The Byzantine Empire is often remembered for its emperors, glittering churches, and refined theological debates. Yet behind the splendor of mosaics and imperial ceremony lay a vast population of poor and vulnerable people.
Poverty was not a marginal phenomenon in Byzantium; it was a persistent social reality that shaped law, religion, urban life, and moral thinking. It was also understood, managed, and given meaning through imperial policy and Christian ideals of charity—making it not only an economic condition, but a social and ideological one. To understand Byzantine society fully, we must examine how the poor lived, how they survived, and how both the state and the church perceived them.
Defining Poverty in Byzantium
Poverty in Byzantium was not a single, uniform condition. Byzantine sources use a range of terms—ptōchos (destitute beggar), penēs (working poor), widows, orphans, the disabled, and the elderly—to describe different levels and types of deprivation. Some individuals were chronically poor, lacking land, skills, or family support. Others experienced temporary poverty caused by famine, war, illness, or displacement.
Unlike contemporary economic definitions, Byzantine poverty encompassed a multifaceted understanding that extended beyond mere material deprivation to include moral and spiritual dimensions. In the context of Byzantine society, Christian teachings stressed the importance of humility and cautioned against the dangers of excessive wealth, creating a complex interplay between the ideals of virtuous simplicity and the harsh realities of desperate need. This ethical framework meant that the wealthy were often viewed with suspicion, seen as potentially corrupt or spiritually impoverished despite their material abundance.
Nonetheless, the day-to-day realities for many individuals were stark and unforgiving; hunger was a pervasive threat, and homelessness plagued the urban and rural poor alike. The lack of social safety nets left countless individuals vulnerable to exploitation and violence, further exacerbating their plight. Additionally, the absence of adequate protection from natural disasters or economic instability meant that many often lived on the brink of survival, enduring a precarious existence marked by uncertainty and fear.
The Urban Poor: Life on the Margins of the City
Topographical map of Constantinople during the Byzantine period.- map by Cplakidas / Wikimedia Commons
Cities, particularly Constantinople, attracted a significant influx of the impoverished, drawn by the promise of opportunities that were often unattainable in rural settings. Urban centers presented a diverse range of economic options, including casual labor in bustling marketplaces, access to charitable organizations, and proximity to churches and institutions that provided vital aid. However, this migration to cities also intensified the stark contrasts in wealth and power, magnifying social and economic inequalities.
The urban poor comprised various vulnerable groups, including:
Unemployed laborers and porters who were often left desperate for work as economic conditions fluctuated.
Artisans, such as skilled tradespeople like blacksmiths and carpenters, who found themselves without clients during periods of economic downturn, leading to widespread hardship.
Widows lacking male protectors, who faced not only financial difficulties but also social marginalization, as societal norms often left them without means of support.
Orphans and abandoned children, left to fend for themselves on the streets, frequently falling victim to exploitation and neglect.
The elderly and disabled, who struggled with limited mobility and resources, often relying on the charity of others to survive in a hostile environment.
Housing for the urban poor was generally characterized by overcrowding and hazardous conditions. Many families were crammed into subdivided apartments or makeshift shelters that lacked basic sanitation and safety standards, while others were forced to sleep in public spaces, such as parks or under bridges. The ever-present threats of fire, rampant disease, and chronic hunger loomed large over their daily existence. Yet, despite these hardships, cities offered a level of anonymity and a network of relief that villages could not provide, allowing individuals to escape the scrutiny of their neighbors.
The dynamics of urban poverty also had significant political implications. Crowds of discontented citizens, often comprised of the poor, could quickly become volatile, especially during times of food shortages or political unrest. Emperors and city leaders were keenly aware that neglecting the needs of the urban poor could provoke instability, leading to riots or even rebellion. The delicate balance of governance required that the grievances of the impoverished be addressed to maintain order and transparency within the bustling life of the city.
Rural Poverty: Hardship and Dependence
Man Feeding Mule, Byzantine Mosaic. by Hagia Sophia Research Team / World History Encyclopedia
Although urban poverty was more visible due to its concentration in cities, the majority of poor Byzantines actually resided in the countryside. Rural poverty was deeply influenced by several interrelated factors, including land ownership distribution, taxation policies, and environmental conditions such as droughts and soil fertility. Smallholders and tenant farmers, who often cultivated marginal lands, were especially vulnerable to unpredictable agricultural conditions, with a single bad harvest capable of plunging an entire family into a cycle of debt or dependency.
As agricultural conditions proved increasingly precarious, many peasants found themselves economically tethered to powerful landowners. In exchange for protection and access to land, they relinquished their financial independence, becoming debt-bound laborers. While they were not legally classified as slaves, these rural poor frequently lived under oppressive obligations, which included paying high rents or providing labor services. Such commitments severely restricted their opportunities for social advancement and entrenched their positions within a rigid socioeconomic hierarchy.
In contrast to their urban counterparts, the rural poor had limited access to organized charitable support. Their survival was often contingent upon the strength of kinship networks and the solidarity of their villages, where mutual aid was critical in times of crisis. Additionally, the goodwill of local elites, influential landowners, or monastic institutions played a pivotal role in their livelihoods, as these entities could provide necessary assistance or resources in difficult times. The complexities of rural poverty in Byzantium illuminate the intricate interplay between economic vulnerability and social structure during this period.
Survival Strategies of the Poor
The Byzantine poor were not passive victims. They developed a range of strategies to survive in a harsh and unequal society:
Casual labor: carrying goods, construction work, agricultural labor
Begging: especially near churches, markets, and pilgrimage sites
Family networks: pooling resources across extended kin
Religious service: informal work for monasteries or churches
Migration: moving between countryside and city in search of opportunity
Begging was widespread but socially ambiguous. While Christian doctrine encouraged almsgiving, beggars were sometimes viewed with suspicion, accused of laziness or deception. Still, begging was an accepted survival mechanism, particularly for those physically unable to work.
The Role of the Church in Charity
13th century Byzantine mosaic – photo by Medievalists.net
The Orthodox Church played a central role in the care of the poor. Charity (philanthrōpia) was considered a Christian duty and a path to salvation. Bishops, monks, and wealthy patrons funded institutions that provided relief to the needy.
Church-run charitable institutions included hospitals (xenones), which offered medical care regardless of status; poorhouses and hostels; shelters for travelers, refugees, and the homeless; orphanages (care and education for abandoned children); and soup kitchens, which distributed food during crises.
These institutions were often attached to monasteries or episcopal centers and were among the most advanced welfare systems of the medieval world. Importantly, they were not limited to emergency aid but formed part of a permanent social infrastructure.
Charity was also highly visible. Public alms-giving reinforced the moral authority of the Church and allowed elites to display piety while reinforcing social hierarchies.
Imperial Charity and State Responsibility
The Byzantine state did not leave welfare entirely to the Church. Emperors were expected to act as protectors of the poor, mirroring God’s care for humanity. Imperial ideology portrayed the emperor as a father figure responsible for justice and mercy.
State involvement included:
Grain distributions in Constantinople
Emergency relief during famine or siege
Legal protections for widows, orphans, and the poor
Endowments for charitable institutions
Some emperors, such as Justinian and Basil II, actively legislated to protect the poor from exploitation by powerful elites. However, enforcement varied, and corruption was common. Still, the idea that the state had moral obligations toward the poor was firmly embedded in Byzantine political culture.
Social Perceptions of the Poor
The Rich Man and Lazarus, from the Codex Aureus Epternacensis, c. 1030.
Attitudes toward the poor in Byzantium were complex and often contradictory. Christian teaching emphasized compassion, humility, and the spiritual value of helping the poor. At the same time, social elites often viewed poverty as a sign of moral failure, divine testing, or lack of discipline.
The poor were frequently regarded as mere objects of charity, rather than empowered agents of change within society. This perception often served a morally instructive purpose, compelling the wealthier classes to reflect on their own humility and responsibilities. Additionally, it contributed to a narrative of social inferiority that further entrenched class distinctions, fostering a sense of separation between the affluent and the impoverished.
In hagiography, or the study of saints’ lives, narratives commonly depict saints who actively assist the poor, with some even disguising themselves as beggars to truly understand their plight. These stories not only reinforced the notion that acts of charity were vital indicators of holiness but also inadvertently idealized the state of poverty itself. This approach shifted the focus away from addressing the systemic causes of poverty, thereby perpetuating the very conditions that left many in need. By glorifying the saintly virtues of selflessness and compassion, such accounts often overlooked the necessity for structural change that could alleviate the burdens of poverty in a more meaningful way.
Crisis and the Expansion of Poverty
Throughout history, devastating events such as war, plague, and famine have frequently increased the number of individuals living in poverty. Military campaigns not only led to the displacement of entire populations but also resulted in the destruction of farmlands, which were vital for sustenance, and severely disrupted trade routes essential for the exchange of goods. During these turbulent times, epidemics such as the Justinianic Plague swept through communities, overwhelming existing charitable systems and starkly revealing the vulnerabilities of social support networks designed to assist the needy.
In the face of these crises, charitable efforts often intensified as citizens sought to aid their suffering neighbors; however, the available resources were frequently insufficient to meet the growing demand. These critical moments in history illuminated both the resilience of Byzantine welfare structures and their inherent limitations, showcasing society’s attempts to respond to overwhelming challenges while also highlighting the systemic weaknesses that could be exploited in times of dire need.
Poverty as a Mirror of Byzantine Society
The Byzantine poor were not merely a separate or overlooked group; they were an integral and dynamic part of the empire’s complex social fabric. Their presence significantly influenced various aspects of Byzantine society, shaping religious practices, legal theories, imperial ideologies, and urban living conditions. Charity, in this context, transcended mere kindness; it became a foundational principle that linked wealth, power, and spiritual salvation, reflecting a deep-seated belief in the moral obligation of the wealthy to care for the less fortunate.
However, the reality of poverty also laid bare profound inequalities and societal tensions within Byzantine culture. While the empire cultivated sophisticated systems of care for its vulnerable populations—such as hospitals, orphanages, and alms distribution—these systems often reinforced existing social hierarchies rather than challenging them. The poor were frequently the subjects of prayers and charitable acts, positioned as beneficiaries of societal goodwill, yet they were seldom granted true agency or empowerment within the structures that governed their lives.
By delving into the lives of the Byzantine poor, we are offered a more nuanced understanding beyond the grand narratives of emperors and majestic cathedrals. It enables us to explore the everyday struggles they faced, the moral values that guided their existence, and the resilience they exhibited, ultimately shedding light on the human experiences that contributed to the sustainability of one of history’s longest-lasting empires.
Zoe Tsiami is a PhD(c) in Byzantine History at University of Thessaly. Her research interests include baptism, catechism and naming practices in the Early Byzantine period. She has published papers and taught at workshops relevant to Early Byzantine/Christian history.
By Zoe Tsiami
The Byzantine Empire is often remembered for its emperors, glittering churches, and refined theological debates. Yet behind the splendor of mosaics and imperial ceremony lay a vast population of poor and vulnerable people.
Poverty was not a marginal phenomenon in Byzantium; it was a persistent social reality that shaped law, religion, urban life, and moral thinking. It was also understood, managed, and given meaning through imperial policy and Christian ideals of charity—making it not only an economic condition, but a social and ideological one. To understand Byzantine society fully, we must examine how the poor lived, how they survived, and how both the state and the church perceived them.
Defining Poverty in Byzantium
Poverty in Byzantium was not a single, uniform condition. Byzantine sources use a range of terms—ptōchos (destitute beggar), penēs (working poor), widows, orphans, the disabled, and the elderly—to describe different levels and types of deprivation. Some individuals were chronically poor, lacking land, skills, or family support. Others experienced temporary poverty caused by famine, war, illness, or displacement.
Unlike contemporary economic definitions, Byzantine poverty encompassed a multifaceted understanding that extended beyond mere material deprivation to include moral and spiritual dimensions. In the context of Byzantine society, Christian teachings stressed the importance of humility and cautioned against the dangers of excessive wealth, creating a complex interplay between the ideals of virtuous simplicity and the harsh realities of desperate need. This ethical framework meant that the wealthy were often viewed with suspicion, seen as potentially corrupt or spiritually impoverished despite their material abundance.
Nonetheless, the day-to-day realities for many individuals were stark and unforgiving; hunger was a pervasive threat, and homelessness plagued the urban and rural poor alike. The lack of social safety nets left countless individuals vulnerable to exploitation and violence, further exacerbating their plight. Additionally, the absence of adequate protection from natural disasters or economic instability meant that many often lived on the brink of survival, enduring a precarious existence marked by uncertainty and fear.
The Urban Poor: Life on the Margins of the City
Cities, particularly Constantinople, attracted a significant influx of the impoverished, drawn by the promise of opportunities that were often unattainable in rural settings. Urban centers presented a diverse range of economic options, including casual labor in bustling marketplaces, access to charitable organizations, and proximity to churches and institutions that provided vital aid. However, this migration to cities also intensified the stark contrasts in wealth and power, magnifying social and economic inequalities.
The urban poor comprised various vulnerable groups, including:
Housing for the urban poor was generally characterized by overcrowding and hazardous conditions. Many families were crammed into subdivided apartments or makeshift shelters that lacked basic sanitation and safety standards, while others were forced to sleep in public spaces, such as parks or under bridges. The ever-present threats of fire, rampant disease, and chronic hunger loomed large over their daily existence. Yet, despite these hardships, cities offered a level of anonymity and a network of relief that villages could not provide, allowing individuals to escape the scrutiny of their neighbors.
The dynamics of urban poverty also had significant political implications. Crowds of discontented citizens, often comprised of the poor, could quickly become volatile, especially during times of food shortages or political unrest. Emperors and city leaders were keenly aware that neglecting the needs of the urban poor could provoke instability, leading to riots or even rebellion. The delicate balance of governance required that the grievances of the impoverished be addressed to maintain order and transparency within the bustling life of the city.
Rural Poverty: Hardship and Dependence
Although urban poverty was more visible due to its concentration in cities, the majority of poor Byzantines actually resided in the countryside. Rural poverty was deeply influenced by several interrelated factors, including land ownership distribution, taxation policies, and environmental conditions such as droughts and soil fertility. Smallholders and tenant farmers, who often cultivated marginal lands, were especially vulnerable to unpredictable agricultural conditions, with a single bad harvest capable of plunging an entire family into a cycle of debt or dependency.
As agricultural conditions proved increasingly precarious, many peasants found themselves economically tethered to powerful landowners. In exchange for protection and access to land, they relinquished their financial independence, becoming debt-bound laborers. While they were not legally classified as slaves, these rural poor frequently lived under oppressive obligations, which included paying high rents or providing labor services. Such commitments severely restricted their opportunities for social advancement and entrenched their positions within a rigid socioeconomic hierarchy.
In contrast to their urban counterparts, the rural poor had limited access to organized charitable support. Their survival was often contingent upon the strength of kinship networks and the solidarity of their villages, where mutual aid was critical in times of crisis. Additionally, the goodwill of local elites, influential landowners, or monastic institutions played a pivotal role in their livelihoods, as these entities could provide necessary assistance or resources in difficult times. The complexities of rural poverty in Byzantium illuminate the intricate interplay between economic vulnerability and social structure during this period.
Survival Strategies of the Poor
The Byzantine poor were not passive victims. They developed a range of strategies to survive in a harsh and unequal society:
Begging was widespread but socially ambiguous. While Christian doctrine encouraged almsgiving, beggars were sometimes viewed with suspicion, accused of laziness or deception. Still, begging was an accepted survival mechanism, particularly for those physically unable to work.
The Role of the Church in Charity
The Orthodox Church played a central role in the care of the poor. Charity (philanthrōpia) was considered a Christian duty and a path to salvation. Bishops, monks, and wealthy patrons funded institutions that provided relief to the needy.
Church-run charitable institutions included hospitals (xenones), which offered medical care regardless of status; poorhouses and hostels; shelters for travelers, refugees, and the homeless; orphanages (care and education for abandoned children); and soup kitchens, which distributed food during crises.
These institutions were often attached to monasteries or episcopal centers and were among the most advanced welfare systems of the medieval world. Importantly, they were not limited to emergency aid but formed part of a permanent social infrastructure.
Charity was also highly visible. Public alms-giving reinforced the moral authority of the Church and allowed elites to display piety while reinforcing social hierarchies.
Imperial Charity and State Responsibility
The Byzantine state did not leave welfare entirely to the Church. Emperors were expected to act as protectors of the poor, mirroring God’s care for humanity. Imperial ideology portrayed the emperor as a father figure responsible for justice and mercy.
State involvement included:
Some emperors, such as Justinian and Basil II, actively legislated to protect the poor from exploitation by powerful elites. However, enforcement varied, and corruption was common. Still, the idea that the state had moral obligations toward the poor was firmly embedded in Byzantine political culture.
Social Perceptions of the Poor
Attitudes toward the poor in Byzantium were complex and often contradictory. Christian teaching emphasized compassion, humility, and the spiritual value of helping the poor. At the same time, social elites often viewed poverty as a sign of moral failure, divine testing, or lack of discipline.
The poor were frequently regarded as mere objects of charity, rather than empowered agents of change within society. This perception often served a morally instructive purpose, compelling the wealthier classes to reflect on their own humility and responsibilities. Additionally, it contributed to a narrative of social inferiority that further entrenched class distinctions, fostering a sense of separation between the affluent and the impoverished.
In hagiography, or the study of saints’ lives, narratives commonly depict saints who actively assist the poor, with some even disguising themselves as beggars to truly understand their plight. These stories not only reinforced the notion that acts of charity were vital indicators of holiness but also inadvertently idealized the state of poverty itself. This approach shifted the focus away from addressing the systemic causes of poverty, thereby perpetuating the very conditions that left many in need. By glorifying the saintly virtues of selflessness and compassion, such accounts often overlooked the necessity for structural change that could alleviate the burdens of poverty in a more meaningful way.
Crisis and the Expansion of Poverty
Throughout history, devastating events such as war, plague, and famine have frequently increased the number of individuals living in poverty. Military campaigns not only led to the displacement of entire populations but also resulted in the destruction of farmlands, which were vital for sustenance, and severely disrupted trade routes essential for the exchange of goods. During these turbulent times, epidemics such as the Justinianic Plague swept through communities, overwhelming existing charitable systems and starkly revealing the vulnerabilities of social support networks designed to assist the needy.
In the face of these crises, charitable efforts often intensified as citizens sought to aid their suffering neighbors; however, the available resources were frequently insufficient to meet the growing demand. These critical moments in history illuminated both the resilience of Byzantine welfare structures and their inherent limitations, showcasing society’s attempts to respond to overwhelming challenges while also highlighting the systemic weaknesses that could be exploited in times of dire need.
Poverty as a Mirror of Byzantine Society
The Byzantine poor were not merely a separate or overlooked group; they were an integral and dynamic part of the empire’s complex social fabric. Their presence significantly influenced various aspects of Byzantine society, shaping religious practices, legal theories, imperial ideologies, and urban living conditions. Charity, in this context, transcended mere kindness; it became a foundational principle that linked wealth, power, and spiritual salvation, reflecting a deep-seated belief in the moral obligation of the wealthy to care for the less fortunate.
However, the reality of poverty also laid bare profound inequalities and societal tensions within Byzantine culture. While the empire cultivated sophisticated systems of care for its vulnerable populations—such as hospitals, orphanages, and alms distribution—these systems often reinforced existing social hierarchies rather than challenging them. The poor were frequently the subjects of prayers and charitable acts, positioned as beneficiaries of societal goodwill, yet they were seldom granted true agency or empowerment within the structures that governed their lives.
By delving into the lives of the Byzantine poor, we are offered a more nuanced understanding beyond the grand narratives of emperors and majestic cathedrals. It enables us to explore the everyday struggles they faced, the moral values that guided their existence, and the resilience they exhibited, ultimately shedding light on the human experiences that contributed to the sustainability of one of history’s longest-lasting empires.
Zoe Tsiami is a PhD(c) in Byzantine History at University of Thessaly. Her research interests include baptism, catechism and naming practices in the Early Byzantine period. She has published papers and taught at workshops relevant to Early Byzantine/Christian history.
Click here to read more from Zoe Tsiami
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts