What is the difference between a peasant and serf and slave?

Answer 1

They are similar but peasants are free and owe the land they work. Another difference is that serfs didn't have the same rights as peasants did, serfs had less. They had to pay allegiance to the lord of the area. A serf on the other hand did not pay their "dues" so they are forced to stay on the land, but owed allegiance to the lord of the manor, as an agricultural worker.

Answer 2

A slave was owned by his master. He had no wages, no freedom and was bound to

serve him for life. A serf was tied to the land held by his lord. He could farm but he

could not share in the profits and could never leave his lord for a new one. A peasant would farm for his lord and did share to some extend in the profit but he could also sell his labour or anything like vegetables he grew aside from what he grew for his lord.

He had a better chance of actually becoming more than what he was than either a slave or a serf.

Answer 3

A serf lives on their master's land, a peasant owns their own land.

2nd Answer: The above is not quite accurate. A serf, also called a villain, owed labor to their lord, but this labor was in proportion to the amount of land they themselves controlled. The amount varied over the course of the year, but probably didn't average more than two days each week. The balance of the serf's time was spent tending their own gardens and fields. A sef could not permanently leave the manor without permission of the lord, but this was sometimes negotiated for a fee.

A villain may become financially successful enough to hire others to do his labor obligations for the lord. This was an acceptable and legal practice, as long as the labor was done.

A free peasant did not owe labor to this lord, but would still owe rents for his land in the village fields, and various payments in goods at different points during the years. Both serf and peasant owed the local parish one tenth of their agricultural production each year as a tithe. This was not a voluntary contribution, as in modern churches, but was more like a tax.

Being serf or free did not necessarily indicate wealth. There was a considerable variation in wealth in medieval villagers, and both serf and free could range from very poor, dependent on day labor to supplement the production of their gardens and fields all the way to those who had enough land to take on tenants of their own, with considerable variation in between.

Answer 4

A serf, also called a villain, owed labor to their lord, but this labor was in proportion to the amount of land they themselves controlled. The amount varied over the course of the year, but probably didn't average more than two days each week. The balance of the serf's time was spent tending their own gardens and fields. A sef could not permanently leave the manor without permission of the lord, but this was sometimes negotiated for a fee.

A villain may become financially successful enough to hire others to do his labor obligations for the lord. This was an acceptable and legal practice, as long as the labor was done.

A free peasant did not owe labor to this lord, but would still owe rents for his land in the village fields, and various payments in goods at different points during the years. Both serf and peasant owed the local parish one tenth of their agricultural production each year as a tithe. This was not a voluntary contribution, as in modern churches, but was more like a tax.

Being serf or free did not necessarily indicate wealth. There was a considerable variation in wealth in medieval villagers, and both serf and free could range from very poor, dependent on day labor to supplement the production of their gardens and fields all the way to those who had enough land to take on tenants of their own, with considerable variation in between.

Answer 5

Peasants were farmers who worked the land for the the Lord ( landlord) while a serf was a slave.