Despite all figures and facts to the contrary, identification with the farming class in Tyrol remains widespread to this day as a nostalgically romanticised self‑image. Free, independent, and indispensable—this is the image of farmers between Landeck and Kufstein. Although fewer than 2 per cent of the population today earn their living from agriculture, farmers manage—through active associations, skilful self‑representation, and political lobbying structures—to achieve a level of representation in society that is disproportionate to their numbers. This was not always the case; in fact, the situation had once been the exact opposite. For centuries, by far the largest proportion of the population worked in agriculture, yet farmers possessed little political influence. The landlords not only owned the land itself but also exercised authority over the agricultural population. Independent action as active participants in the economic system was unthinkable for farmers. Rent was regularly collected in the form of payments in kind. The social order was rigid. The local lesser nobility administered the peasantry within their territories and, in turn, paid their dues to the territorial prince or bishop.

Three types of relationships existed between farmers and landlords. Throughout the Middle Ages, serfdom (Leibgeding) was common. Farmers worked on the lord’s estates as serfs. This dependency could extend so far that decisions regarding marriage, property, mobility, and other aspects of personal life were not freely permitted. In the vast majority of Tyrol, however, this form had already disappeared by the Early Modern period.

The second form, known as temporary tenure (Freistift), involved leasing a farm for a fixed period, usually one year. As a rule, the lease was renewed, since both landlords and farmers—much like employers and employees today—benefited from long‑term continuity. However, tenants had no legal right to remain on the property, and there were no written contracts regulating the arrangement. These orally agreed leases were governed by customary law and tradition. The landlord could reassign farmers within his estates at will or evict them entirely. If a farm was transferred within a family from father to son with the landlord’s consent, a fee—known as an Ehrung—of up to 10 per cent of the farm’s value had to be paid.

The third and most modern form was hereditary tenure (Erbleihe). Although the land technically remained the property of the landlord, eviction was no longer easily possible. Hereditary tenants paid lower rents than temporary tenants. In autumn—either on St Gall’s Day (16 October) or St Martin’s Day (11 November)—farmers holding land in hereditary tenure had to deliver their rent, which gradually shifted from payments in kind to monetary payments. Through land purchases or skilful marriage strategies, farmers were able to enlarge their holdings. Farms were inherited within families. Retired farmers who transferred their property during their lifetime—the so‑called transfer “with the warm hand”—retained the right to live on the farm and were supported through an agreed retirement provision (Ausgedinge).

In the fifteenth century, political rules began to change. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, a form of modern statehood gradually emerged. Territorial princes had long regarded the lesser nobility—with their intermediary role and independent jurisdiction—as an obstacle. Monarchs and the high aristocracy sought to exercise direct authority over their subjects. While the estate‑based social order and hereditary privilege remained formally intact, the role of the lesser nobility changed fundamentally. They shifted from being lords with direct power over their subjects to estate administrators and organisers of territorial defence on behalf of the prince. In order to limit the influence of the lesser nobility, Duke Frederick IV formally recognised hereditary tenure in his Territorial Ordinance of 1404. With the exception of the territories of the prince‑bishops of Trent and Brixen, this form of tenancy gradually replaced temporary tenure throughout Tyrol. Legal disputes between farmers and landlords had to be brought before the territorial prince. Through this political measure, Frederick secured the immediate loyalty of his subjects, gaining direct access to military manpower and tax revenues. Farmers benefited by no longer being entirely subject to the arbitrariness of their landlords. Hereditary tenure transformed farmers into a kind of entrepreneur, enabling them to participate in early capitalism as market actors. Although they remained exposed to natural forces and broader political conditions—such as wars or customs regulations—they now had the opportunity to rise above the subsistence‑level existence of earlier centuries. After delivering the tithe and providing for their households, farmers sold surplus goods at market. Hard‑working and capable farmers could accumulate a certain degree of prosperity. Economic developments from the fifteenth century onwards—particularly Innsbruck’s rise as a residential capital and mining activities in Hall and Schwaz—benefited farmers in the surrounding villages. Officials employed at court and workers in the emerging mining industry formed a middle class with increased purchasing power. Demand for meat rose, which in turn led to a shift towards livestock farming, seen as more profitable than arable agriculture. Broader economic conditions also played a role. Inflation following the discovery of the New World and its silver mines, along with the financial upheavals of the sixteenth century, reduced the real value of monetary rents. Small farmers leasing land under temporary tenure and paying rent in kind suffered from currency devaluation, while large agricultural enterprises benefited from it.

Local inheritance laws also played a major role in determining regional economic success or decline. In North Tyrol’s upper regions and in South Tyrol, partible inheritance (Realteilung) prevailed: farms were divided among all heirs, leading to fragmentation and reduced profitability. In contrast, in the Innsbruck region and the Lower Inn Valley, impartible inheritance (Anerbenteilung) was common. With few exceptions, the eldest child inherited the entire farm in order to preserve its structure. Siblings were usually forced to leave and earn their living as servants, craftsmen, farmhands, or maids. As Söllhäusler—people owning only a small house and perhaps a garden but no significant land—they belonged to the Pöfel, a marginal social group that included innkeepers, itinerant people, prostitutes, servants, and beggars. In cases of illness or destitution, they had limited claims against the heir and could temporarily return to the farm. Depending on the value of the holding, siblings might be entitled to an annuity, though in most cases this was minimal or nonexistent. Even then, farmers were adept at presenting the book value of their property as low as possible.

These developments led to new social structures within farms themselves and to increasing disparities within the farming class. Farmers exercised authority over their servants in all matters, akin to the pater familias of the extended family in ancient Rome. Life on the farms bore little resemblance to the idyllic family life often promoted today as traditional Tyrolean lifestyle. Instead, large, clan‑like family units lived under the strict regime of the farmer, who determined labour routines, food, accommodation, limited leisure, and personal relationships. Clear hierarchies emerged within villages. Hereditary tenants enjoyed higher status than temporary tenants; large farmers were held in higher regard than small ones and often took leading roles in village life. Particularly successful and loyal farmers were granted family coats of arms by the territorial prince and elevated to the rank of farming nobility. In a society where honour and status were valued at least as highly as money itself, the title of a free farmer was far more than a mere symbol. These structures persisted in rural areas well into the nineteenth century, and in more remote regions even into the twentieth century. At the outbreak of the First World War, more than 50 per cent of Tyrol’s population was still employed in agriculture. The fine farmhouses in Hötting, Wilten, Pradl, and Amras—whose façades proudly display family coats of arms and references to hereditary farm status—stand as testimony to the rise of the farming class in the Early Modern period.