In a way, yes. They were bound to the Lord's property, could not freely move from there, had to work for a number of days per week for the lord without being paid and in other ways also had very limited rights. On the other hand, they were - at least in Western Europe - not bought or sold or forcibly transported outside their region of birth. In Russia however they could be traded and transported against their will, so there they were for all practical porposes slaves.
Serfs were the lord's slaves
They did not have to do anything for them, knights protected their serfs more cause of the profit not because he care of the serf's life.
Serfs or vassals.
their all from medieval times
The Emancipation Edict was a negative detriment to the life of serfs. With a major reduction in the work force, conditions for the serf who was in a voluntary lengthy contract became much harder.
Serfs were barely above slaves themselves. I doubt any serfs ever owned slaves.
Serfs were the lord's slaves
They ruled the serfs/slaves ( serfs are slaves) and they lived well instead of in a dirt floor hut.
Slaves
Serfs were slaves who were owned by nobles.
Serfs were slaves who were owned by nobles.
how is aztec society orginized
slaves
No they were slaves. Slaves don't own land.
Nobles and Serfs. Serfs(slaves) were most of the population.
slaves.
Serfs were slaves and not a different group of people ( serf is Latin for slave). In the middle ages there was no emancipation for these people.