Serf's weren't freed and the modern life has nothing to compare with the middle ages.
Tsar Alexander II freed the serfs in 1861.
Because they didnt want to tell the serfs that they were slaves and would want to promise them freedom in a way that is really hard to active because they knew that they couldnt do it
Tsar Alexander II "freed" the serfs. He didn't free them entirely though. Serfs were bound to the land they worked on rather to the owners of the land. Alexander II had the Russian government buy some land from the owners and gave the land to the "freed" serfs in collective in each village. The serf remained bond to the land until he repaid the government the money it had paid to the owners over a 49 year period of time. A serf could leave the land but would have no land to work.
If a lord gave a knight land with serfs on it the serfs would take care of it and if the knight moved the serfs wouldn't. Once you are a serf you can't go back neither can your family. So your children and their children and their children and so on have to be a serf. So to answer your question: A serf stayed with the land. I also gave you a definition on a serf. And there is a bunch of sentences with serfs in them above.
Tsar Alexander II "freed" the serfs in 1861, but the serfs were still bound to the land for another 49 years. The Russian government took land from the landowners and paid them for it. This land was put into collectives and each serf had to make enough money over the next 49 years to repay the government the money it had given to the landowners. Once the debt was paid off the serf was free to leave if he wanted. Alexander II was assassinated in 1881.
How could the Crusades change a serfs’ life?
Tsar Alexander II freed the serfs in 1861.
Because they didnt want to tell the serfs that they were slaves and would want to promise them freedom in a way that is really hard to active because they knew that they couldnt do it
The life of a serf was work all day mabey some fun but when the sun went down so did they.
The word "serf" means slave and a monk was of the clergy. They were different people with different stations in life.
AnswerA poor peasont who works on the land of a manor who has no rights (he/she can't even get married without permission) until he/she can buy his own piece of land OR the serf can be freed by living in a city for one year and one day. Serfs are NOT slaves, although they have a lot in common! MoreSerfs did have rights. There is a link below to a related question, "What was a life for a serf?"There is also a link below to a part of an article that deals with different kinds of peasants, including serfs.
All the prop serf protected Europe life and helped Hebert live
Tsar Alexander II "freed" the serfs. He didn't free them entirely though. Serfs were bound to the land they worked on rather to the owners of the land. Alexander II had the Russian government buy some land from the owners and gave the land to the "freed" serfs in collective in each village. The serf remained bond to the land until he repaid the government the money it had paid to the owners over a 49 year period of time. A serf could leave the land but would have no land to work.
If a lord gave a knight land with serfs on it the serfs would take care of it and if the knight moved the serfs wouldn't. Once you are a serf you can't go back neither can your family. So your children and their children and their children and so on have to be a serf. So to answer your question: A serf stayed with the land. I also gave you a definition on a serf. And there is a bunch of sentences with serfs in them above.
The diet of a serf was mainly porridge, cheese, black bread, and a few home-grown vegetables. Although not technically a slave, a serf was bound to a lord for life. He could own no property and needed the lord's permission to marry.
The only way they were alike is that they were human. Nobles lived life better than peasants and serfs. Peasants were a little better off than a serf since they weren't a slave and a serf was. Yet, a peasant was an economic slave. He couldn't leave the land, and he owed his life to the lord(landlord). He had to do what he was told and pay his taxes to the lord and the church even in death.
I am not really sure what you are asking since this isn't a complete thought, but the serf was the lowest of all in the system so they were also the ones that could be used for any means. They had no standing as slaves.