Hundred Year's War

I just come across a theory that I hadn�t heard before, dunno if it is common:

Due to the 100 years war, the north/western European knights did not have time/interest in surpressing the improving living conditions for peasants and wage earners following the black death. In the eastern parts of Europe (that also was hit hard by the black death), however, the knights were not busy in such a (profitable) war, and hence surpressed those tendencies.

Well, it is a commonly held view that the black death contributed to better conditions for the surviving peasants. Some of the reasons are:
-One were able to cultivate only the best land. Less pressure improved productivity. Hence, they could have cattle on the leftover soil. All this may favor a more differentiated agriculture and sales-economy.
-The peasants suddenly were in demand, not left over. Basically they could demand better conditions - or leave for somewhere else (other soil, cities)..
- The improved productivity in the farms led to cheaper grain, so that the workers in the cities had to use less of their income on food.

Just throwing around some possible explanations here, feel free to kill em all or add more variables if you know how. Nothing would please me more. The theory I reffered to initialy, is that the landowners in the east managed to halt this development with brute force. In the west, however, they did not care, due to the 100 years war.

I find this theory somehow strange, though, because it was my impression that the black plague did not strike hard in east at all. That is probably a better explanation on why the peasants in west turned out to be more independent and well of, while in the east they continued to be serfs.

I�m no expert on the tyler movement, but it clearly has its place in this story. After all it led to formal abolition of serfdom in England, right? And it may certainly be seen as a reaction to the lords attempt to curb the mentioned improvements.
But still, I�ve heard that the revolt was a result of the treasurers need to finance the 100 years war with taxation. So that kind of kills the point that the 100 years war was profitable and enabled the lords not to surpress their peasants.

This is getting more and more confusing as I write, so if anyone would like to chime in with some clarification they are most welcome. Also, writing in English further increase my confusion.

Edited by winningstad - 09-Dec-2007 at 12:23