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
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.
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.
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+
Serfs owed crops to their lords.Apex.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No . Unlike serfs and freemen slaves did not have rights and were sold to higher ranked people like kings
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+
Alot are sold each year. I dont sell them so i couldnt really lay my finger on it so i say around 25-42 million each year
Serfs are Islamic
Serfs were bound to the land.Best of luck to A+Serfs are bound to the land. A+