0
Is it true the the serfs were not able to own the land they farmed?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Serfs did not own land. They lived and worked on manors owned by members of the nobility.
2nd answer: That is only partially accurate. Serfs did not own land in the modern sense. But many did have rights to a certain amount of farmland in the field of the manor they resided on. They owed the lord some combination of rents, fees, and labor for this land, but by tradition and practice a serf could not be deprived of the land he held from the lord. Serfs were not slaves. They could not be bought or sold, or forced to leave their holdings. They were not fully free either, as they did owe an amount of labor to their lord, as well as rents and various payments in kind.
The lord of the manor did not really "own" the land of the manor either. The lord might hold this land from a greater lord, and in exchange owe military service or money in exchange. Much like the serf, the lord of the manor could not be arbitrarily deprived of his holding, but he had duties and responsibilities regarding it.
So for any given piece of land, there were several people who had both some claim and also responsibility relating to that land. There was very little if any "fee simple" property, to use the modern legal term, in the middle ages, meaning property that was clearly owned by one person without outside duties or encumbrances.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoA serf was bound to the land of the manor, but was not technically part of the manor. The manor could be bought or sold, but the serfs could not. They were not free to leave, but the lord of the manor was not free to make them leave either. They lived on a manor because they had an hereditary right to be there.
They were not free, because they had to work and did not have the right to leave. But they did have rights.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoOne Answer:
None. They were slaves. Slaves have no rights.
Another Answer:
Serfs were not slaves and did have rights. There were a very few slaves in Europe during the middle ages, but serfs were not among them.
Serfs were not free, they were bound to the soil and could not leave it, but aside from this they were mostly free. They were in a state of mutual support with the lord. The lord had a right to a part of their crop, or the monetary value of that part, and the serfs had a right to live and work on the land, and to protection provided by the lord. This was a two way deal, and could not be broken without cause or without agreement of both parties.
Serfs had rights to protection provided by the Church. They could get sanctuary in a church or monastery, and in some times and places, even agents of the king did not have the right to remove them. This was true regardless of their reason for seeking refuge, and this right was extended to accused felons.
In many places, serfs who wanted to leave the manors where they lived could run away, and if they were gone for a year they were regarded as free. That being the case, we might wonder that they did not all run away, except for one thing: they had the right to live on the manor, to work there, and to be protected. They had security on the manor, and if they ran away, they would lose that security.
Serfs who were accused had a right to trial in most places. Legal procedures of the Middle Ages were not what Hollywood would like us to believe. In some places, if people accused of a crimes swore they were innocent, all they had to do to establish sufficient probability of innocence to be let off, in the absence of strong proof to the contrary, was to get twelve people to go on record as saying they believed the oath was true.
In many places, the person on a manor who decided what fields the individual serfs would work was called the reeve. The reeve also represented the lord to the serfs and the serfs to the lord. In many times the reeve was a serf who was elected in a general meeting of serfs of the manor.
There are links below. There are a number of other links at the question, "What was a serf's life like?"
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoNo they were slaves and slaves don't own land.
-----
Serfs did not own land.
Serfs were not slaves, but they were people who were bound to the soil of a manor. This meant that they had obligations to do work or provide money or a part of the crop to the lord of the manor, but it also meant they had a right to live and work there and could not be evicted without due cause. They even retained their right to live on and work the land if the manor was sold. They could not be bought or sold, and their lord was obliged to protect them in times of unrest, and to see that they had food in times of famine. They had a level of security other people did not have.
If a serf had enough money, he could buy land. But he had no reason to do this unless he had a desire to be free of the manorial obligations, and was willing to loose the security they provided. Becoming free was simpler for a serf than for a slave, because the landlord was freed of his obligations to the serf by the same process. Sometimes a serf had to pay for his freedom, but there were times when lords encouraged serfs to leave the manor so they could have more control over the land they owned.
Once a serf got out of the manorial obligations and moved to his own land, however, he was no longer a serf but of a different status. If he rented or leased land, and had given up his rights to it, he was a freeman. If he bought his own land, he was a yeoman.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoYes, that's true. Serfs farmed the lands owned by the nobility.
===================================================
Answer: All land was owned by the king or by the Church. Nobody else could own land, they were simply holding it by virtue of the feudal system.
This involved the king apportioning large sections of his land to his Earls in return for taxes, military service and loyalty. The Earls in turn gave out sections of land to knights of different ranks, in return for the same obligations. The knights did not have any desire to work their own land-holdings, so they parcelled it out to peasants in return for rents, work obligations, military service and so on.
This idea of land-holding was the basic foundation of the feudal system; everybody was governed and controlled by someone else and the king (or the Church) had the right to confiscate any land they wished at any time and give to to another land-holder.
Wiki User
∙ 12y agoDuring the times in the Middle Ages when there were serfs, and in those places where there were serfs, the lands of the knights were usually farmed by serfs.
Serfs did not exist everywhere, and they did not exist anywhere for the entire Middle Ages. In the times when they did not exist, a knight's land would have been farmed by tenant farmers.
You should also understand that the manorial system did not enslave the serfs or force them to work without compensation. Under the manorial system, the serfs had to farm the land, but the lords of the manors had to give them places to live, fields to farm for themselves, and protection. It was a two-way deal, and not always something the knights felt happy about, because they were obliged to provide for the serfs whether they wanted to or not. Even if the manor was sold, the new owner was not allowed to evict the serfs - they had a right to live there.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoOdysseyWare cheater
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is true about crusades?
They were fights over the Holy Land.
Which was true of the west in the period after civil war?
there was available land
What was bad about being a peasant in the middle ages?
Most medieval peasants were serfs. Some were free. The situation for free peasants and serfs was different. Peasants were mostly farmers. As farmers, they had places to live and work, which they were less likely to lose than their counterparts in towns and cities were. In addition, for serfs, the place to live and work were guaranteed by the manorial system, as rights. Serfs were also supposed to have a right to protection in times of war or famine - the lord was legally obliged to provide these things. Disadvantages included a lack of social mobility. Peasants did not normally get educated, and did not have an easy way to improve their lives. Again, for serfs, they were obliged to remain at their jobs on the manors, and could not legally leave. They were said to be bound to the soil. There were times of unrest in Europe when free people gave up their freedom to become serfs on manors, because they would otherwise starve or be somehow otherwise destroyed. The protection serfs got was very important when things were bad.
What was true of feudalism in Europe?
Feudalism was a system in which landowners pledged loyalty to more powerful landowners, becoming their vassals. The majority of people were peasants, farming land they did not own.Serfs owed crops to their lords.Serfs lived outside the castle walls.Lords had a lot of power over serfs.Kings owned the land, and lords owed them loyalty.
What language did a serf speak from the middle ages?
The language a person spoke depended more on where they lived than on what class they were in. It is true that there was a class based distinction of language in England for a couple hundred years after the Norman conquest, with the nobility speaking French and the serfs speaking Old or Middle English. But in general, the serfs spoke languages that were ancestral to modern languages in much the same way that Old English was ancestral to English. The main difference was that there were more languages in those days. For example, among medieval Germanic languages, several have disappeared, including all East Germanic Language such as Burgundian, Gothic, and Vandalic.
Could freemen could rent land and hire serfs?
True.
After serfs gained ther freedom what is true of their conditions?
After the serfs gained their freedom, they were able to move about, but they had lost the security of being serfs, who had rights to the land, and so were not really much better off than they had been in many cases. In fact, in some cases, they were considerably worse off.
Why did the Russians emancipate their serfs and with what results?
For the first time, the serfs were not tied to the land, and had the opportunity to work for their own benefit. Although it seemed to be a great act that would benefit the serfs above all others, this was not entirely true. The compensation of the landowners far outweighed what the serfs were able to gain. The land that they were provided, was not of the same quality the landlords kept for themselves.
True or false serfs were the lord's slaves?
False. Serfs were legally bound to a certain piece of land and obligated to work for the lord who owned that land, but they were not considered slaves as they were not owned by the lord and did have some legal rights and protections.
What was true about medival manors?
the serfs had to pay the lords to farm on their land.
Is it true Medieval manors were nearly self sufficient?
Yes, during Medieval Times, almost all items were produced inside the manor by serfs, who were bound to the land. There was a system of mutual obligations between the Lords of the manors and the serfs who worked for them. Lords provided serfs with food, housing, and protection, and sometimes a bit of their own land. In return, serfs worked the lord's land by producing food from the fields, and repairing bridges and roads. Serfs were also required to pay the lord to grind grain and ask his approval in order to marry.
Which was true of feudalism in Europe serfs?
Serfs owed crops to their lords.Apex.
Who were serfs loyal to?
Serfdom is a form of slavery in which the serfs are considered to be part of the land upon which they live. They have no right to move someplace else, but neither does anybody else have the right to move them. When the land is sold, the serfs go with it. The owner of the land is entitled to whatever the land can produce, and that includes whatever the serfs can produce. I suppose you could say that they work for the landowner, but that's pretty far removed from what we talk about today when "work" usually means the same as "employment." I think it would be more accurate to say that the serfs worked for themselves, but the landowner had the right (and the might) to take as much of their produce he wanted. More I would agree with the above in large part. But to say serfs were slaves is not quite accurate, because they were free except for the fact that they could not leave the manor and had to pay rent. And to say that the landowner had the right to as much of the production as he wanted is not true - the amount was usually stipulated. Also, serfs sometimes worked for money, and this was especially true of those serfs who were not agricultural. Please see the links below.
When seftdom was abolished what did most serfs become?
tenant farmers Serfdom was abolished in 1861 by Tsar Nicholas I. This was not true abolition, because the Russian government took some land away from the owners and compensated them for it. The former serfs were then responsible to repay the government for the compensation paid. This was commonly done over a 49 year period and the former serfs would not own their own land until the full amount of the debt was repaid. In all practicality, the "freed" serfs were still bound to the land because they had no where else to go to effectively make a living. In that sense, they were very much like the tenant farmers the original answerer states they were.
Is it true that the men hunted while the men farmed in the algonguian tribe?
no
After serfs gained their freedom what is true of their conditions?
the conditions stayed the same. <><><><><><><><><><><><>
When serfdom was abolished What most serfs become?
tenant farmers Serfdom was abolished in 1861 by Tsar Nicholas I. This was not true abolition, because the Russian government took some land away from the owners and compensated them for it. The former serfs were then responsible to repay the government for the compensation paid. This was commonly done over a 49 year period and the former serfs would not own their own land until the full amount of the debt was repaid. In all practicality, the "freed" serfs were still bound to the land because they had no where else to go to effectively make a living. In that sense, they were very much like the tenant farmers the original answerer states they were.
