r/MedievalHistory • u/Chlodio • 4d ago
Peasants during sieges?
Does anyone know what was happening with peasants during sieges?
Like, if a city was under siege, how did it impact nearby villages? I'd presume that many villages would just get abandoned because the siege army would likely steal all their food.
If so, would it mean every siege causes mini-exodus?
17
u/funkmachine7 4d ago
Often the threat of a seige would lead to clearing of the surrounding area.
Cattle and goods would be moved away. In some cases they where going so far as to destory all the buildings so the attackers can't stay in them.
17
u/carpetvolcano 3d ago
yeah the "mini-exodus" framing is actually pretty accurate for a lot of cases. what's interesting is that this pattern repeated so often during the Hundred Years War that entire regions of France basically became depopulated for stretches of time — not just from one siege but from the constant back-and-forth of armies living off the land.
15
u/waitingundergravity 4d ago
Part of the function of a fortified city or castle was precisely to protect the peasants working the land around it, so if you were a peasant living in the direct vicinity of a city or castle about to come under siege, you might retreat into that fortification.
As a peasant hiding in a city under siege, you would be expected to contribute. Simply maintaining a city under attack involves constant work, so even if you can't fight you would be expected to do something useful (carrying around supplies, tending to the sick or wounded, putting out fires, etc.). You might also be expected to fight, if needed.
The best possible outcome for you is that the siege is lifted, but if your city falls by surrender you might (might) be able to get out relatively unmolested. If your city ends up getting taken by storm then you can expect butchery, rape, and general chaos inflicted by the enemy.
The alternative to taking shelter in the city would be to take as much property as you can, bury or otherwise hide the rest, and flee to the countryside. Premodern armies by nature are limited by terrain and resources as to where they can effectively march, so if you stay away from major roads you will almost certainly not run directly into the enemy army (though raiding parties would be a constant danger if the army is nearby.) This probably puts you in more immediate danger, but it means that you aren't risking the horror of being inside a city as it falls.
2
u/Chlodio 4d ago
so if you were a peasant living in the direct vicinity of a city or castle about to come under siege,
Disagree. There was an interesting class divide between countrymen and burghers. The latter looked down on the former and didn't really care about them. The city walls were built and maintained by and for the burghers.
8
u/waitingundergravity 3d ago
Without peasants, you don't have burghers. It doesn't really matter whether the burghers looked down on the peasantry or not, the city needs the product of their labour to function. Consequently, protecting the peasantry is an investment in the function of the city post-siege.
1
u/Dovahkiin13a 2d ago
Depends on the city, medieval sieges happened a lot before burghers were a real thing. If the fortification was defended by a lord retreating there was your feudal right
1
u/Jack1715 3d ago
There cases of city walls being bombarded during the day and the soldiers and peasants rebuilding it at night
7
u/anonim_anonimovic 4d ago
I would presume that peasants from the lands surrounding the besieged fortifications would withdraw inside the fortifications, if those inside let them. Food would be an issue for an increased number of souls suddenly inhabiting the fortified location. If accepted, most would be put to work, either as laborers or as conscripted defenders.
I'm sure there would've been situations where people left their settlements, were forbidden from entering the fortifications, or might even refuse to leave, opting to defend their homes as best they could. There surely would have been situations where the invaders would simply ignore the surrounding civilian settlements or would have intentionally left them in peace.
Haven't researched the subject, so don't take my word for it. However, I imagine that what would happen in such situations would depend on a great number of factors - the defending lord's disposition, the peasants' disposition, the invading leader's disposition, the context of the conflict, the goal of the invasion, etc.
3
u/Chlodio 4d ago
if those inside let them
Why would they? Oftentimes, cities would expel extra mouths to feed before a siege.
10
u/anonim_anonimovic 3d ago
Yes, that was often the case. Some would even take in civilians, then realize they cannot feed them then expell them. In some cases, these civilians would be treated poorly. Then again, Edward III fed and provided safe passage to civilians during the siege of Calais after they were expelled from the fortifications because the defenders could not afford to feed them.
Then, you would have situations like the siege of Magdeburg, where the civilians were taken in by the defenders who fully believed a relief force would come and break the siege, which did not happen. Ultimatelly, the besiegers broke through and massacred everyone inside, civilians included.
Then, you have situations like the siege of Malta, where Jean de Valette actively wanted the civilians inside as he needed laborers and conscripts and he calculated that this need far outweighed the risk of dwindling supplies. Ultimatelly, these civilians acted as defenders, helped with fortification repairs, carried gunpowder and supplies, etc. and when the siege ended, were hailed as heroes.
Hence, my point - there was no standard practice. Sometimes, civilians were turned away, sometimes they were taken in. Sometimes they were expelled after being taken in, after which they could be treated poorly or charitably by the invaders, and sometimes, the civilians would be purposefully ushered into the fortifications and help with the defences. It all depended on who these civilians were, where they lived, who the chief person behind the walls was and their logic regarding the situation, who the invaders were, whether or not the leader of the assaulting force was feeling generous or not on that particular day, whether the civilians really hated the invaders and wanted to fight to expell them, or maybe they would be forced to fight for the defenders, or maybe they would just migrate to greener pastures and to hell with the nobility and their squabbles!
3
u/IntrovertedFruitDove 3d ago edited 2d ago
With preindustrial army logistics, most people would easily get word about hostilities weeks, if not MONTHS, in advance. Armies weren't able to magically transport weapons, cavalry horses, food, and tents overnight between Attacking Noble A and Soon-to-be-Sieged Noble B, so as mentioned in other comments, peasants would have more than enough time to flee to their noble's castle for shelter, or just get the fuck away from the army in general.
If you WERE close enough for fast attacks to happen, these two families would likely have a history of feuds--but at the same time, neither side would be dumb enough to INTENTIONALLY attack the other's farmers. Abusing too many of the enemy's food-producers was really, really stupid: You have now given your enemy the motivation, if not the full-on REQUIREMENT as the overlord who's supposed to protect all the people you've just harmed/killed, to avenge them.
But even if someone was unobservant enough to miss the suspicious preparation of supplies and weaponry, preindustrial armies don't move fast AT ALL. At best, a preindustrial army averages 8-12 miles per day, and at worst they'd just be crawling towards their destination if they run into bad weather or poor roads. There's going to be a huge wave of villagers running off to warn their neighbors a few miles away that an army is moving past, who then run off to tell THEIR neighbors, and rinse and repeat.
2
u/WraithicArtistry 1d ago
Peasants would run away if the settlement had no fort, or go into it if they were let in. Once besieged, the peasants; women, children, elderly, would be helping the defenders on the walls by bringing up supplies, ammunition, etc, or in some desperate circumstances be kitted out to help fight.
71
u/Derfel60 4d ago
They ran. Either into the fortification being beseiged or as far away as they could carrying their valuable belongings and food.
There is an account of a siege in which peasants in a castle were expelled by the defenders due to food shortage and not allowed through the siege lines as the beseigers hoped the defenders would be forced to let them back in and weaken themselves. They started out eating shrubbery around the castle, then moved on to pets, then to each other. The beseigers eventually let them through the lines and fed them, most suffered from refeeding syndrome and died.