Life, Work, Death and the Peasant, Part IVc: Rent and Extraction This article by Bret Devereaux is the third piece of the fourth part in a series exploring the lives of pre-modern peasant farmers, the majority of humanity historically. It builds on prior analyses of peasant subsistence assuming ideal conditions with infinite land and shifts to real-world constraints such as limited land, small farm sizes, and extraction by landlords. --- Key Themes and Findings Limited Land Holdings & Their Impact Model families farmed unusually large land areas (30-56 acres), which is much larger than typical peasant holdings historically. Typical peasant farms were very small: Roman farms: 3-6 acres Ptolemaic Egypt indigenous farms: ~3-7 acres Medieval Saint-Thibery village median farm size: ~3 acres Most peasants owned far less land than the model assumes, making subsistence and surplus generation a challenge. Three farm sizes modeled: Small: ~1.85 acres (3 iugera) Medium: ~3.8 acres (6 iugera) Large: ~5.6 acres (9 iugera) Productivity and Labor Requirements Average yields in wheat-equivalent kg per iugerum varied by fertility from 81.2 to 189.5 kg. Fallow land accounted for about a third of the area, reducing labor needs but also output. Labor requirements to farm land were significant but not overwhelming relative to available labor—the problem lay more in land size. Small peasant households rarely had enough land to fully employ their labor efficiently, leading to underproduction relative to needs. The Need for Extra Land & Systems of Access Peasants needed access to more land beyond what they owned. Bringing new land under cultivation was difficult and expensive (clearing forests, irrigation, terracing). Land was often owned or controlled by “The Big Man” — elites, nobility, religious institutions owning large estates from hundreds of acres. Many peasants leased or sharecropped land from richer peasants or landlords. Tenancy and Sharecropping Sharecropping was common: peasants farmed landlord land for a share of the crop, often ~50/50. Tenancy terms varied based on who supplied labor, seed, plow teams, water, etc. Tenant farmers typically supplied labor and part of inputs, receiving less than the full production. Under tenancy, yields available to peasants could be cut approximately in half compared to freehold land. This made it much harder for tenant farmers to meet subsistence, let alone “respectability” or comfort. Extraction by Elites Landholders (Big Men) extracted surplus labor and produce: To fund elaborate elite lifestyles, wars, public works, temples, scribes, and other non-farming activities. Multiple mechanisms of extraction: Military levy systems requiring sizeable peasant conscription (e.g., Roman armies consumed ~15% of male labor). Corvée labor: mandatory unpaid labor on noble or state projects. Heavy taxation, sometimes up to 50% or more on indigenous peasant lands, on top of rents. Debt peonage: peasants indebted to landlords unable to repay, trapping them in exploitative conditions. Extraction often maximized because surplus labor was available but peasants could barely fulfill basic needs. Labor and Living Standards Peasants worked 250-300 days/year at 10-12 hour days, totaling 2,500-3,600 annual hours. This compares to a modern US worker who may work ~2,000 hours but enjoys a far higher standard of living. Despite intense labor, peasants experienced low material comfort. Many peasants aimed only for subsistence or slightly above due to diminishing returns and marginal utility. They balanced labor investments against quality of life, often choosing rest over extra work with limited benefit. --- Important Observations Typical peasant households were too large relative to their land, leading to fractionalized and inefficient farming. Bringing new land into