Why was rebellion more serious in the reigns of Stephen and John than at other times in
the period 1066 to 1216?
There are a number of reasons which explain why the rebellions in the reigns of Stephen and John were
more serious than other rebellions in the period. One reason is the size of the rebellions as both were
actually civil wars compared to the other rebellions which were comparably much smaller. Another factor
explaining this is the consequences and outcomes of the rebellions, both leading to huge changes in
central government. The final factor, and arguably the most important, was how these rebellions were
dealt with.
One of the reasons explaining why these rebellions were more severe than others was the size of them and
the number of people involved. The rebellions in both John’s reign and Stephen’s reigns were classed as
civil wars with virtually all barons involved, thus making the rebellions more serious than others. The
rebellions in the other reigns were also shorter lived, particularly compared to the civil war in Stephen’s
reign. For example, in Richard’s reign there was lack of widespread support for the rebellion and it was
short lived. Similarly, the rebellions in William I’s reigns primarily involved his Anglo-Saxon barons as the
Norman barons firmly supported him due to the land and titles he gave them. In contrast, the civil war in
Stephen’s reign occupied the majority of his reign and happened across the whole country, with Stephen
eventually only having control of the East of England due to the rebels occupying the rest of the country. In
addition, whilst the civil war in John’s reign may have been shorter, only lasting from 1215 to 1216 due to
his death, almost all of the barons rebelled against him. However, whilst this factor did mean that these
rebellions were more serious, this is the least important factor because if the rebellions were better dealt
with, they could have been put down a lot more swiftly and not have been so large scale. Therefore, whilst
the size and length of these rebellions explains why they were more serious, this factor was heavily
influenced by another factor of how the kings dealt with them, making this reason less important.
Another reason which explains why the rebellions in the reigns of Stephen and John were more serious
was the changes they brought to central government. Other rebellions, such as those in William II’s, Henry
II’s and Richard’s reigns, had little impact on government and thus were not that serious, however it could
be argued that because they were so well dealt with, they did not have a chance to impact central
government. In contrast, the rebellions in both Stephen’s reign and John’s reign had huge impacts on
central government. The civil war in Stephen’s reign forced him to decentralise government as he only
controlled the east and instead of a central government, he created 20 earldoms with 20 earls to oversee
them. The civil war forced central government to cease operating for the first time in the time period
which was undeniably a huge issue for the country and especially Stephen as there was lack of royal
control over these earls, leading to many abusing their power. Also, the civil war in John’s reign led to
Magna Carta being drawn up, a document which for the first time held the king accountable to the law,
and it was John’s failure to abide by it which actually led to the civil war. However, both of these changes
are limited in how they impacted central government, thus limiting this factor. Henry II soon restored
central government after the civil war in Stephen’s reign and initially Magna Carta was not followed,
although it did have long term consequences later on, after 1216, and thus the impact of these rebellions
on central government is limited. Also, as previously mentioned, rebellions could only lead to changes in
central government if the king did not deal with them effectively and thus that is the most important
reason for the severity of these rebellions rather than their impacts. Therefore, whilst it is evident that the
consequences of the rebellions meant they were more serious than others in the time period, this factor is
limited and is not the most important reason.
Finally, the most important reason why these rebellions were more serious is the ways they were dealt
with. Unlike other rebellions in the time period, these two rebellions were poorly dealt with by the
respective king which made them more serious, meaning they both lasted longer, were on a much larger
the period 1066 to 1216?
There are a number of reasons which explain why the rebellions in the reigns of Stephen and John were
more serious than other rebellions in the period. One reason is the size of the rebellions as both were
actually civil wars compared to the other rebellions which were comparably much smaller. Another factor
explaining this is the consequences and outcomes of the rebellions, both leading to huge changes in
central government. The final factor, and arguably the most important, was how these rebellions were
dealt with.
One of the reasons explaining why these rebellions were more severe than others was the size of them and
the number of people involved. The rebellions in both John’s reign and Stephen’s reigns were classed as
civil wars with virtually all barons involved, thus making the rebellions more serious than others. The
rebellions in the other reigns were also shorter lived, particularly compared to the civil war in Stephen’s
reign. For example, in Richard’s reign there was lack of widespread support for the rebellion and it was
short lived. Similarly, the rebellions in William I’s reigns primarily involved his Anglo-Saxon barons as the
Norman barons firmly supported him due to the land and titles he gave them. In contrast, the civil war in
Stephen’s reign occupied the majority of his reign and happened across the whole country, with Stephen
eventually only having control of the East of England due to the rebels occupying the rest of the country. In
addition, whilst the civil war in John’s reign may have been shorter, only lasting from 1215 to 1216 due to
his death, almost all of the barons rebelled against him. However, whilst this factor did mean that these
rebellions were more serious, this is the least important factor because if the rebellions were better dealt
with, they could have been put down a lot more swiftly and not have been so large scale. Therefore, whilst
the size and length of these rebellions explains why they were more serious, this factor was heavily
influenced by another factor of how the kings dealt with them, making this reason less important.
Another reason which explains why the rebellions in the reigns of Stephen and John were more serious
was the changes they brought to central government. Other rebellions, such as those in William II’s, Henry
II’s and Richard’s reigns, had little impact on government and thus were not that serious, however it could
be argued that because they were so well dealt with, they did not have a chance to impact central
government. In contrast, the rebellions in both Stephen’s reign and John’s reign had huge impacts on
central government. The civil war in Stephen’s reign forced him to decentralise government as he only
controlled the east and instead of a central government, he created 20 earldoms with 20 earls to oversee
them. The civil war forced central government to cease operating for the first time in the time period
which was undeniably a huge issue for the country and especially Stephen as there was lack of royal
control over these earls, leading to many abusing their power. Also, the civil war in John’s reign led to
Magna Carta being drawn up, a document which for the first time held the king accountable to the law,
and it was John’s failure to abide by it which actually led to the civil war. However, both of these changes
are limited in how they impacted central government, thus limiting this factor. Henry II soon restored
central government after the civil war in Stephen’s reign and initially Magna Carta was not followed,
although it did have long term consequences later on, after 1216, and thus the impact of these rebellions
on central government is limited. Also, as previously mentioned, rebellions could only lead to changes in
central government if the king did not deal with them effectively and thus that is the most important
reason for the severity of these rebellions rather than their impacts. Therefore, whilst it is evident that the
consequences of the rebellions meant they were more serious than others in the time period, this factor is
limited and is not the most important reason.
Finally, the most important reason why these rebellions were more serious is the ways they were dealt
with. Unlike other rebellions in the time period, these two rebellions were poorly dealt with by the
respective king which made them more serious, meaning they both lasted longer, were on a much larger
