[doggacula]

In a Hollywood movie, sure, with obligatory leading warrior woman role. In real history, not so much. With very rare exceptions (like England [1], and some Eastern European lands were at least some of peasants were militarized) peasantry had little military value [2], and therefore little factor in any rivalry. Also feudalism had more strict rules in regard to competition for resources compared to modern criminals. A rival had to appear first, and in most cases needed to have rights at least somehow proven by genealogical tree, and old agreements. While it did happen, it couldn't just because of peasants.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assize_of_Arms_of_1181

[2] https://academic.oup.com/book/39423/chapter-abstract/3391457...

[Maken]

There was no need for a rival. Peasant revolts were actually quite common and in some cases they succeed in forcing their feudal lords' hands, to some degree [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Remences

[doggacula]

They did happen, of course, but they wasn't common at all if you mark all occurrences on the timeline. And almost all cases were due to catastrophic events such as plaques, and famines exactly as the one you linked, not peasants joining politics. And that's the point as my comment replies to a specific claim, I didn't say peasant rebellions never happened.

[HPsquared]

There are so many small ways the common people can express support or disapproval. It's not as simple as "are they currently revolting with pitchforks".

[doggacula]

Sure. It still doesn't make the claim to which I replied more correct.