the mongols......have fun in E2020
ya but it was extremely hard to get freedom and it took alot of work even took alot of money
yes the owner could set their slaves free.
There wasn't.My versionSince the first city state the prosperity of the rich has depended on cheap and dependable labour. In the early days of the USA for example, the use of slaves lowered the cost of farming to the point that the landholders could make a profit.People who did not own slaves could not financially compete and thus could not become more wealthy.So the need was driven by the financial need to make a profit.UNTIL the whole economy had to stop the use of slaves at once, the fact that it was legal and your business would not be viable made the "NEED". Once everyone can not own slaves then the NEED goes away.
no.slaves can not own other slaves!
no.
Peasants are small farmers and farm workers. In western Europe, a few of the peasants were slaves. This was not common, as the Church moved, from time to time, to end slavery, getting success in some places. In many countries of the West, most slaves were criminals, who were being punished by being made slaves, but in the East, most slaves were people who were captured. Slavery was banned in England by King Henry I. Many of the peasants were serfs, who were bound to the manors they lived on and could not legally move away. The other side of this is that they could also not be made to move away just because the lord wanted to get rid of them - it was a mutual obligation. The serfs were organized by supervisors to do common work for the lord and on common land. In England, the supervisor was called a reeve, and was a serf appointed or elected to the job. Aside from their duties to the manor, the serfs were rather free. There were also serfs who were not peasants, but worked in fields other than agriculture. Some peasants were tenant farmers. They differed from serfs in that they were not tied to the land. They had leases, and paid money in rent. Some peasants were yeomen, who were small farmers who held their own land and did not pay rent. They did pay taxes and had military obligations to the king.
The slaves who could farm would already know how to care for the crops.
They could not afford to buy land, but all they knew was farming. A large number of freed slaves in the South became share croppers, as they could not find other work.
They suffered a lot of pain and acted as slaves most of the time. They had NO money and could not afford any good clothes. Peasants were treated poorly and didn't have enough to eat. It was very hard and sad.
They could not compete with large landowners who had slaves
The slaves who could farm would already know how to care for the crops.
They sold themselves since they were to poor to buy anything they didnt become slaves when they borned but they could turn into slaves if they simply coulnt buy anything
Peasants were not sent to Australia, Britain sent convicts to Australia from 1788 to about 1868. However the mainstream of population buildup was from free migration. To assist this, land was sold at 1 pound an acre, and these funds were used by the colonies to subsidise immigration. Many of the immigrants/settlers became small farmers, and as peasants are small farmers, they could be called peasants, however that is a word more appropriate to the middle ages than the modern era.
Pharaoh army scribes farmers/slaves Not everyone could have equal power
I think I know... Most peasants were serfs; people who worked for the king a few days but the rest could do whatever they need. I was trying to get this answer for my Ch. 6 history study guide Medieval Europe.
women, immigrants,and slaves, because they could not become citizens
women, immigrants,and slaves, because they could not become citizens