1st Answer:
The word "serf" is Latin for slave, so they were called serfs/slaves because that is what they were.
2nd Answer:
The Latin for slave is servus. A number of words are derived from it, including both serf and servant. A serf, however, was not a slave, but a person who was in a state of mutual obligation with a landlord, which included a legal obligation not to move away. Please see the link below.
The nobility fought for everyone, the clergy prayed for everyone, and the serfs fed everyone.
The serfs were the lowest class. They provided food and simple labor. They did not have much in the way of power, and could be abused by their superiors, but they did have rights and were not slaves. They were bound to the soil, not the owner of the manor. They not permitted to leave the lands to which they were bound, but the owner could not put them off of it either; they occupied the land they lived on by right. They were not bought or sold.
The serfs provided some countries with the lowest level of soldiers. In England they provided the strongest part of the army, as was proven at the battles of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, where they broke the heavily armored French knights utterly.
The serfs could influence nations, especially if they cooperated with the merchants and freemen of towns and cities, but this level of cooperation rarely developed. There is an occasional case of a serf leading a successful revolt, and even subsequently becoming king, as happened in Bulgaria when the peasant, Ivaylo the Cabbage became ruler in 1278. It did not work out well for him, however, as being king had problems of its own.
The serfs were near the bottom of the food chain in the Feudal System.The vassals either served the King , or a local Lord. Some people who chose to remain free risked starvation and no protection from marauders if they rejected serfdom.
they were just like peasants but were more lower class
If you are talking about the mid-ages then it was important because land was how the lords got money. People, like farmers would use the land and the lords would get rent from them
They did all the work and made up the foot soliders for the armies.
because they need serf to work for them.
the serfs grow crops for everyone in the city / castle / village . if there are no serfs , people will barely have food to eat , to feed the animals , they grow crops for selling and for food , the earn money by the food , they can't live if they done sell them , the money will go to clothes , materials , rents and even marriage and furniture
hhhh
Scribes
The serfs of Laconia were called helots.
Serfs just what you asked in your question. Sometimes they were referred to as villain.
They were called serfs.
It was called the code of chivalry.
serfs
They were called serfs. Since they were not slaves, it is not precise to say they were owned by the lord.
they were called serfs
Serfs
They're called villeins or serfs, they both have the same meanings. A serf or villein is an un-free peasant bound to a particular land and owned by their Feudal lord.
the workers are called serfs and a quarter of the land belongs to king as personal property and some will be given to churches and some were leased for rent.
They were not slaves - they were serfs, ie bound to the land. The had some rights, and were entitled to the produce of the land after paying tribute to their owners. And they couldn't be sold. So no, they were not slaves.These serfs were called Helots