What is the difference between a Slave and a Serf?

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

A slave is owned by another person as property and has no freedom or rights. A serf, on the other hand, is tied to the land they work on and must provide labor or goods to the landowner in exchange for protection and the right to live on the land. Serfs have some rights and legal protections that slaves do not.