0
Serfs did not own land. They lived and worked on manors owned by members of the nobility.
2nd answer: That is only partially accurate. Serfs did not own land in the modern sense. But many did have rights to a certain amount of farmland in the field of the manor they resided on. They owed the lord some combination of rents, fees, and labor for this land, but by tradition and practice a serf could not be deprived of the land he held from the lord. Serfs were not slaves. They could not be bought or sold, or forced to leave their holdings. They were not fully free either, as they did owe an amount of labor to their lord, as well as rents and various payments in kind.
The lord of the manor did not really "own" the land of the manor either. The lord might hold this land from a greater lord, and in exchange owe military service or money in exchange. Much like the serf, the lord of the manor could not be arbitrarily deprived of his holding, but he had duties and responsibilities regarding it.
So for any given piece of land, there were several people who had both some claim and also responsibility relating to that land. There was very little if any "fee simple" property, to use the modern legal term, in the middle ages, meaning property that was clearly owned by one person without outside duties or encumbrances.
What else can I help you with?
What is true about crusades?
They were fights over the Holy Land.
Which was true of the west in the period after civil war?
there was available land
What was bad about being a peasant in the middle ages?
Most medieval peasants were serfs. Some were free. The situation for free peasants and serfs was different. Peasants were mostly farmers. As farmers, they had places to live and work, which they were less likely to lose than their counterparts in towns and cities were. In addition, for serfs, the place to live and work were guaranteed by the manorial system, as rights. Serfs were also supposed to have a right to protection in times of war or famine - the lord was legally obliged to provide these things. Disadvantages included a lack of social mobility. Peasants did not normally get educated, and did not have an easy way to improve their lives. Again, for serfs, they were obliged to remain at their jobs on the manors, and could not legally leave. They were said to be bound to the soil. There were times of unrest in Europe when free people gave up their freedom to become serfs on manors, because they would otherwise starve or be somehow otherwise destroyed. The protection serfs got was very important when things were bad.
What was true of feudalism in Europe?
Feudalism was a system in which landowners pledged loyalty to more powerful landowners, becoming their vassals. The majority of people were peasants, farming land they did not own.Serfs owed crops to their lords.Serfs lived outside the castle walls.Lords had a lot of power over serfs.Kings owned the land, and lords owed them loyalty.
Which of the following statements about west Africa during the era of the European slave trade is true?
Which of the following statements is true of life in the West? No permanent class of laborers existed. Immigrants did not want to settle there. The land was unsuitable for farming. its the first one
Was the serfs were not able to own the land they farmed true or false?
True. Serfs were typically bound to the land they worked and could not own it; instead, they were obligated to provide labor and a portion of their harvest to the landowner. This system was prevalent in feudal societies, where serfs had limited rights and were considered part of the estate rather than independent landholders.
Could freemen could rent land and hire serfs?
True.
After serfs gained ther freedom what is true of their conditions?
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.
True or false serfs were the lord's slaves?
False. Serfs were legally bound to a certain piece of land and obligated to work for the lord who owned that land, but they were not considered slaves as they were not owned by the lord and did have some legal rights and protections.
Why did the Russians emancipate their serfs and with what results?
For the first time, the serfs were not tied to the land, and had the opportunity to work for their own benefit. Although it seemed to be a great act that would benefit the serfs above all others, this was not entirely true. The compensation of the landowners far outweighed what the serfs were able to gain. The land that they were provided, was not of the same quality the landlords kept for themselves.
Which was true of feudalism in Europe serfs?
Serfs owed crops to their lords.Apex.
What was true about medival manors?
the serfs had to pay the lords to farm on their land.
Is it true Medieval manors were nearly self sufficient?
Yes, during Medieval Times, almost all items were produced inside the manor by serfs, who were bound to the land. There was a system of mutual obligations between the Lords of the manors and the serfs who worked for them. Lords provided serfs with food, housing, and protection, and sometimes a bit of their own land. In return, serfs worked the lord's land by producing food from the fields, and repairing bridges and roads. Serfs were also required to pay the lord to grind grain and ask his approval in order to marry.
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.
When seftdom was abolished what did most serfs become?
tenant farmers Serfdom was abolished in 1861 by Tsar Nicholas I. This was not true abolition, because the Russian government took some land away from the owners and compensated them for it. The former serfs were then responsible to repay the government for the compensation paid. This was commonly done over a 49 year period and the former serfs would not own their own land until the full amount of the debt was repaid. In all practicality, the "freed" serfs were still bound to the land because they had no where else to go to effectively make a living. In that sense, they were very much like the tenant farmers the original answerer states they were.
Is it true that the men hunted while the men farmed in the algonguian tribe?
no
After serfs gained their freedom what is true of their conditions?
the conditions stayed the same. <><><><><><><><><><><><>
