The Byzantine Peasantry, backbone of the Empire
During the Byzantine period, the rural population constituted the majority and mostly lived in villages or hamlets. In the mid-Byzantine era, these settlements were named differently depending on their ownership. Villages belonging to a large landowner were called proasteion, while those that did not were referred to as chôrion. Villages were modest in size, rarely exceeding a hundred households. Hamlets were also designated differently based on their ownership: those belonging to laypeople were called ktèma or ktèsis, while those dependent on monasteries were known as métoques.
Historical outline of the Byzantine Peasantry.
The Byzantine economy experienced a final wave of prosperity in the early 6th century, as part of the late-antique framework. During this time, rural settlements expanded, and their populations flourished. However, from the mid-6th to the late 8th century, a period often referred to as the “dark ages” of Byzantium, a significant demographic decline occurred. This was largely due to the devastating impact of recurring plagues, beginning with the great plague of 541–542 and continuing until the 740s. Additionally, the empire was beset by a series of disruptive earthquakes, prolonged wars (particularly with the Persians), and a climatic cold period marked by severe winters and droughts. These factors resulted in famine, widespread impoverishment, and a sharp decline in population.
The most important source for understanding the demographics and economy of the countryside from the 7th to the 9th centuries is the Farmer’s Law (or Rural Code), generally dated to the late 7th or early 8th century. This legal text contains 85 articles that address the relationships between peasants and their land, covering issues related to fields, animals, mills, accidents, disputes, and theft. A key aspect of this source is that it does not mention large landowners or dependent peasants (paroikoi), instead focusing on the village commune (chorion), which was inhabited by free peasants (georgoi). Scholars have concluded that, while large estates existed, the focus on small and medium-sized properties suggests that free, land-owning peasants made up the majority of the rural population at the time. The georgoi enjoyed an improved status compared to the coloni of the late Roman period. They were able to own and manage land, sell and exchange it, and freely trade their products. This rise in peasant status is often attributed to the labor shortage of the 7th and 8th centuries.
Another significant aspect of the Rural Code concerns the collective responsibility of villagers for tax payments. If a villager died or fled, the remaining inhabitants were responsible for fulfilling his fiscal obligations. After a certain period, if the land remained ownerless, it would be redistributed among the remaining villagers. This is important because, in later periods, starting around the 10th century, abandoned land was often detached and granted to large landowners, gradually eroding the free village commune.
From the 9th to the 11th century, under the Macedonian dynasty, the empire once again experienced population growth. Villages expanded in both size and number. This growth was driven by increased security and stability in the countryside, thanks to the restoration of the empire’s external borders and the establishment of a dense network of strongholds and small towns connected to their rural hinterlands. This period is better documented in terms of rural economy, with one of the key sources being the Fiscal Treatise, dating from the late 10th century, which focuses on the free peasantry.
Politically, the Macedonian emperors were concerned with protecting the “poor” from the “powerful” (dynatoi), and issued a total of 14 land laws with this aim. One of the main problems in the countryside was that large landowners, particularly in Anatolia, had been acquiring the lands of small peasants from village communities since around the 9th century.


Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (920–944) responded by formulating the first of these laws around 922, reinstating the pre-emption rule. This rule required that any peasant wishing to sell land had to notify the entire village commune, giving them the right of first purchase or refusal before the land could be sold to an outsider. This measure was intended to protect the territorial integrity of villages from the encroachment of the powerful. However, it was not entirely successful. The great famine of 927–928 forced many peasants to sell or abandon their lands to large landowners.
In response, Romanos I issued a stricter law in 934. It completely prohibited the dynatoi from acquiring any property in village communes, nullified any sales made before the famine, and returned properties to their original owners. The law explicitly stated that the fiscal and military stability of the empire depended on the protection of the rural populace, and it identified the powerful as a threat to this stability. Similar policies to protect the peasantry continued until the early 11th century. As a result, many scholars view the Macedonian period as the “golden age” of the Byzantine peasantry.
Basil II took his policies further by ordering the dynatoi to pay the taxes of villagers who had defaulted, died, or fled. His goal was to stop powerful landowners from avoiding the fiscal duties traditionally held by chorion communities. A decree from 996 also notes that many village communities were disappearing due to the growing influence of monasteries. Indeed, the church had become a major threat to the peasantry at that time.
These policies faced strong resistance from large landowners and the church. They pressured Romanos III Argyros (1028–1034) to repeal them. In the end, the policies of the Macedonian emperors failed. Village communities were gradually weakened by the expansion of large estates, though this varied by region, as seen in 11th-century sources. The Byzantine countryside was transformed, and by the mid-11th century, large landowners, especially the church, had greatly increased their landholdings and power. They frequently found ways to avoid or become exempt from taxes, including the basic land tax. As a result, free peasants were slowly replaced by dependent peasants, the paroikoi.
Was this change necessarily negative for the peasantry? Older historiography viewed it as a descent into serfdom, leading to impoverishment and, ultimately, the state’s economic decline. More recent scholarship challenges this view. While the peasantry faced greater exploitation, their income generally increased, linked to a broader rise in living standards. This improvement, however, came with growing inequality, as wealth and land concentrated in the hands of the dynatoi and the Church.
The expansion of markets boosted the value of the peasantry’s cash-crop assets, making them economically better off in the 11th and 12th centuries than their 9th-century counterparts. Despite increased exploitation and vulnerability, becoming paroikoi often seemed a rational choice. Landlords provided protection against crop failures, invasions, and tax-collector abuses. Peasants also indirectly benefited from their landlords’ tax exemptions and immunities, which grew rapidly from the 11th century onward.
The shift also led to better resource use, more efficient cultivation, and increased productivity. Large landowners could support their peasants, contributing to population growth in the 11th and 12th centuries. This transformation was complex, bringing both positive and negative effects. The Byzantines themselves, as seen in Choniates’ writings, were acutely aware of these changes and often criticized them.
Lifestyle and living conditions of the Byzantine peasantry.
The Byzantine economy was primarily agrarian, with the vast majority of the peasantry engaged in farming or animal pasturing, the two most stable occupations.
The peasantry, overall, endured the most difficult living conditions during the Byzantine period. It is also the least studied population, often poorly described by sources. The peasant house is not well understood. In some regions, like Lycia or northern Syria, known for their famous villages, houses were built to last and were of high quality. However, in many cases, these houses were made of wood and could be dismantled if necessary. Some were very simple, while others were organized around a courtyard. In the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, courtyard plans were replaced by narrow block-houses, often consisting of only one room. These structures dominated the rural landscape of the Peloponnese during that time, according to archaeological data.
Peasant furniture was certainly very modest. The poorest probably owned nothing in their miserable huts except for the most basic items needed for daily life, such as tools for cooking or clothing. They likely slept on straw mattresses on the ground. The wealthier peasantry owned blankets and rugs, as well as kitchen utensils like pots and pans, and jars for storing oil and wine. Food was eaten without plates, using fingers, from a common dish.
Peasants wore only basic attire, as depicted in certain manuscript miniatures. They seemingly went bareheaded, wearing a long tunic, sometimes sleeveless, cinched at the waist and pleated at the front. Their shoulders were covered by a short cloak fastened with a large knot. For the lower body, they wore hose and heelless shoes.
Fieldwork.
It is depicted in certain miniatures or drawings in manuscripts. It often began with clearing: workers are depicted felling trees and shrubs, while others uproot roots. Some dig holes to sink large stakes marking property boundaries.
In plowing scenes, the plow is always represented, a type consisting of a curved stem attached to the yoke of the harness, with the share and handle held by the plowman. However, the wheeled plow was already known.
The grain was then sown. Harvesting is less often depicted. On an ivory casket from the Morgan Collection in New York, Adam can be seen cutting wheat with a sickle while Eve carries a heavy sheaf on her shoulders.
Threshing wheat was likely done in the Byzantine era as it was during antiquity. Wheat was spread on a hard ground circular area. A pair of oxen pulled an elongated sled, armed on its underside with flint points. The driver stood on the implement to increase its weight. The team walked in circles for several hours, and the animals’ stride and the sawing of the ears caused threshing.
Livestock breeders.
Pastures played an important role in the Byzantine agricultural economy. Until the Turkish invasion, Anatolia was renowned as a breeding ground. It was also the region that provided the vast majority of horses for the imperial cavalry. The high valleys of the Balkan Peninsula were also breeding areas. In these latter zones, during the middle Byzantine period, it was often the Vlachs, Bulgarians, and Cumans who engaged in it. In the Rhodope and Balkan massifs, in Macedonia for example, it was a nomadic population that often clashed with landowners as they crossed their lands. In the summer, sheepfolds were set up near pastures and forests by large landowners and by the state, and for a tithe, shepherds could lodge there with their families and freely graze their herds. Breeding methods were quite basic; for example, pigs were allowed to graze freely.
Another type of lucrative and widespread livestock farming was beekeeping. Manuscript paintings depict hives shaped like small yellow-painted huts, with cylindrical roofs and small windows at the front, amid shrubs.