anonymous
  • anonymous
In which way was the distinction "serf" different from that of "slave"?
History
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
A) Serfs can change their masters B) Serfs could attend church services C) Serfs can pass on their inheritances D) Serfs could move away from manor
paki
  • paki
ur guess...? @uybuyvf
anonymous
  • anonymous
idk

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

paki
  • paki
serfs were not slaves per say because they could not be sold and were not property but each were tied to the land . to be a serf was a form of politics in that serfdom was part of feudalism.slavery was a economic position... serf have more freedom them slaves and they are basically "part" of the house. for slaves they stay with theyre owners but, with serf they belong to who ever owns the land they live on...
anonymous
  • anonymous
so the answer is....?
paki
  • paki
what you think...?
anonymous
  • anonymous
idk...
anonymous
  • anonymous
D
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
I will try to post the definitions a little diffetrently. Serf is a person who works the land of some Lord. Each Lord had a lot of land and many many serfs who worked this land (and lived on it), giving a share to the lord. Slave is literally a slave. It used to be that slave is like your pencil, shoe, suit, or like any other property. A slaveowner could do to slave whatever he feels like.
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
\(\rm thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/serfs-in-the-middle-ages.html\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
A...?
anonymous
  • anonymous
u should fan meh...
paki
  • paki
i think yeah.... wat you say zelmon...?
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
The slaves weren't allowed to go to church, the serfs were. Can a serf change their master or more from manor? Even if they have a right too do so, they would be practically unable to ever do this. Serfs could pass on their inheritances to their sons. (why not?) (they do posess their own belongings acc. to the law at that time)
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
In m opinion both B and C suffice.
anonymous
  • anonymous
idk....the answer no more...
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
B - (cuz) serfs could attend church, slaves can not. C- (cuz) serfs could pass on inheritance to their children.
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
more on B. Serfs actually "looked towards" church (for the most part). (Slaves were prohibited from going to church as I said before) more on C. serfs are independ, rather than someone's property. They work some lords land (and I actually think they have a right to change lords or move from manor - don't really see much difference between A and D). They work for lord, but they pay taxes. So, in exchange for lord giving them land, the serfs worked it and gave the lord a share.
SolomonZelman
  • SolomonZelman
So I think a serf can actually do all of the options, and slaves can not do all of the options.
paki
  • paki
so you mean it's either B or C...?
anonymous
  • anonymous
...ig
anonymous
  • anonymous
im choosing c

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.