He had, with the help of Wycliffe and John Ball, galvanized thousands of peasants to rise up against the authorities that constricted them to their land unjustly, and temporarily reduced the king into giving concessions. In history, the impact of Tyler was said by Norman Cohn to be 'underestimated. ' He states that 'Tyler 's ability to solely begin an organised uprising is outstanding. ' This is clearly substantial evidence that he was a key individual in the rebellion of Late Medieval Europe. His support dramatically increased as he entered London, despite the fact that he lost discipline of the mob. His demands for an abolition of serfdom, tithes and poll tax were said by Cohn to be 'exceedingly crucial in gaining the support of the workers of London, and thus transferring power from the church and parliament to the people. ' His ideas were supported by Ball 's use of religion to urge equality in society, a view similar to modern day communism. Although Tyler was successful in causing the uprising in the first place, Cohn is wrong in describing him as crucial and influential due to his failure at retaining control of the mob and being tricked by Richard II, which led to his death. Ultimately this caused minimal change to how England was run, as nearly all of the promises made by the king to the mob were overturned. This points towards the fact that Tyler …show more content…
Zizka’s name first became prominent during the Hussite Wars. Zizka led The Hussite movement that followed the teachings of Czech priest, philosopher and reformer Jan Hus. His reputation grew rapidly after the success of the ‘Wagenburg Tactics’ in the Hussite Crusades. Norman Cohn describes that Zizka ‘helped develop tactics of using tabors as mobile fortifications. When the Hussite army faced a numerically superior opponent they prepared carts for the battle by forming them into squares or circles.’ His return to Bohemia coincided with the religious upheaval following the death of Jan