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.
Lords had the duty to provide protection and justice to their serfs. They were responsible for maintaining law and order in their territories, ensuring that serfs were safe and not subject to external threats or violence. Additionally, lords were expected to provide basic necessities such as food, shelter, and protection during times of conflict or hardship.
Nobles and serfs shared common interests in maintaining stability and security within their communities. Both groups were invested in the land, as it was crucial for their livelihoods; nobles relied on agricultural production for wealth, while serfs depended on it for sustenance. Additionally, both sought protection from external threats, whether from rival factions or bandits, leading to a mutual interest in the preservation of order and safety in their respective domains.
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+
Serfs are Islamic
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+
There are no serfs in Russia today.
Serfs were barely above slaves themselves. I doubt any serfs ever owned slaves.
Serfs owed crops to their lords.Apex.
The serfs were tied to the land they lived on and farmed.
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.
How could the Crusades change a serfs’ life?
The serfs belonged to the poor class.