Talk:Serfdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Villeinage

This article needs to be integrated with the article Villein, which covers the same ground.........................

Vandalism

There are now references to exploding cows in the first paragraph, the out of context "retarded". The sidebar caption also seems to be vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.170.128.66 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears someone has attempted to do a buffer overflow on this page on May 18, 2005. including this statement

A serf is a noble who is bound to the land. Serfs formed the highest social class of the feudal society.

--Prunetucky 04:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Serfs were de facto slaves. 78.130.195.5 (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Serfs were slaves, not nobles in any sense of the contemporary and/or modern word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.231.236 (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't expect every editor to have an IQ of 1000. Many people who don't know much will add to articles, but they do no real harm in the long run. If we all become afraid of making mistakes and no one adds anything, Wikipedia will fall apart rapidly. These edits do not look as vandalism as vandals would rather edit more often viewed article, or make some sort of unrelated point in the vandalizing.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd settle for 100 or higher. That would at least address the "retarded exploding cows might not have been inserted by vandals theory", I would hope. Perhaps an on-line test would be appropriate before granting admin status. An IQ of 1000, though, really? Is that even possible? Garth of the Forest (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Old talk

Hi, I updated this page because the term serf is back in use in some circles (programmers, webmasters, etc.). I sincerely hope I didn't make an infringement on some copyrights, because I used the Microsoft bj... Flamethrowers!!

---

... But Russia retained the practice until February 19, 1861. ...

Is this date Julian or Gregorian ?

---

what about serfs in england there's little mention of them?--SPOC 03:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

I changed "Queen of England" because there is no such person. Not for hundreds of years, anyway. Skyring 10:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

what??? no mention of slavery in america? what about the current situation on many citrus orchards in florida?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.189.73 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) If they're slaves unrelated to serfs, it's hard to add it.173.180.214.13 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Stub

I think this article needs to be labelled as a stub. Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Moved to serfdom

I moved the article from Serf to Serfdom, it is more common on Wiki to have articles named like that. Besides, 90% of what links here links to serfdom, not serf. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Failed Good Article

This article did not become a good article because there are no references. joturner 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Or good references. The reference for sentence in 2nd paragraph, "The decline of serfdom in Western Europe has sometimes been attributed to the widespread plague epidemic of the Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347 and caused massive fatalities, disrupting society" does not have the word "serfdom" in the entire book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPKowal (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Some parts of our article appear to be controversial - I moved them here, as they are unreferenced either way. Please use references to support or oppose them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

PS. Please note that the comments were made by User:Ben-Velvel on 11th January 2006.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• "The last European country to abolish serfdom was Russia, in 1861." False. The Balkan europian countries abolished serfdom later
• "The Russian system of serfdom was based on the principle that the lord owned the peasant under his control, so he could dispose of his serfs as he wished: he could even separate them from their land." It occured not only in Russia, but also in the European countries

Two citations from the charter of Barons for serfs (Leibeigene), Schleswig-Holstein (North Germany), 1740. Nichts gehoret euch zu, die Seele gehoret Gott, eure Leiber, Guter und alles was ihr habt, ist mein (2, S.109). Translation:"Nothing belongs to you, the soul belongs to the God, but all that you have, your bodies, property, is mine". Der Bauer muss sein Bett nicht vor Abend zurecht machen, weil er am Tage nicht wissen kann, ob er noch die nachste Nacht in demselben schlaft "(1, S.17). Translation: " The peasant should not lay the bed till the evening as he cannot know in the afternoon, whether he sleeps the next night in the same bed " Ben-Velvel 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Serfdom persisted longest in Russia, where it" Longest?? The serfdom has come to Russia later than in other European countries and has been abolished earlier than in the Balkan countries.

Prior to the beginning of 17th century Russian peasants remain "free plowmen" who have the right of transition from one landowner to another annually during the so-called period "Yuriev day". A cancellation of this right is carried out in the code of laws from 1649 (Sudebnik). In Russian North, in Siberia, in Ural, in the Cossack regions in the south of Russia the serfdom never existed. (It is the most part of territory of Russia. ) On the contrary in many European countries the serfdom has arisen at 10-11 centuries.Ben-Velvel 14:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• "It's worth to mention, though, that de-facto serfdom was fully extinguished in Russia as late as in 1974 (Changes to Passport system, decree #677 by the USSR government), when peasants were for the first time granted identification documents, together with an unrestricted right to move within the country." The nonsense. After 1861 tens millions of Russian peasants moved from villages to cities... Before 1861 serfs made only third of Russian population

The serfdom is a feudal phenomenon when the landlords had complete power over their peasants . Stalin bureaucratic restrictions on movement of collective farmers in 1933-1956 it not the serfdom. Please don't politize a theme of a feudal serfdom by so arbitrary interpretations. These restrictions concern more likely to a theme of totalitarianism and excessively centralized state. By the way, restriction of movement even in days of feudalism was not the attribute of serfdom... By the way, persons receiving the welfare (Sozialhilfe) in modern Germany have no right to change a residence from one federal land in another. Is it a serfdom too? Ben-Velvel 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree this particular example is inappopriate here. What about the above point?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• "In prerevolutionary Russia a landowner's estate was often measured by the number of "souls" he owned" - how this correlates with the fact that serfdom has been cancelled in 1861 in Russia? Sorry, I am not really specialist... -- ABV

You're right, serfdom has been canceled in 1861. "Prerevolutionary Russia" corresponds to Russian Revolution of 1905 or Russian Revolution of 1917.--Vihljun 09:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

We need better pictures. What do you think about that one?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Found something better: a gallery] of Polish woodcarvings :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Days a week, or year?

"in the 13th century it was few days a year; in the 14th century, one day per week; 4 days in the 17th century and 6 days in the 18th century" Do these latter values represent days a week, or a year? 6 days a week seems an awfully high amount… The Jade Knight 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A week. But IIRC it was per family (house?), not per person.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The article needs to clarify this, then. The Jade Knight 05:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

um

has no one noticed the informal and personal website-ish style of the article? It doesn't sound like a wikipedia article at all- especially the heavy usage of parentheses and attempts at humor. 24.13.192.86 16:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I worked on it some, but I've just added a cleanup tag because I think it does indeed need more work. The Jade Knight 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. One major flaw is that it speaks of serfdom as a single, unified thing, when in fact it was a very broad category of relationships, all of which had individual 'rules' and customs. It's almost like a book report instead of a piece of academic writing. 69.86.157.243 23:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Serfdom in England

I think the statement that serfdom lasted in England until the 1600s is flat wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.132.82 (talk • contribs)

Dear anon, please elaborate and cite your sources.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is flat wrong. What is needed is a source for the statement that serfdom (called in English villeinage) lasted to the 1600s.

It isn't completely wrong. I do not have a reference at hand but my memory is that formal law abolishing villianage didn't occur until the 168os and the Glorious Revolution. By which time serfdom was largely non-existent in England. The Black Death & The Peasants Revolt lead to a partial collapse in the system, afterwhich it merely declined with the rise of Free Labour. but these were not complete breaks. Jalipa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 11:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyhold tenancy (land in return for customary service)was around into the C19, so some aspects of serfdom hung around really quite a long time. IIRC the enclosure acts also did quite a bit to kill off bonded labour - and it seems that various servile forms of tenancy hung around on the books for quite a long time after they ceased to be likely, let alone normal practice. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement that serfdom continued in England until the 1600s is, indeed, "flat wrong". In England after 1215, the class of peasant was partly defined in law by what it was not-- "liberi homines" (Latin, "free men") as defined by Magna Carta. Studies of English constitutional history point to a multitude of factors for the emancipation of peasants in England centuries before their European counterparts: the Black Death and its subsequent economic impact on labour, the emergence of the British longbow as an effective knight-killing weapon of war by the 14th Century among the lower classes that defeated the military logic of feudalism, Magna Carta's legal status of "free men" as an aspirational status for villeins. Thus, for example, a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Victor Windeyer KC, states that Magna Carta had been effectively extended to all English subjects "within two hundred years" of Magna Carta's enactment in 1215. One of the defining political features of the early Tudor period (beginning 1485) was the unsuccessful attempt by reactionary nobles-- typically also opposed to Tudor rule-- to reverse the decline of mediaeval control of peasants by the landed families. At the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1533-1603) there remained a small number of anomalous villeins or "bondmen" remaining in England that still had legal constraints imposed upon them tying them to lands. Contemporaneous with a "universal English revulsion agains serfdom", Elizabeth manumitted them in 1575 and also instituted the Poor Law for parish-based relief for the poor.

Similarly, this Wikipedia article (and some of the preceding comments) confuse longer-lasting residual institutions, such as tenancy, as conferring some sort of legal status as peasants. It is absurd to suggest that the survival of the concept of tenancy, whereby a condition of living in a cottage also involves some sort of payment in kind as well as payment of rent money, implied a survival of serfdom. If I have a "granny flat" in my back garden and let someone live there provided he does a bit of gardening as well as pay rent, that does not make him a serf; nor would it have done three centuries ago. Similarly the article's sentences on Elizabethan legislation on cottages are completely irrelevant, as their inhabitants were not serfs, regardless of whether or not they were poor. 124.184.15.176 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.15.176 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Here [1] suggests 1574 as the end date for serfdom in England (and 'I recall reading somewhere' that the last serf was called Pigg). Jackiespeel (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

References

Serf Disambiguation Page

Serf is currently a disambiguation page with two items - one link to this article, and one to Saint Serf. Seems rather silly, since Saint Serf seems likely to always be refereed to as such - not many people are on a first name basis with any sixth-century Scotts, so the likelihood that any of the 160-odd links to serf relate to him is pretty low. I'm changing Serf into a redirect here, and adding an "X redirects here" disambiguation notice at the top of the page linking to Saint Serf. Hope that's okay w/everyone, if not, apologies! -- Vary | Talk 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) disambiguation notice at the top of the page linking to Saint Serf. Hope that's okay w/everyone, if not, apologies! -- Vary | Talk 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it should go above or below the cleanup tag, so I put it above. -- Vary | Talk 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Serfdom Abolishment

The dates need to be checked. The one for Austria (1848) was plain wrong, it was abolished on 1. November 1781 by Joseph II in the so-called Untertanenpatent.

There is problem when comparing with Sweden. Sweden did not formally abolish thraldom in all regions until the mid 14 th century. Because of this lagging behind, the comparisons are not really valid. Thus, when France abolished serfdom Sweden still had thrals, i.e. outright slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.102 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Servus

Lat. servus means slave, not servant. The Latin term for serf was colonus. With the gradual disappearence of slavery into "colonate" serf and servant appeared with their modern meanings. I've edited consequently and added my reference (Dhont) to the list. --Sugaar 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Oppose Serfdom seems to be a general article, whereas villein is largely about its application in England. However there is a need for integration between the two articles by measn of cross-reference. Peterkingiron 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Can anybody provide a document that farmers were restricted from movement from their lands?--213.141.142.52 19:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I second that--169.232.119.69 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just added a dispute warning to the article--169.232.119.69 (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The article cites (in text) two sources - a 1944 book and a USSR decree. In order to dispute this, you need to address the content of the book or quote accurate sources of your own. Applying a tag of your own is WP:OR. It would not surprise me if, in a state as heavily controlled as USSR, it was impossible to leave a collective farm without permission, giving rise to a state of quasi-serfdom. But I know little of the matter. It helps if people log in so that the rest of us know who you are. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The 1944 book, by Hayek, is an attack on the British welfare state, not an analysis of the Soviet Union. Hayek is clearly using serfdom as an image for the unfreedom of many totaliarian governments, including the USSR and Nazi Germany. The decree cited is one ending alleged serfdom. I am going to delete this section. While the crimes of the Soviet Union are important to note, they shouldn't be allowed to confuse the important topic of serfdom. Zimmermana (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the Soviet Union, but The Road to Serfdom is described in its article as a very important book. I have not read it, but it can hardly be an attack on the (present) British welfare state, which was essentially the creation of the post-1945 Labour government. Hayek expressed a view which appears to be regarded as an important one; otherwise he would not have got a Nobel Prize. The subject is properly included in this article and at a proper length. His POV may be one that you do disagree with, but it is a legitimate subject for an article or (in this case) a short section. When I finsih writing this, I propose to remove the tags. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Results of merge of villein

I have looked at the former article on villein: this seems to have contained considerable material that has not adequately been merged inot the presetn article and is accoprding now effectively lost. The redirect from the former article was incorrectly written and I ahve corrected that, but I am not at all convinced tha the merge was done properly. However I would like to see other views before I consider reverting the old article. Peterkingiron 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

England 13th century?

What's the deal with this? I mean, it's not as though England was any exception to the rule by having serfdom become gradually more unpopular. In Wallachia, many peasants actually existed as free peasants since the inception of the independent Wallachian state. To say that England was more progressive in this field, when it abided by the same feudal codes as other Western states, is a simple Anglo-centric distortion of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.86.231 (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

rennasance

that was great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.244.9 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Freeman

In the section "becoming a serf" it says a freeman becomes a serf by ...... But then in the following section "Serfdoms class system" it seems to list freemen as a type of serf.

In the middle ages, it seems kings were the only true freemen. Even the nobility owed services to their king. Each level of the nobility owed their service to their higher level and expected service from those below them. This heirarchy also included people who owned no land, the only service they could provide was their labor. These people were not considered part of the nobility and had few if any rights or personal property. They were tied to the land. The question is, were there any people who existed outside this heirarchy? Did they have any legal status?

If a member of the nobility lost their land, through incompetence, not being willing to provide their service, or by conquest. What status are they? Do they become serfs automatically, or are they let loose into society?

If a noble didn't regulate their affairs properly and didn't fufill their obligations to their serfs, not protecting them from raiders, etc could the serfs attain somekind of free status? Would the higher level of nobility simply take over and rule directly or give it to some one else. In such situations would the former nobleman and his family become serfs or would they retain some level of freedom serfs didn't enjoy? Would they have land to farm, or would they keep their manor house?

How did traders and people who owned ships fit into this system? were they free people? Did they have a system like serfdom? They might not own any land, but they have wagon(s) or ship(s) which provides them with income/independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.215.119 (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In England you had the King

The you had Nobles (only those individuals with Titles)

Then you had Commoners -- which consisted of :

                                              Knights
                                              Squires
                                              Franklins & Yeomen (free peasants owning land)
                                              Burghers -- Free townsmen (inc Ship owning Merchants)

Under these free Commoners you had the unfree:

                                              Villians 
                                              Cottagers

And then you had the masterless men

                                              Vagabonds  (Tinkers & Roma??)
                                              Outlaws

Bluntly "Freemen" by the very definition were not Serfs, had a legel & social status.

Nobles frequently cited failure of protection to remove Kings, and Kings nobles. Failures of Lords to live up to their duties were often the subject of Law Disputes. Jalipa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the question: "Were there any people who existed outside this heirarchy? Did they have any legal status?" Burgers (i.e., burgesses by OED def. 1) were nearly outside the system. They were citizens of cities and town in the original sense of "citizen." A city of 80,000 might have 4,000 citizens. They still have this type of citizenship in parts of Switzerland. Becoming a burger was a bit like buying into a co-op apartment building in New York City, expensive, and you had to be approved by a committee. Once you got in, you owned one share of the municipal corporation, worth about as much as a share of Berkshire-Hathaway Class A stock, even if it was just some village in Switzerland. To get in, you needed to be sponsored by a guild or other powerful organization. One reason towns were outside the system is because in the early middle ages they were run by merchants, many if not most of whom were Jews, Greeks, and Syrians, who were the only non-Catholics allowed in Catholic Europe. They couldn't swear the Christian oaths required to become part of the system. Also, the church had its own system. In Bavaria, nearly all farmland was owned by the church. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)