Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin and thank you for joining me for today's history lesson.

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources today, and my top priority is to make sure that by the end of our lesson, you are able to successfully meet our learning objective.

Hello and welcome to today's lesson where we're gonna be working on explaining the reasons why the poor revolted against the social order in mediaeval Norwich.

This lesson is part of our local history unit where we're using the example of Norwich to really investigate what the lives of different groups in the mediaeval period were like.

Now, what we need to keep in mind as we work through today's lesson is what are the potential similarities and differences between the experiences of the poor that we're gonna come across and those of other social groups who would've lived in mediaeval Norwich at the same time.

There are four key words which are gonna help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are, artefact, revolt, rebel, and social order.

An artefact is a historical object.

A revolt is a situation where people fight against those who are in charge.

A rebel is someone who challenges those who are in power, but to rebel means to challenge those who are in power.

So we might see that single word being used in different contexts in today's lesson.

Rebel and rebel, though the meaning is quite similar in both cases.

And finally, the way a community is run and organised can be called the social order.

Today's lesson will be divided into three paths.

And we're going to begin by thinking about how historians have studied the poor.

Historians know much less about the lives of Norwich's mediaeval poor than the city's elite.

Two key factors can help us explain why there's a difference between our historical knowledge of these different groups.

One of those factors is wealth, and the other is literacy.

So one of the key factors, as we said, that helps us explain why historians know less about the mediaeval poor than they do about mediaeval elites is because of wealth.

The poor owned fewer things than the elites.

That should make sense to us if we think about it in basic terms. With less money, the poor could afford to have less possessions than the elites.

Because of this, there has been less opportunity for historians to study the lives of the poor.

And that's because with less possessions being owned by poor people in their lifetimes during the mediaeval period, there was less chance of artefacts surviving.

In other words, if they owned less at the time, there's less things that are likely to have survived over centuries for historians to have studied.

Furthermore, the poor were much less likely to produce a will than elites.

Remember, a will is basically a list of things people own, their possessions and who they want to leave it to, what they want to be done with it after they die.

Worlds are really useful for giving us an idea of what people may have owed during their lifetimes.

But poor people with less possessions, less money to give away after they die, were much less likely to produce it.

So we also don't have these records to help us about the lives of the poor, unlike what we have for many elites in the mediaeval period.

And our second key reason that helps explain why historians know less about the lives of the mediaeval poor than mediaeval elites is literacy.

The poor were unlikely to be literate in the mediaeval period.

So they were unlikely to be able to read and write.

And that's really significant for historians who want to understand their lives.

This is because again, it gives us less opportunity to study their lives as if mediaeval poor people were unlikely to be able to write especially, then they were less likely to produce written sources like letters or diaries, which historians could read and study to know more about their lives.

Without these sources, historians are unable to get to the grips in the detail of many poor people's lives.

So now that we thought a little bit about why historians know less about the lives of the mediaeval poor, the mediaeval elites, I want you to write the missing words from both of the following sentences.

Our first sentence says that poor people in mediaeval Norwich were less likely to be blank than the elite.

And the second sentence says, "This means they created fewer written" Blank, "Which historians can study to understand their lives".

So, to check our knowledge, pause the video here, write the correct answers for sentence one and sentence two with what you think the missing words are, and then press play when you're ready to check if you got the answer right.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So, for the first sentence, you should have written that poor people in mediaeval Norwich were less likely to be literate than the elites.

They were far less likely to be able to read and write than richer people.

And in the second sentence, the missing word you should have written was sources, so that our sentence would read, "This means they created fewer written sources which historians can study to understand their lives".

And that's one of those key reasons why we said historians know less about the lives of mediaeval Norwich's poor than they do about the lives of mediaeval Norwich's elite.

And let's try another question, just to make sure our knowledge is really secure about this.

We have a statement that says, "Historical artefacts tell us less about the lives of mediaeval Norwich's poor than it's elite".

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement is true.

But we want to be able to justify our answer as well.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the poor did not own anything which could survive as an artefact, and our second statement says the poor owned fewer things which were likely to survive as artefacts than the elite.

So which one of those statements is accurate? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that statement B, the second justification, was our correct one.

The poor owned fewer things which were likely to survive as artefacts than the elite.

This is why historians have less surviving sources, in the case of artefacts to study, than they do for the elite from the mediaeval period in Norwich.

So now that we've made sure our knowledge is secure, we are ready to put it into practise.

So, I want you to write one paragraph to explain why historians know less about the lives of the poor in mediaeval Norwich than about the lives of the elite.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answers.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to explain why historians know less about the lives of the poor in mediaeval Norwich than the lives of the elite.

And your answer may have included that Historians know less about the lives of the poor in mediaeval Norwich than the lives of the elite because the poor were less likely to be literate.

This means that the poor were less likely to produce written sources like letters, which historians can use to study their lives.

You may also have written, "Historians know less about the lives of the poor in mediaeval Norwich than the lives of the elite because the poor owned fewer things than the elites.

This means that artefacts owned by the poor are less likely to have survived for historians to study".

So if your response looked anything like either of those two models, which we've seen, really well done, because that's very impressive at the start of our lesson today.

So now we're ready to move on to our second task where we are gonna think about the problems of the poor in mediaeval Norwich.

In 1381, England was affected by the peasants revolt, which began in Essex.

You can see the location of Essex highlighted on the map on the screen.

The revolt reached Norwich, which tells us about how this national event spread from where it began in Essex to other areas.

The events of the peasants revolt in Norwich can tell us a lot about the lives of the poor in that city during the mediaeval period.

The living and working conditions of the poor were much worse than those of the elite in Norwich.

In the mediaeval period, many poor workers in Norwich worked for just a penny a day.

By contrast, to become a freeman, which most elites in the city were, people were expected to pay a fee for joining, and they also had to own expensive property in Norwich.

This was virtually impossible for the poor to achieve, and it basically meant that they could never become freeman.

The lives of the poor in Norwich could also be made difficult by national events.

In 1381, the government attempted to introduce a new poll tax, which would require everyone to pay the same amount of money no matter whether they were rich or poor.

This new tax created outrage amongst the poor across England, sparking the peasants revolt, which also affected Norwich.

A large group of rebels met just outside of Norwich in June, 1381.

The elite of Norwich travelled to meet the group and offered them money to stay away from the city.

However, the rebels refused this offer and attacked the city and its social order anyway.

The rebels destroyed the houses of many rich lawyers and freemen.

Two important local leaders, Reginald Eccles and Robert Sal were even executed by the rebels, who also took control of Norwich Castle.

Eventually though the rebels were defeated by an army led by Henry le Despenser, the fighting bishop of Norwich.

So now that we've heard a bit about the problems of the poor living in mediaeval Norwich, let's make sure our understanding is secure.

So we have a statement on the screen, and it says, "It was difficult for the poor in Norwich to become freemen" Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was true.

But we need to be able to justify our answer.

So two justifications have now appeared on the screen.

The first says that the costs of becoming a freeman were too high for most people.

And the second says that the freemen required members to work more than most poor people wanted to.

Which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the first justification was our correct one.

The costs of becoming a freeman were too high for most poor people to afford.

For example, to become a freeman, you had to pay a fee to join the freemen, and also had to own expensive property in the city, which was simply impossible for most poor people, which meant they could never become a freeman.

Let's try another question.

Which of the following statements about the peasants revolt in Norwich is most accurate? Is it that the rebels supported the social order, that the rebels were angry at the social order, or that the rebels were leaders of the social order? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

The rebels in mediaeval Norwich were angry at the social order.

And that helps explain why they took part in the 1381 peasants revolt.

And let's try one more question.

Which two examples best show that poor rebels in 1381 were angry at the social order in Norwich? Is it that the rebels were able to form a large group, that the rebels met outside of the city, that the rebels killed two local leaders, or that the rebels attacked the houses of freemen? Remember, you need to select two examples from our four options.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answers.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that statements C and D gave us our two correct examples.

The rebels killed two local leaders, Reginald Eccles and Robert Sal.

And that gives us a really clear impression they were angry at the social order.

If you don't like how things are organised, you might criticise, or in this case, attack violently, leaders of that social order.

And the rebels attacked the homes of freemen.

Well, the social order said that the freemen were the city's elite.

The poor were not part of that elite, and so by attacking the homes of freemen, they were showing that they were angry at that social order, which kept them near the bottom and put freemen near the top.

So now we're ready to put our knowledge about the problems of the poor in mediaeval Norwich into practise.

I want you to complete the following passage by adding in the missing words.

You can see our passage on the screen, and it has four gaps.

We also have four key words, which will help you fill in each of those gaps.

So pause the video here, attempt to complete all the gaps correctly, and then press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

I asked you to complete the passage by adding in the missing words.

So your paragraph should have looked like this.

"Many poor labourers lived on just a penny a day in mediaeval Norwich.

In 1381, many of the poor in Norwich joined the peasants revolt.

The rebels showed their anger at the social order by killing two local leaders and also by attacking houses belonging to the city's elite." So really well done, especially if you've got every single one of those four gaps filled correctly.

We're now ready to move onto the third and final part of today's lesson, where we're gonna focus on elites and their relationship with the poor in mediaeval Norwich.

Elites in mediaeval knowledge benefited from the existing social order in the city.

However, if the poor were to rebel like they did in 1381.

This threatened the whole social order in the city.

As a result, elites hoped to prevent the poor from threatening the social order.

In other words, they hoped to stop them from rebelling.

One way elites protected the social order was by punishing the poor harshly when they challenged it.

For example, Jeffrey Lister, the leader of the peasants' revolt in the Norwich area in 1381, was executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered.

This was one of the worst punishments possible in mediaeval England.

Some of Lister's body parts were even left on display in Norwich.

This harsh punishment was supposed to scare the rest of the poor from attempting to challenge the elite in Norwich.

However, the elite also attempted to prevent the poor from challenging the social order by providing help and assistance to them.

As well as the cathedral and local churches providing charity, many wealthy elites also used some of their money to support the poor.

For example, John Cambridge, who was mayor of Norwich twice, left £10 in his will, which was to be kept safe at St.

Andrew's Church.

John Cambridge ordered that this money could be borrowed by any poor person in the area whenever they were experiencing financial difficulties.

And there were many other elites who did similar acts of charity to try and help the poor in mediaeval Norwich.

So now that we thought about the elites and the poor in mediaeval Norwich, we're ready to check our understanding.

So, why was the leader of the 1381 revolt in Norwich punished so harshly? Was it to scare the elite to be kinder to the poor, to scare the poor to accept the social order, or to scare the poor to leave Norwich? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was B.

Jeffrey Lister, the leader of the peasants revolt, was executed by being hanged, drawn and quartered.

And this was done to scare the poor in Norwich to accept the social order.

If they didn't, what the elites were trying to say with that punishment is the same harsh fate could happen to anyone else.

And let's try another question.

We have a statement on the screen now that says, "Only churchmen provided help to the poor." Is that true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false.

However, as always, we need to be able to justify the fact we said that this statement was false.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

Our first one says that members of the elite often provided charity.

And our second one says that elites and churchmen both refused to provide charity.

So which one of those two justifications is accurate? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that statement A was the correct justification.

Members in elite often provided charity to the poor in mediaeval Norwich.

We heard about the example of John Cambridge, who left £10 in his will that any poor person in the local area could borrow when they were in times of financial need.

So we can see it was not only churchmen, people like the monks at Norwich Cathedral, who provided help to the poor.

So now we're ready to put all of our knowledge about the elites and the poor in mediaeval Norwich into practise.

I want you to describe two ways in which elites tried to prevent the poor from challenging the social order in Norwich.

You might want to use the following sentence starters to help you frame your responses.

So our sentence starters read, "One way in which elites in Norwich tried to prevent the poor from challenging the social order was" And then you'd move on to another sentence, saying, "For example".

Then you can write, "Another way elites tried to protect social order was" And follow the same structure again.

So, pause the video here and then press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

I asked you to describe two ways in which elites tried to prevent the poor from challenging the social order in mediaeval Norwich.

Your answer may have included, "One way in which elites in Norwich tried to prevent the poor from challenging the social order was by punishing them harshly.

For example, Jeffrey Lister was hanged, drawn and quartered for leading the peasants revolt in the Norwich area in 1381." Your answer may also have included, "Another way elites tried to protect the social order was by helping the poor.

For example, John Cambridge, who'd been mayor of Norwich, left behind £10 in his will, which could be borrowed by poor people in financial need to help them." So if your answers look something like the two paragraphs that we've seen there, really well done because there was lots for us to think about in that final task from today's lesson.

So now we're in a great position to summarise our learning about the experiences of the poor in Mediaeval Norwich.

We've seen today that historians know less about the mediaeval poor than Norwich's elite because of a shortage of sources.

Norwich's poor joined a large revolt in 1381, and attacked many of the city's elite and their property.

Harsh punishments were used by the elite in mediaeval Norwich to make sure the poor respected the social order.

And the elite also provided charity to the poor to encourage them to respect the social order.

So really well done for all of your hard work during today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to work through it with yourselves, and I look forward to seeing you again in future as we think further about the experiences of different groups in Mediaeval Norwich.