Serfs did not have fiefs. They were bound to the soil and not allowed to leave it. The arrival of a new lord did not change this. Nevertheless, the serfs were largely free to farm as they pleased.
The condition of the serfs was not slavery, but a different sort of thing governed by a sort of contract in which the serfs and the lords each had obligations to the other. The serfs had to pay rent in some form, labor, part of the crop, or money. For his part the lord had to provide a place to live, fields to farm, and protection in such difficult times as war or famine. The serfs were not allowed to leave the land, and the lords were not allowed to force them off of it.
The serfs had reeves to organize them. The reeves were also serfs and were often elected by the serfs on a manor. The reeves decided how the serfs would be organized for their common labor, what fields would be tilled and what crops planted, and what parcels would go to which family for their own use.
It depends on the country we're talking about. In most countries and as a general rule, the serfs were 'bound' to the estate and would simply continue as the serfs of the new lord. In imperial Russia, serfs could be traded independently from the estate. If a new owner had bought the estate, what happened to the serfs then depended on what had been arranged in the sales agreement. But even then massive displacements were rare.
the serfs had to pay the lords to farm on their land.
A lord's estate was called a manor. It had a manor house for the lord and his family, a number of cottages for the serfs who lived and worked on the manor, farm buildings, farm land, woods, and fields. Usually, the serfs' cottages were grouped into one or more hamlets and quite possibly a village with a church.
The manor system protects serfs and merchants, that live in manor. Knights allowed peasants to farm land on their large estates. In return the peasants had to give the knights food, goods or other payment.
The Manor's serf's provided food for the lord of the manor, and the in return gave them gifts of bread or extra vegetables on occasion. The serfs are happy because of the gifts they receive so they continue to farm the lords land which continues to give he lord food. the cycle continues.
AnswerThey owned the serf. AnswerThe nobility did not own the serfs. The matter is a bit more complicated than that. The relationship between the nobility and the serfs was one of mutual obligation. The serfs had to pay rent in the form of labor, money, or a share of the crops. They were legally obliged not to move off the manor.The nobility had to provide places for the serfs to live, land for them to farm, and protection.In many places, if any serf who ran off the manor was considered free after a year. The thing that kept the serfs on the manor was only partly the law. Perhaps more importantly, the thing that kept the serfs on the manor was that by running off, they were giving up their homes, their jobs, and their security.Please see the links below.
This is a system called the Manor System. The lord of the manor would hire knights. To attracted workers the lord would say that his soldiers would protect the serfs who lived on the farm. In return the serfs would have to farm on the land. So the knights made the manor militarily self sufficient and the serfs' farming made them economically selfsufficient
the serfs had to pay the lords to farm on their land.
A lord's estate was called a manor. It had a manor house for the lord and his family, a number of cottages for the serfs who lived and worked on the manor, farm buildings, farm land, woods, and fields. Usually, the serfs' cottages were grouped into one or more hamlets and quite possibly a village with a church.
The manor system protects serfs and merchants, that live in manor. Knights allowed peasants to farm land on their large estates. In return the peasants had to give the knights food, goods or other payment.
The Manor's serf's provided food for the lord of the manor, and the in return gave them gifts of bread or extra vegetables on occasion. The serfs are happy because of the gifts they receive so they continue to farm the lords land which continues to give he lord food. the cycle continues.
Cogges Manor Farm ended in 2009.
Maidstone Manor Farm was created in 1848.
AnswerThey owned the serf. AnswerThe nobility did not own the serfs. The matter is a bit more complicated than that. The relationship between the nobility and the serfs was one of mutual obligation. The serfs had to pay rent in the form of labor, money, or a share of the crops. They were legally obliged not to move off the manor.The nobility had to provide places for the serfs to live, land for them to farm, and protection.In many places, if any serf who ran off the manor was considered free after a year. The thing that kept the serfs on the manor was only partly the law. Perhaps more importantly, the thing that kept the serfs on the manor was that by running off, they were giving up their homes, their jobs, and their security.Please see the links below.
Manor Farm appears on several pages. The first page to mention Manor Farm is page 5. Some other pages that mention Manor Farm are 19, 22, 34, 56, and 112.
Mr. Jones owned Manor Farm and his affliction was being an alcholic
Serfs did not own land, and this was part of what made them serfs. Serfs were not slaves, but they were not free either. They were bound to the soil, which meant they could not legally leave the manor they lived on to live somewhere else. They did not have a right to leave, but they did have a right to farm the land. They could choose what to farm, but not where to farm. They often farmed communally, with other serfs of the same manor, but they nearly always had plots of land assigned to them for their own personal use. In exchange for giving the lord of the manor a part of their crop, they got the land, their homes, and protection. It was a system of mutual support and mutual obligation.
Eastwood Manor Farm Steading was created in 1860.