Want this question answered?
The conditions never actually lead to opposition to the tsars themselves; the tsars were near-worshipped and revered as father figures for the whole country. However, much opposition was given to the practise of serfdom, and the landlords which enforced it. Again, many serfs were also treated well and did not actually have a problem; others were content with what they had. Those that did resist were usually those in the worst conditions and/or with the worst landlords. They were treated worse than livestock (stock could be sold for more than an equivalent weight of serf; more human power could also be fetched if needed, so they did not need to be treated well) and this led to the outrage of unequal conditions.
Most likely because the serfs were considered to be lower then dirt at the time, they felt it unnecessary to improve the lives of those who aren't even considered human.
In 1861, Alexander II freed the serfs and gave them small farms.
If you are refering to Russian serfdom. Russian serfs were free in the emacipation reform of 1861. Over 20 million serfs were given their freedom. They were also granted the right to get married with out haveing to seek consent.
AnswerNo. Not in Europe and 1861 was well past the middle ages. In the United States there were still slaves so in a sense there were still serfs. AnswerThe serfs of the Russian Empire were freed in 1861. There is a link below.
The Emancipation of serfs in Russia in 1861 was primarily motivated by economic concerns, as the serf system was seen as hindering industrial progress and modernization. Additionally, growing social unrest from the serfs and pressure from European powers played a role in pushing for emancipation. Tsar Alexander II's desire to modernize and gain public support also contributed to the decision to emancipate the serfs.
government was separated in culture and geographically from the serfs. This caused a threat of revolt as the conditions for serfs to work and live were becoming too dire. There was also a famine meaning that serfs had to give away too much of there produce in the form of tax, circling back round to the fact that there were bad living conditions. You must also take into account the fact that Alexander II had took a 7 month tour of 30 different Russian provenances, meaning we would have seen the conditions they were living in.
The conditions never actually lead to opposition to the tsars themselves; the tsars were near-worshipped and revered as father figures for the whole country. However, much opposition was given to the practise of serfdom, and the landlords which enforced it. Again, many serfs were also treated well and did not actually have a problem; others were content with what they had. Those that did resist were usually those in the worst conditions and/or with the worst landlords. They were treated worse than livestock (stock could be sold for more than an equivalent weight of serf; more human power could also be fetched if needed, so they did not need to be treated well) and this led to the outrage of unequal conditions.
When Alexander II freed the serfs (peasants) in Russia in 1861. The serfs were never truly freed. The Russian government bought land from the landowners to give to the serfs, but the serfs were required to repay the Russian government. These repayments took 49 years and the serfs stayed on the land until it was fully repaid.
the emancipation of russia serfs
Most likely because the serfs were considered to be lower then dirt at the time, they felt it unnecessary to improve the lives of those who aren't even considered human.
Peasants and serfs
In 1861, Alexander II freed the serfs and gave them small farms.
the conditions stayed the same. <><><><><><><><><><><><>
He heavily taxed almost all products, resulting in the serfs becoming poor.
No. They were serfs and lived very poorly.
If you are refering to Russian serfdom. Russian serfs were free in the emacipation reform of 1861. Over 20 million serfs were given their freedom. They were also granted the right to get married with out haveing to seek consent.