-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Peasant Revolts in 5e
- Thread starter Shades of Eternity
- Start date
Yes. The point being that was not a standing army. The Hundred Years War was a series of engagements, and the crown put out a levy to their nobles for troops when they needed them. How many troops were available at a given time varied. How many they could get on short notice was often rather limited.
Gearing up for campaign season when you know the opposing forces are coming for you, because that's what they do every year or two, is one thing. Gearing up for a sudden revolt is another.
Here's the funny party - you cite the 100 Year's War - it was English troops being off fighting one of those conflicts that in part enabled the Peasant's Revolt of 1381 in England. When your 10K troops are already off in another country... well, then they aren't around to call up at home.
Peasants aren't necessarily idiots. They are not likely to revolt when your full forces are sitting around waiting to put them back down.
Yes, if you can get it. If your forces are engaged elsewhere, like they were at the Peasant's Revolt, it can be difficult. They took London, capitol of the nation, from the king, and killed a number of very important folks in the process. The King has to flee the city, and if he'd been caught... things could have ended much differently.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Probably not all that much differently. It would have just meant Henry IV became king a few years earlier.
18 years is not "a few". Henry was, like Richard, 14 years old at the time. Coming into the crown at the age of 14, while the rebels hold London and are calling for an end to serfdom and your troops are across the Channel in France does not seem like business as usual. And that's if nobody else decided to step up and try to take the crown for themselves (which, after all, is how Henry got the crown, too).
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Only Frodo could rationally be called anything like bourgeois.
those are not the kind of numbers a local lord could ever field to take back their 5 miles of terrain.Each Lord had a few mean to call on but the Lord above them and them above them....
France Battle of Agincourt
13000
Crecy
France 20-30k
English numbers were 7-9000. Some estimates for the French were even higher.
Ottomans could field around 60k.
Armies in the Crusades were hitting tens of thousands.
Local Lord didn't have thousands eventually though the king or duke gets involved if the revolt is bad enough.
English used 4000 to crush the revolt. There were no national armies but there were plenty of men around.
Swiss mercenaries were also around.
Battle numbers were smaller in the dark ages espicially in England.
No peasant revolt was successful in the time period in Europe with the possible exception of Dithmarschen (in terms of overthrowing the powers that be). Most of the time the King didn't have to get involved.
Dithmarschen - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
You reference Agincourt? Seriously? One of the pivotal battles of an enormous major war that helped deforest England? That whole war was nowhere near normal.
Celebrim
Legend
The venerable 1e AD&D DMG had detailed rules for peasant revolts, based on the assumption that PC's would likely be tyrannical lieges.
I've never had a peasant revolt occur in one of my games, but if it happened I do believe that I could support it, and in my typical demographics it would be pretty terrifying for an assumed scale of territory that a PC of a given level would likely control. In 5e, they'd likely be even more terrifying, given the bounded accuracy rules would make the low level peasants relatively more effective.
The typical peasant farmer in my (3e) game is 2nd to 4th level commoner. That functionally is equivalent to a 1st or 2nd level warrior. In rural or wilderness areas though, some or all of those levels would be replaced with levels of warrior or hunter, because the nature of the wild requires the peasants to occasionally defend themselves from bandits (human and non-human), lycanthropes, undead, fairy creatures, wild beasts, and the occasional wandering giant. Hard lives generate a hard people.
Being lower class themselves, almost certainly, the teamsters, stevedores, lumberjacks, undertakers, rat killers, and sailors would side with any peasant revolt. Those groups are pretty freaking terrifying in my games. Most have levels in Explorer, which gives them full BAB, and those that don't tend to have levels in Brute which makes them reasonably scary folks you don't want to get in a barroom brawl with. The lumberjacks in particular aside from being hard hard people tend to have tamed mammoths and mastadons, so a clan of lumberjacks can actually field things on a battlefield relevant to moderately high level PCs. And all of those groups are all generally skilled with and own weapons. You maybe thinking, "Rat killers aren't much of a threat.", but remember that in setting the rat killers are expected to deal with wererats. Undertakers put down ghouls. These aren't soft people. They are the sort of people that get the job done when PC types aren't around or have bigger problems to deal with.
For leaders, the peasants will have decently high level Hunters - up to 4th level with occasionally has high as 6th level. They are also likely to have support from Shamans - again up to 4th level with occasionally as high as 6th level - which means they'll have decent spellcaster support. And of course, at any sign of anarchy, the underclass of rogues, bandits, pirates, and the like are likely to side against authority in hopes of turning a profit.
Plus, depending on the causes of the revolt, the peasants will likely garner at least some sympathy from the middle and upper class. If the middle class is pulled in, you'll pull in the yeomanry, chaotic clergy, and the hedge wizards. The yeomanry often have military experience, and at the least are part of the militia and the hedge wizards are despite their generally low level nothing to be trifled with. If one or more cults side against you, things could go bad in a hurry, because that pulls in potentially high level clerics, templars and champions (think Paladins). If the upper class is pulled in, then you'll have at least some of the barons or landed knights siding with the peasants, Robin of Locksley style.
In short, when you are talking about a 'peasant revolt', you are basically talking about a situation where the humans engage in total warfare, and in any human centric setting (which is most D&D settings) the humans are terrifying, and there is a reason they dominate most of the land area.
I've never had a peasant revolt occur in one of my games, but if it happened I do believe that I could support it, and in my typical demographics it would be pretty terrifying for an assumed scale of territory that a PC of a given level would likely control. In 5e, they'd likely be even more terrifying, given the bounded accuracy rules would make the low level peasants relatively more effective.
The typical peasant farmer in my (3e) game is 2nd to 4th level commoner. That functionally is equivalent to a 1st or 2nd level warrior. In rural or wilderness areas though, some or all of those levels would be replaced with levels of warrior or hunter, because the nature of the wild requires the peasants to occasionally defend themselves from bandits (human and non-human), lycanthropes, undead, fairy creatures, wild beasts, and the occasional wandering giant. Hard lives generate a hard people.
Being lower class themselves, almost certainly, the teamsters, stevedores, lumberjacks, undertakers, rat killers, and sailors would side with any peasant revolt. Those groups are pretty freaking terrifying in my games. Most have levels in Explorer, which gives them full BAB, and those that don't tend to have levels in Brute which makes them reasonably scary folks you don't want to get in a barroom brawl with. The lumberjacks in particular aside from being hard hard people tend to have tamed mammoths and mastadons, so a clan of lumberjacks can actually field things on a battlefield relevant to moderately high level PCs. And all of those groups are all generally skilled with and own weapons. You maybe thinking, "Rat killers aren't much of a threat.", but remember that in setting the rat killers are expected to deal with wererats. Undertakers put down ghouls. These aren't soft people. They are the sort of people that get the job done when PC types aren't around or have bigger problems to deal with.
For leaders, the peasants will have decently high level Hunters - up to 4th level with occasionally has high as 6th level. They are also likely to have support from Shamans - again up to 4th level with occasionally as high as 6th level - which means they'll have decent spellcaster support. And of course, at any sign of anarchy, the underclass of rogues, bandits, pirates, and the like are likely to side against authority in hopes of turning a profit.
Plus, depending on the causes of the revolt, the peasants will likely garner at least some sympathy from the middle and upper class. If the middle class is pulled in, you'll pull in the yeomanry, chaotic clergy, and the hedge wizards. The yeomanry often have military experience, and at the least are part of the militia and the hedge wizards are despite their generally low level nothing to be trifled with. If one or more cults side against you, things could go bad in a hurry, because that pulls in potentially high level clerics, templars and champions (think Paladins). If the upper class is pulled in, then you'll have at least some of the barons or landed knights siding with the peasants, Robin of Locksley style.
In short, when you are talking about a 'peasant revolt', you are basically talking about a situation where the humans engage in total warfare, and in any human centric setting (which is most D&D settings) the humans are terrifying, and there is a reason they dominate most of the land area.
Attachments
Paul Farquhar
Legend
John of Gaunt would have slaughtered the rebels PDQ, had it gone that far. The only uncertainty is if he would have taken the throne himself or put his son on it ahead of schedule.
"Holding London" would be more of a liability than an asset - all those mouths to feed and no means of producing food!
Zardnaar
Legend
Nope but the local Lord can kick it up to his liege who kicks it up to his liege etc.
And vs a peasant revolt that's gonna invite most of the nobles. Feudalism was a two way street.
My original post was once the nobles rally.
By rally I mean gather their mean, organise etc. Even with the army away in France they still crushed the revolt.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don’t care about the “could the peasants win” part of the argument. I didn’t speak on that.
Most lords aren’t in a kingdom like England, which at the time had been embroiled in major wars pretty often. The ability to field more than a dozen knights is pretty limited in most places.
Similar Threads
