0
If a serf's land was sold, the serf typically lost their home and livelihood, as they were bound to the land and had limited rights. The new landowner would assume control over the serf, often imposing new obligations or terms of service. This could lead to significant upheaval in the serf's life, potentially resulting in displacement and loss of social status. Additionally, the sale could disrupt established relationships within the community, as the serf's ties to the land and local economy were often deeply rooted.
What else can I help you with?
In Medieval Times serfs were the responsibility of?
The nobility. They were a little more than a slave, so if the lord sold the land or estate that the serf was attached to the serf was sold too as part of the estate.
Who did the serfs serve?
AnswerThe nobility. They were slaves. AnswerThe serfs were not slaves. They were not free, as they were bound to the land they lived on, but they could not be bought or sold, and they could not be taken off the land by the lord any more than they could leave it without his permission. Doubtless they sometimes did work as servants, but usually they were agricultural, and they were much more likely to take work doing simple labor than as servants. There were reeves, who organized and supervised the serfs on manors, and who acted as representatives for the lords to the serfs and for the serfs to the lords. The reeves, however, were also serfs, and were often elected by the serfs annually. There are links below.
What people were in the same level as the serf in medieval times?
Serfs were on about the same social level as villeins and cottars. Serfs were above slaves, if any existed in the place where the serfs lived. Serfs were not bought or sold, but they were not free to leave the land on which they lived. They were mostly agricultural workers and unusually had plots of land assigned to them to farm for their own benefit. Villeins were like serfs, but did not have plots of land assigned to them. Cottars were apparently like serfs except that they were not bound to the land and had the option of moving away, which would have been a rather risky thing to do since it would leave them without home or income, unless they had some other arrangement. The nature of the cottar is not clearly understood, however. Above the serf, but not necessarily much above, were freemen, who were not bound to the land. Most of these people worked in agriculture, but they had other types of work to do. The simpler non agricultural chores of life were performed largely by serfs. These things included cleaning, helping cooks, lugging bricks for masons, digging ditches, washing and repairing clothes, and so on. They might have included such work as weaving, baking, cooking, depending on circumstances. Clearly there were hierarchies within job types. Please see the link below.
In what way were serfs bound to the soil?
Most peasants were serfs. Serfs were people who could not lawfully leave the place where they were born. Though bound to the land, serfs were not slaves. If a lord transferred ownership of land, the serfs went with it. Their lords could not sell or buy them, but most of what their labor produced belonged to the lord.
What was the relationship of the lord and serf?
The serfs worked for the lords and the lords gave them land and food and protectionSerfs differed from slaves in some important respects, and one of them is that they were not owned. They could not be bought or sold. They were not free because they were bound to the land they lived on and could not move away. If the owner of a manor sold it, the serfs stayed on the manor. They were not sold with the manor, but they did belong there, and the new owner could not move them off the land. The relationship between the serf and the owner of the manor was one of mutual obligation. The serf had to work and provide a part of the crops to the lord. The lord had to provide the serf with a place to live and a plot of land to farm and protection. Buying a manor meant buying the obligation to protect the serfs who lived there.
What were the slaves called in Sparta?
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
What continent did serfs come from?
Nearly all serfs were born on the land where they lived, and nearly all of the Middle Ages were European. Serfs were not taken as captives and transported or sold as slaves. They were considered to be bound to the land they lived on, rather than to some feudal lord, and they neither leave the land, nor be made to leave it.
What are differences between serfs and slaves?
Serfs were tied to the land and could not be sold, whereas slaves were considered property and were often bought and sold. Serfs typically had some rights and were subject to fewer harsh treatments compared to slaves. Serfs were also a part of the feudal system, while slaves were seen as items of property in various societies.
In Medieval Times serfs were the responsibility of?
The nobility. They were a little more than a slave, so if the lord sold the land or estate that the serf was attached to the serf was sold too as part of the estate.
What happen to the mission land after Mexico gained its independence?
It was sold.
Who did the serfs serve?
AnswerThe nobility. They were slaves. AnswerThe serfs were not slaves. They were not free, as they were bound to the land they lived on, but they could not be bought or sold, and they could not be taken off the land by the lord any more than they could leave it without his permission. Doubtless they sometimes did work as servants, but usually they were agricultural, and they were much more likely to take work doing simple labor than as servants. There were reeves, who organized and supervised the serfs on manors, and who acted as representatives for the lords to the serfs and for the serfs to the lords. The reeves, however, were also serfs, and were often elected by the serfs annually. There are links below.
During medieval times who or what was tied to the land?
Serfs, who were little better than slaves!MoreI would have to disagree that they were little better than slaves. For example, they had a right to a place to live and fields to farm, and could not be evicted without due cause. If the land was sold, the new owner had to respect their rights to use it. They had a right to be protected. In many places, the reeve was elected by the serfs. And in many places, if they left, they were considered free after a year. Please see the links below.
Who were serfs loyal to?
Serfdom is a form of slavery in which the serfs are considered to be part of the land upon which they live. They have no right to move someplace else, but neither does anybody else have the right to move them. When the land is sold, the serfs go with it. The owner of the land is entitled to whatever the land can produce, and that includes whatever the serfs can produce. I suppose you could say that they work for the landowner, but that's pretty far removed from what we talk about today when "work" usually means the same as "employment." I think it would be more accurate to say that the serfs worked for themselves, but the landowner had the right (and the might) to take as much of their produce he wanted. More I would agree with the above in large part. But to say serfs were slaves is not quite accurate, because they were free except for the fact that they could not leave the manor and had to pay rent. And to say that the landowner had the right to as much of the production as he wanted is not true - the amount was usually stipulated. Also, serfs sometimes worked for money, and this was especially true of those serfs who were not agricultural. Please see the links below.
What are differences of being noble and being a serf?
Nobles were aristocrats with power, wealth, and land ownership, while serfs were peasants bound to the land and subject to the authority of the nobles. Nobles had social status, legal privileges, and often lived in luxurious conditions, while serfs had limited rights, were tied to the land they worked on, and lived in poverty.
would slaves be considered peasants?
No . Unlike serfs and freemen slaves did not have rights and were sold to higher ranked people like kings
How are serfs similar to slaves and how are serfs different from slaves?
Serfs and slaves were similar in that both were considered property, had obligations to their lords, and lacked freedom to move about as they pleased. However, serfs were tied to the land they worked on, whereas slaves were considered personal property and could be bought and sold. Serfs also had certain legal protections and some degree of autonomy over their own lives, while slaves had no legal rights and were completely under the control of their owners.
Which of the following best describes serfs?
Serfs are often described as unfree. More accurately, because that term is usually misunderstood, they might best be called peasants who were bound to the land they lived on but did not own. The problem with the term unfree, is that most people think it means slave, which it was not. Serfs did not have a right to move away from the land they lived on, but unlike slaves they could not be bought or sold, and unlike slaves, they had a right to live and work on the land. They owed the lord rent, usually in the form of labor or a part of the crop, but they had a right to expect the lord to protect them. There is a link to an article on serfs below.
