Nowhere, because World War I was fought well after the medieval period ended. There were no medieval serfs alive during WWI. Now, if you are talking about, for example, the Russian peasantry, they probably mostly just stayed in their rural villages and tried to hold out as best as they could.
Serfs had different ways of freeing themselves.
In theory, a serf could negotiate his freedom with his lord. I have read of serfs buying their freedom, but I am not convinced this happened often enough to be historically significant. A mutual agreement does not require exchange of money, and there were reasons a lord might want a serf to become free, and reasons why the serf might not especially want to be so.
One way a serf could become free of his lord was to go to a monastery, either as a monk or as a refugee. Whether the monastic life could be considered free or not is a matter of debate.
A serf could run off to a city or large town. Some towns had freedom built into their charters because a monarch wanted to build the population; any serf who got to such a town was free, as long as he stayed there. Also, in many places, a serf who ran off the manor was considered free if he stayed off for a full year.
We should remember that freedom did not mean the same thing then as it does today. There was no social support system for free people, aside from the monasteries. A serf who moved to a city really did have to fend for himself, and if he failed, things could be very bad indeed.
By contrast, a serf who stayed on the manor had a number of very important rights, which provided a level of security people of the Middle Ages considered very important. Being bound to the soil meant the serf could not be evicted without cause. He had a right to a place to live, fields to work, and protection in times of trouble. So there was an attraction to the unfree status of the serf, and it was a status some people willingly took on in times of trouble.
Monasteries
Monasteries
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.
Monasteries
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
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.
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+
Monasteries
Freedom Of Speech Freedom Of Religion Serfs dont owe Nobility work
Serfs were slaves tied to the land and lord and nothing would free them. Freemen were peasants who had bought their freedom.
the conditions stayed the same. <><><><><><><><><><><><>
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.
Monasteries
At the very bottom. They had no freedom and no one below them.
because the serfs were slaves and had no freedom and were part of the landowners property
Cities began to grow, and serfs gained freedom.
Serfs were similar to slaves in that they were tied to the land they worked on and were subject to the authority of the landowner. They were required to provide labor and goods to the landowner in exchange for protection and a place to live. While serfs were not considered property like slaves, they had limited rights and freedoms, similar to those held by slaves.
blajh
You are probably thinking of a serf. Serfs were basically like slaves; they were tied to the land and forced to work. They were like peasants but they did not have freedom, peasants had freedom.