highest quality of life with everything provided by other social strata. With imperial fields (fields that were owned by the emperor), the basic food supplies of the royal house were satisfied. Luxury items in the imperial court also had their sources. Tea, for example, was provided by the imperial tea plantation. Annually, local products of various regions of China were paid as tributes to the royal house.
During the Song Dynasty, slave trading was forbidden and punished by law. However, slavery was not entirely absent from the history of the Song dynasty. To some extent, there were slave traders who illegally kidnapped commoners and sold them as slaves. Criminals were sometimes converted to slaves by the government. However, traditional slavery was not a common practice during the Song dynasty. Servants of wealthy gentries usually kept a contract-like relationship with the lords served.<sup id=”cite_ref-5″ class=”reference”>[5]</sup>
In reality, the Song society’s structure had evolved and changed over time. After theJingkang incident, the phenomenon of land annexation became increasingly obvious. By land annexation, the wealthy commoners and government officials privatized lands that were public or owned by poorer people. In late Song dynasty, the society’s two ends polarized. Wealthy land owners devoured most of the cultivable lands, leaving others in extreme poverty. Even the imperial court’s profit was curbed. Taxation was illegally avoided by wealthy landowners and the court eventually found itself collecting much less amount of taxes than ever before.<sup id=”cite_ref-6″ class=”reference”>[6]</sup> Xie Fangshu, an investigating censor famously described the situation as “The flesh of the poor ones becomes the food of the strong ones” (弱肉强食).<sup id=”cite_ref-7″ class=”reference”>[7]</sup>
</section>
All this stuff about the structure of society in China 2000 years ago is interesting (I suppose) but has nothing to do with the origins of capitalism. What is relevant is whether the social structure of China in 1600 and to 1900 could be called “feudalism” or not.
The Manchus were feudal and took over the Ming bureaucracy. The imperial structure would have been no different than it had been for two thousand years.
They weren’t interested in external trade, as Ch’ien Lung made clear to the first British embassy in the 18th century: “We already have everything and have no need of your trade.”
“These foreign barbarians think of nothing but trade. They have no higher purpose.” (19th c.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.