Travelling In The Middle Ages



In most of my novels there’s a journey. It might be a short one from the coast to the north of Hampshire, or it might be a long one, from Bordeaux to Southampton. It’s a common misconception about the Middle Ages that people were stuck in their villages or towns and were unaware of what was going on elsewhere, but that was not the case.

It’s true that some people never travelled further than the local market and others didn’t have the opportunity to travel. Villeins, for example, were tied to their lord’s manor and could not leave it without his permission, but freemen could go, more or less, wherever they wanted. For various reasons, many people in the fourteenth century travelled far and wide.

For ordinary people, the most common reasons for travelling were to visit a shrine or to fight. Many were satisfied with visiting a fairly local shrine, but others ventured further afield to Walsingham and Canterbury. Those who could afford it could go abroad to Compostela, Rome or Jerusalem. Going on a pilgrimage was popular and there was a widely-held belief that more than a few pilgrims were merely tourists, wanting to see more of the world than their small part of it.

Armies travelled. Recruits gathered at a local mustering place then moved off to join the rest of the army to go north to fight the Scots, or south to fight the French.

It was said after Edward III’s military victories in Normandy in 1346 that every house in England received something from the treasures taken during the campaign. Whilst this is obviously an exaggeration to show how successful the campaign had been, many ships were needed to carry back what had been taken and most of the 15,000 or so men who had gone to France would have returned with some physical item and stories about what France was like.

Travellers brought back tales of the places they had visited. With few forms of entertainment, men and women who could bring new stories from different places were popular.

Travel was far more common among people higher up the social scale. The king and his court were almost constantly on the move. This was a practical necessity, as the size of the court meant that local resources would be consumed quickly. The king had many properties of his own, but he could also visit his nobles. Such a visit was not always welcome, however, as it would always be costly to the host. It was unusual for the king to stay more than three weeks in any one place.

Nobles usually had estates spread out around the country which they might visit from time to time. Like the king, they would not travel light.

When the parliament met it was attended by members of the nobility, senior clerics, knights and burgesses, about four hundred men, plus their retinues and servants, all of them travelling across the country. Accommodating them was a large strain on some of the smaller towns and it became increasingly common for the parliament to meet in Westminster where it was easier to find places for them to lodge.  Many nobles and bishops had their own accommodation in London.

Others with religious business travelled around England. Archbishops and bishops went to and from Avignon, where the pope was, and visited places within their dioceses. Clerics travelled widely about their masters’ business. There were also many itinerant preachers teaching things people would not hear in their own parish church.

Travelling was not something to be undertaken lightly. A long-distance journey needed preparation – and companions. It was not safe to travel alone. The roads were beset by bandits. Often these were soldiers who had no trade to return to during the lulls in fighting against the Scots and the French.

There were no maps, or rather the purpose of a map was not to assist a traveller. People used itineraries instead. An itinerary listed the places between your starting point and your destination. If you were lucky, you could travel with someone who had some experience of at least the initial part of the route.  If you were not, you would have to ask the inhabitants of the town you were in how to get to the next place. Rivers were often helpful. If you followed a major river you were bound to come to a market town.

The main roads mostly followed the Roman roads. When these had deteriorated to the point of being unusable, the ‘new’ roads ran next to them. These connected towns which had been important in Roman times, but many towns which had become important by the fourteenth century had not existed then. The main roads were mainly kept in good repair by order of the king, who needed them to get himself and his armies around the kingdom. Other roads were often very poor and could be blocked unexpectedly.

Someone on foot and in a hurry could travel fifteen to twenty miles a day in good conditions. If the weather was bad or the roads were poor, that might become six to eight miles. A cart might manage twelve miles a day, less in winter. A man on horseback might travel twenty to twenty-five miles a day, if he had to use the same horse for the whole journey. Rich men and officials could change horses and managed thirty to forty miles a day.

The distance covered in a day would depend on the number of hours of daylight, the time of the year, the weather and where the next inn was. If the next inn was five miles away and it was mid-afternoon in winter, there was little point trying to get to it. Travellers and animals had to eat and rest, and that took time.

The king’s highways were supposed to be cleared either side for 200 feet. This was to deny cover to the brigands who preyed on travellers.

Sometimes there were waymarks to show routes through woods, but these could easily be moved to lead travellers into the hands of waiting bandits.

Roads were not the only routes across the country. The major rivers were used extensively. Most goods were transported by boat. It was far cheaper to send goods by water than by road. It cost more to send wine fifty miles in a cart than it did to send it nearly one thousand miles from Bordeaux to London by sea. Boats had flat bottoms which meant that more stretches of river were navigable than they are today.

No matter where you were going, travelling beyond the bounds of your town or village was always an adventure.



The Time Traveller’s Guide to Medieval England – Ian Mortimer

A Social History of England 1200 – 1500 – ed. Rosemary Horrox and W. Mark Ormrod




Filed under Fourteenth Century, Medieval Travel

26 responses to “Travelling In The Middle Ages

  1. I used to live near Walsingham and pilgrimages to it were still going on back then, amazing how long that’s gone on. Interesting post April.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. And today we complain about a one-hour delay on our flight.

    Grest information

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you, Dan. Whenever I go on a long trip in the comfort of my car I think about how long it would have have taken on foot or horseback.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I had written a post last year about a church in our town, and how it was started because the closest church was simply too far to travel. This was the mid-1800s and the other church was about 5 miles away (both still in use).

        Liked by 1 person

        • That happened in the Middle Ages as well. The church I went to a couple of Christmases ago was built in the twelfth century so the parishioners didn’t have to go all the way to the parish church.

          A ten-mile round trip in the mid-1800s would have taken a long time. I’m guessing that most people would not have had any form of transport other than their own feet.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Really enjoyed this ‘history lesson’ very interesting and makes sense really that people had no reason or desire to travel/explore. Will be sharing this article with my Dad who loves anything to do with history too. Love your blog.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. We take our ability to travel (money, time, and health permitting) so much for granted nowadays. I suspect that then as now, curiosity and a sense of adventure prompted some to take to the road, though percentage-wise fewer would have been able to indulge their curiosity.

    Though having written that, I’ve just reminded myself that even a very short excursion can be an adventure.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. When I first drove in Britain, I found the signs on back roads baffling. To figure out which one to take, I’d need to memorize every small town and village between wherever I was and my destination, because I could never predict which ones would be listed. It was only when I heard about travelers navigating by itineraries, not maps, that they began to make sense to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Always a different perspective, April, often practical, always fascinating – love it!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Wow, this is so different from what travel is like for people in Europe and North America these days.

    I’m curious, April – was it uncommon for women to travel in the middle ages? It sounds like no one was particularly safe on the road, but I wonder if your gender could make it even more dangerous?

    If you haven’t blogged about this already, I’d be curious to see what you could find on the topic.


    • Women did travel as pilgrims and to local markets – a woman is one of the pilgrims in The Canterbury Tales. They would also have travelled with their husbands. I don’t think many women would have been able to make the choice to travel, but it’s something I’m keeping an eye open for.

      Being a woman certainly did make it more dangerous. A woman would always have had to travel with a group of people, never on her own.


  8. I’m so excited to have found your blog! I’m a PhD student in medieval history and I hope to write historical fiction some day. I can’t wait to follow along and to read back through your older posts!

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Gosh April, this post really blew my old perceptions of travel out of the water. Considering the logistics and the danger, its surprising that ordinary folk undertook journeys at all. The picture of travelling soldiers is a good one. Is it a tapestry?
    I am unfamiliar with the word ‘villeins’. Is that where ‘villain’ was derived from?

    Liked by 1 person

    • The picture is just a picture. I think people travelled when they had to and took precautions.

      Villeins were people who were not free. They belonged to the lord of the manor. I don’t know if the word is related to villain, I suspect that it isn’t, but it is related to village, which was the place where villeins lived,

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Pingback: Medieval Itinerary | A Writer's Perspective

Please join the conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s