I enjoyed the story told by Dan Jones and it is a well written book but I was surprised that Jones, who tells what might be described as "the standard version" of the revolt, makes no acknowledgement that there is an alternative version which says that the rebels were highly organised even before the revolt started and thus able to take action at very short notice (see e.g. "Born in Blood" by John J. Robinson). He must surely be aware of this version but does not mention it, even to demolish it. Yet the idea that the revolt had organisation behind it seems to fit the facts better than Jones' version. For example, when the king left the Tower to meet the rebels at Mile End, Tyler, Ball and Straw all spurned the chance to meet him (even though Jones seems to suggest that meeting Richard was the rebel leaders' main objective) and remained in the City. Why did they do this? Jones does not explain, merely commenting that they were "lingering around the tower and keeping a keen eye out for any sign of movement within". Surely the only logical explanation is that the rebels knew that they were going to be let in the Tower. They had no chance of storming it so why linger outside it, especially with a meeting with the king on offer? It makes no sense unless they had lines of communication into the Tower - and that of course suggests a more oganised rising than Jones would have us believe. Jones's explanation of why the drawbridge was lowered (that those within the heavily fortified Tower suddenly became defeatist and panicked) also makes no sense. I would also criticise Jones on the amount of speculation, e.g. when describing the meeting between Tyler and the king he says that they "stood face to face, each uncertain what to do next". What is the source of this? Jones does not say. One suspects speculation and the book is full of this. I still wait for a definitive telling of the fascinating story of the peasants' revolt.