well, would you rather be a feudal serf or a slave. for those that wanna know a bit more read this: [spoiler:1quqbzv2]The difference between a feudal serf in Europe (between the Roman Era and the mid 19th century) and a chantal slave in the Western Hemisphere (16th - mid 19th century).. A serf is not owned by anyone, although the word serf is based upon the Latin "servus", meaning slave. It is the land that is owned, and the serfs live on the land, work the land and contribute so much of their output to the coffers of the owner/lord. Initially many serfs were free to leave the land they worked on, although wherever they went (save cities), they would essentially move to someone else's land and contribute to that lord's coffers. This became troublesome during periods of migration to cities, and so serfs became "tied" to the land. This was beneficial to lords who could call on serfs to stand in as pikemen or archers in their lord's army. However they were not able to leave the land they lived and worked on. Many serfs were born and died on the same plot of land. A slave is personal property. And as such, the owner of the slave has paid for an investment and expects the investment to grow. Slaves were mistreated in many cases but treated well in many more. In the US in the late 18th and 19th centuries, a slave was a valuable commodity and thus only the wealthy plantation owners had more than a couple slaves. Poor sharecroppers could not afford a slave, and those that did well enough to purchase a couple slaves could ill afford for them to die or be unable to work because of mistreatment. Serfs, not being personal property, were often seen as expendable by absentee lords who owned vast tracts of land across many countries. The condition of serfdom was technically as such that the serf agreed to work the lands he or she lived on and would abide by the will of his/her lord, and in return, the lord would protect the serf from outside invasion, marauders, barbarians, etc. Like slavery, serfdom was heriditary. Those who bond themselves to serfdom bond their families and future sons and daughters into perpetuity. Certain types of serfs, such as villiens, owned their own land but as a price for this were expected to till the lord's land for so many hours of the day/week. Cottagers were allowed their own homes but did not own any land and were expected to work the lord's land in return for respecting the sovereignty of the house/hut and garden. Many serfs however did not even own the clothes they wore, all of this, the food they ate, the house they lived in, the land they worked, the clothes, animals kept.. everything except their naked selves, were the property of the lord. They were expected to work first for their lords crops and fields, then tend to their own harvest for themselves and their family. Most lords worth any respectability were expected to provide a meal to their serfs. In some ways it was worse to be a serf than a slave. A serf tilled his lord's fields and if their was any time left, he had to till his own. A slave only tilled the master's fields and from these fields a certain allotment went to the slave. Also, a percentage of plantation slaves could attain prestigious in-house positions as nannies, house servants and such. Many serfs, tied to the land as they were, could not expect any other employ than full time crop harvesting, timber felling, fishing his lords streams, mining his lord's mines and hunting game for his lord. However, a serf still carried a level of dignity not afforded to the slave in the Western Hemisphere. He could attend the same church as a lord and would attend the same religious ceremonies and festivities as better classes. He probably worked harder, but was more dignified.[/spoiler:1quqbzv2]
I would say a slave, just to be biased towards the Old South rather than Russia, if we wish to do national polarisms.
i would be anut jemeiah version of a slave so id be slave cook and my anoying lady owner would like me because i let her just drink tea and let her socialze while i acualy had homemaking so treated very well. too bad im not a girl The slave that was the same age as the owners kid so i was assigned to be his friend and do what he tells me. those were the best choices of slaves
Serf. Basicaly you work hard, but you get benefits in return. Slaves are property them selves and master can do anything they want with them. There was also alot of sex slaves. And are we talking about slavery in the whole, or just US slavery? I would "like" to be a slave only in rome, considering I could own my self a slaves, have a store and be freed. Though I wouldnt want to be a gladiator Anyway out of slaves shipped from Africa to the states only 1 in 3 survived to the "new world" so I'm not so hot on that one.
Rather be a slave in the South than a serf in Russia. At least my owner has a monetary interest in keeping me alive.
This question all depends on the place and the time-frame you view it in, for example the position of black slaves in European colonial areas was vastly different the say slavery in russia during the 16th century. These last type of slaves were then for example in a vastly superior position compared to the eastern-european serfs of that time, but then these serfs might have quite a nice life compared to black slaves on American plantations.
Not really. Up until an maybe a little after the October Revolution, most Russians lived much worse than even the American slaves. And a little known fact: if a slave owner thought a job was too dangerous for his slave, he would usually hire a white minority: mostly the Irish, to do the job, so as to protect his investment. However, both were treated horridly and I would rather be neither.
If I had to choose, in the end, I'd be a serf. Though, if it was ancient Rome, I'd lean more towards slave, since they weren't so bad off, compared to Egypt, for example. At least, the house slaves.
Slavery were already converted to serfdom long before the october revolution 17th or 18th century something, also russian slaves had the possibility to be freed and could hold positions such as estate managers. Thus the situation of russian slaves was better compared to the situation of the russian serfs, therefore russian peasants tended to sell themselves into slavery. But after the russian state realized this they converted all slaves into serfs therefore practically abolishing slavery in russia. When talking about black slavery im also talking about the taking of the to be slaves from their villages, and the transportation across the atlantic.
Serf, so if I ever got free I wouldn't have to deal with racism and such if I ever managed to get free. I also don't think the lord would actually want to beat me with a whip too. So you know, Serfdom has a lot more benefits to slavery.
At different times serfs and slaves had different places. In ancient Greece being a slave wasn't such a bad thing. You got fed right, you got poor but normal clothes. Yes, you was someone's property. But your price was very high and master wanted you to work better and longer, therefore giving you all conditions for a normal life. There weren't more than about two slaves in prospering houses. So it wasn't pretty bad. The same can be said about early serfs. They did not have their own land but they were free to go and could choose from different places to work. It was rather decent. However in imperial countries (especially in Russia) they had worser and worser conditions. With time they had no choice and only if they were lucky, they had a decent owner, that worried about them and even let them go at some point. However, big feudals had thousands of serfs and thought about them only as working units and no human beings. So it's not only a matter of being a slave\serf, but also time when you were one.
I would have to say slave, (and by slave i mean an early 1800's american slave) because at least i wouldn't have to worry about starvation or dieing of a curable disease, slaves in the pre civil war south were generally fed well and givin sufficient medical care to keep them alive and working. And for a slave there is always a chance of escape, not so for a serf.
