Modern fiction is often filled with fantasy versions of the Middle Ages, from Lord of the Rings to Game of Thrones, and everything in between, but how did the reality of this trope operate?

There obviously would have been farmers, creating and selling produce in markets, and blacksmiths, fixing horses and making armour and weaponry -- but what about everyone else? How did people afford to live? I realise there was no middle-class in those days, but the average person would have still owned a home.

For example, in a 13th century city like Conwy in Wales: What would the average person have done for money who lived within the city walls? How did their version of capitalism operate?

To put it another way, that might be easier to answer:

  • What would children have done with their day?
  • What would wives have done with their day?
  • What would husbands have done with their day?
  • And how would they afford to eat and live?
  • 2
    This depended largely on which class and guild you were in. It's a good question but it needs to be clarified.
    – DVK
    Commented Dec 2, 2012 at 14:41
  • 14
    There are major anachronistic flaws in the question, largely due to importing elements of contemporary fantasy (liberal-democratic bourgeois individualism, universality of capitalism) into a pre-capitalist feudal context. These aren't fatal to the question, but it means that any good answer will be "No, but…" in form. Commented Dec 2, 2012 at 21:49
  • 6
    Rather than fantasy, you might want to immerse yourself in some historical fiction. Ken Follett's (who also happens to be Welsh) Pillars of the Earth is one that immediately comes to mind. Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 16:47
  • 3
    presumably this question is limited to Europe, so when you say middle ages you are not including any other part of the world .. is that correct?
    – Safa Alai
    Commented Dec 5, 2012 at 15:19
  • 2
    @SafaAlai That's what the tags say. The reason is that most fantasy takes place in a Europeanized fantasy world. Which isn't to say I'm not interested in how other parts of the world worked during the same time period, but that would be outside the scope of this question. Commented Dec 5, 2012 at 19:57

2 Answers 2


Life in medieval times was in the way you are asking not much different than it is now. You may want to read The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer. In many of the stories he paints a picture of day to day life in Medieval England and you will see it was not too much different than things are now.

To answer some of your specific points:

The middle class: there most certainly was a middle class. In England the middle class included two main types of people: villeins and yeoman. A villein was a tenant farmer who was bound to the land, a serf. A yeoman owned his own land. Most tradespeople, crafters, and technicians were yeomen.

Homes: people did own homes, but they were more simple and smaller than those today. A very common design was a round house with a single room and a thatched roof. The floor was dirt, but was covered with soft rushes, called "thresh". You would sleep on a mattress of straw, or a bed if you were well off. A young person, or a poorer person would just sleep on woven straw mats.

Children: very young children had no clothes, but a blanket, but when they got to be 3 or 4 they might get a tunic, unless their parents were really poor. There was no school so children just ran around and did what they wanted unless they had chores to do or work given by their parents. Once a child was about 6-8 they could work doing sewing and other simple chores, feeding hogs or whatever. Poor families sometimes put their children to work against their will to help earn money to eat. This would result in runaways.

Wives: Some women would be married and do whatever was necessary around the home. Making cloth and clothing consumed a lot of time which kept women busy. Many women would be unattached, being spinsters, free spirits, or widows. Such women would work for a living being, well, spinsters (you guessed it) or knitters. There were usually certain professions set aside for single women, such as ale making. Many women were doctors/herbalists and harlotry was common.

Men: Men did all the sort of work you might expect. "Official" or state-sponsored jobs were somewhat more scarce than they are now, so men often had more off-hand jobs being handymen or what were called "hands", doing menial labor. There were a lot of bums, beggars, and bag ladies, and there was no incarceration of crazy people the way it is now, so anyone with a mental disability just wandered around. They were called "fools".

Eating: It was a little bit harder to get food than it is now, but in the towns there was usually a dole of some kind. Also, you could often find work for food digging ditches or cutting wood. Desperate people could eat worms, nettles, seeds and other such wild food. Churches gave out food, just like they do now. Regular food in England was barley or rye bread. Even a menial laborer could make enough to pay for bread and some extra. Most people had at least a wooden bowl and spoon. A really poor person would eat with their hands. A yeoman would usually have fork, knife and spoon with pottery plates and cups. The table for most people was like what a park bench and table would be today. Chairs would be only for the upper middle class and above. Most people could afford fish or meat at least once a week and fats and suet were traded around to make soups, which most people had every day. A common dish was gruel, which was oats or barley mixed with milk, what we would call "cereal" today.

  • Fantastic answer! You really got what I was asking. Thanks! Commented Aug 18, 2014 at 23:16
  • Chaucer: Late Medieval. Guilds are missing from this answer. Commented May 22, 2018 at 19:03
  • The definition of a yeoman farmer was somewhat nebulous but they typically owned land, or tenanted it directly from a major landowner, and employed several men. Successful yeoman farmers could certainly rub shoulders with the gentry at events like fox-hunting. Villeins were not middle-class at all, they were lower than freemen. Commented May 23, 2018 at 8:46
  • 1
    I stumble over the description of the "typical" home. What is described here -- single-room thatched round house, with a bed for "the well-off" only, is something I would expect in the very early "middle ages", i.e. 500 AD, at best. The question aims at cities around 13th century -- that would be stone, two or three stories, slate or tile roofing...
    – DevSolar
    Commented Jun 3, 2019 at 10:01
  • 1
    I think its conventionally spelled "villein" rather than "villain" to avoid the imputation of illegal behaviour ? Commented Feb 21, 2020 at 8:53

Your question embodies large amounts of modern fantasy.

Firstly, imagine that nothing can be bought or sold by the vast and overwhelming majority of the population. Coin does not exist or circulate for most people.

There obviously would have been farmers, creating and selling produce in markets

Nope. Farmers are a modern institution related to capitalism and closed field systems. Read Wikipedia's article on the economy of England in the middle ages. Most land then was held as shares of a collective community under sufferance from a lord. Local and regional taxes ate up much of the surplus, which was in directly consumable or stored goods. There was no market. Peasants produced excess for tax, or excess as directly extracted "corvee" labour. Lords made use of rights to restrict oven building, mill building, beer brewing and the like to extract surpluses, largely in direct form.

The occasional leakage of produce to markets was not the primary form in which peasants reproduced themselves. Production specifically for market was uncommon.

but what about everyone else? How did people afford to live? I realise there was no middle-class in those days, but the average person would have still owned a home.

Unlikely. The average person was common and probably female, and so owned nothing. Ownership was usually construed around land or "real property" that was inherited amongst males who controlled large family networks. Urban law slowly developed other concepts of property, but these were limited. The average person moved between vagabondage (being a landless person), illegally settling "forests" or "deserts" (wooded or fenny potentially agricultural land), being a poor crofter or commoner with common rights but no land shares, possessing half a land share, possessing full shares, or multiple shares, enough to hire day labourers. Over generations. Over generations land might bleed out of a male dominated family, or someone might claw a right to settle legally.

The urban population was miniscule, as was the cash economy. The interaction between urban and rural economies occurred through regular taxed markets (often synchronised with circuit courts, or court days, or execution days, or religious feasts), and large festivals that were synchronised. This allowed for sufficient interaction between luxury and day to day consumption goods—all of which were rare and poor.

For example, in a 13th century city like Conwy in Wales: What would the average person have done for money who lived within the city walls? How did their version of capitalism operate?

No capitalism in the 13th century mate. Persons without a licence to practice a skill would live in starvation and penury (often being ejected from free towns or enslaved / brought into bondage). Persons with obvious free rights but no trade would merely starve. A family with a right of trade would have cemented their position generations back, and be relying on traditional trade powers to gain what was socially recognised (and enforced by priests and random social violence) the appropriate prices for their labour. A few families would have concentrated wealth, but this wouldn't be liquid capital, it would be static textiles used for display, or cloths. We know this from the viciousness with which churchmen and nobles forced "sumptuary" laws on rich town dwellers to stop them from wearing hats too big, cloaks with too many folds, or shoes that were too long.

Any wealth would have gone on luxury display to enforce the existing principles of class status and enforcement of "station," on the poor. No capital circulated as such in towns.

To put it another way, that might be easier to answer: What would children have done with their day?

Work, play, pray and potentially starve. Formal education was a limited stream used to reproduce the clergy and a limited pool of state and church employed clerks.

What would wives have done with their day?

Work on the primary production of the household and raised children. As "industry" in the sense of useful labour was entirely handcrafts, wives worked with their husbands, husbands worked with their wives. A licence to trade was a licence for all persons in the house to conduct that trade under the mastery of the chief male.

What would husbands have done with their day?

Same as wives. Also like their wives they would have sought salvation in God's mercy. They would have sought to best display their opulence in power. To subjugate others while protecting their "ancient" (read recently invented) feudal rights.

And how would they afford to eat and live?

Largely through the production of incredibly limited luxury goods, and the circulation of these through systems of account rarely settled with coin. A large number of them would be entirely dependent upon charity, or becoming the bonded member of a powerful household and serving.

And of course the alternative is starving to death, or having near total child mortality and early adult mortality due to disease such that your family dies rather than producing more persons.

You're importing a fantasy you possess onto pre-modern economies. The way forward is by reading the rigorous economic histories, such as the ones cited in Economy of England in the middle ages on wikipedia.

  • 5
    Wow, this is absolutely fascinating, thank you! How different the world used to be. It's funny because I'm sure Terry Jones wandered into a huge house and talked about how even the poorest person would have this. I wish I could find the documentary now so that you could help put it into context. Lots to think about, although I find it hard to believe that life would have been so bleak. Even in the slums of India, people look out for each other there. They may go hungry, but there's still humanity there. Commented Dec 2, 2012 at 23:58
  • 3
    At various times of settlement Europeans lived in hovels or in roving overbuilt houses. It is entirely dependent on the age of the local settlement and the time of the most recent war or civil conflict. People lived in society differently, so animals lived in houses, and multiple families could cohabit (including forcing adult children to cohabit for economic reasons, like land access). Also this life wasn't necessarily bleak—many ate boiled grains daily. At other times there was mass starvation. Sometimes meat was stolen, or grown, at others even bread was a super luxury (see porridge). Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 0:52
  • 1
    Also, obviously Brunel, Annales School, Marxist historiography of the middle ages, modern "social history" of medieval and peasant life, I highly recommend: amazon.com/History-Their-Own-Prehistory-Present/dp/0195128389 Commented Dec 3, 2012 at 0:54
  • 10
    Your vision of medieval times is a little exaggerated. It really wasn't that bad. Commented Aug 18, 2014 at 23:50
  • 5
    This is overly bleak. The Middle Ages covers a large period and serfdom in England was effectively ended by the Black Death. Long before then craft guilds were already operating in cities protecting workers rights and offering training through apprenticeship. Most people worked on the land but there was generally plenty to eat - you just can't do hard manual labour without the calories. Commented Oct 3, 2017 at 12:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.