What is the difference between middle ages village and city London?

Answer 1

The houses in a village would mainly be of timber, wattle and daub and they had roofs thatched with straw, reeds or rushes (whichever was available locally). Fire was an ever-present danger.

City houses in London had to be made fire-proof according to law (from the London Assize of 1189 onwards) by plastering and whitewashing. both inside and out, all timber buildings. Roofs must not be thatched with reeds or rushes "but with tile only, or shingles. or boards, or lead . . . also that it is proper that before every house should be a tub full of water, either of wood or stone". Many houses would have been built entirely of stone, posing much less fire risk.

Villages were small settlements with a single church, a priest and perhaps one or two manor houses; all the remaining buildings would be for working peasants. Most villages had no defensive walls or bank and ditch.

In London there was St Paul's cathedral (the seat of a bishop) and a large numbers of parish churches, with many domestic buildings belonging to wealthy men, both nobles and the merchant/craftsman class of peasants. London also had a stone city wall 18 feet high with fortified gates, plus three castles: the Tower of London, Montfichet Castle and Castle Baynard. The population of London in the 12th century as over 20,000, compared with just 30 houses at the village of Wharram Percy (representing a population of perhaps 130).