...Serfs? Serfdom, a system of virtual slavery tying the Russian peasants to their landlords, was abolished in 1861 under the imperial demand of Tsar Nicholas II. This change was put in place for many reasons, including military defeat in Crimea, the economy and political system, which all contributed to the backwardness of Russia as a nation, as they prohibited the introduction of other major reforms. In my view, the most important cause of emancipation was the state of the economy, because the nature of serfdom prevented the country from catching up with the west, and the most important consequence was that the military was able to dramatically improve. One major reason that serfdom was abolished was because of the poor economic situation and general backwardness of the nation. Due to the nature of serfdom the economy was prevented from evolving; the serfs weren’t paid, so there could be no market, there could be no interest, and enterprise was prevented. This left Russia far behind the west, and with a struggling and starving workforce; they starved since the increasing famines and noble taxations left them with no food reserves. To combat this, they wanted to modernise agriculture, industry and railways to increase Russia’s economic strength. However, with serfdom in place, this was impossible to implement because serfs didn’t have money to invest in increasing agricultural efficiency, and the Government was reluctant to encourage industrialisation whilst serfdom survived...
Words: 1743 - Pages: 7
...‘With reference to these extracts and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two extracts provides the more convincing interpretation of the main contributors to Russia’s economic modernisation?’ Firstly, Extract A provides the interpretation that the emancipation of the serfs was the primary contributor Russia’s economic modernisation. This is evident when Falkus states ‘the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 removed a considerable barrier to industrial growth’. The extract states this as it goes on to say ‘serfdom was clearly incompatible with the requirements of an industrialising society’. This is supported by the facts that before emancipation, serfs were not allowed to leave their land and had to work for their Mir. Largely uneducated, there was no sense of prosperity within the serf’s population thus industrial modernisation could not occur. However, after emancipation, serfs were allowed to leave their land and go to prosperous environments such as cities (Moscow and St Petersburg), therefore industrialisation could thrive as now serfs believe there is opportunity for their lives to improve and not stay stagnant. On the other hand, although serfs could move from their land, redemption payments had to be paid. Thus any money earned from moving to cities and working in factories were largely deducted via these payments. This would imply that there was in fact no prosperous attitude as the emancipated serfs were just working to pay off debts and not...
Words: 936 - Pages: 4
...Arguably peasants working conditions did change however to a limited extent from 1855 to 1964. This was due to government reforms during tsarist Russia that had significant effects on peasants such as Stolypin and Alexander’s reforms as this was first steps taken to improve peasantry. However their freedom, transportation and the right to own land was very limited, redemption payments were almost impossible and they were still bound to the Mir. Similar to the communist era under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev from 1917 peasant working conditions did change as Lenin introduced the new economic policy that improved peasant working conditions financially, but war communism did not benefit the peasants at all, agriculture was very low and caused a huge feminine what effected work life. When Stalin came to power 1924 there was huge transformation in peasant working conditions due to the industrialisation of Russia where machinery and agriculture increased however peasants were practically treated as slave labour during the five-year plans. Khrushchev also changed peasant-working lives as peasants became freer after Stalin’s death, for example they were paid more for grain and the removal of the MTS in 1958 allowed farmers to buy their own machinery. Overall change was very limited in peasant working conditions until 1950’s as the majority of the population were no longer peasants, machinery and new methods of faming became advanced and those who were peasants, they started to get paid...
Words: 2058 - Pages: 9
...Intro: The Russian peasantry had long been oppressed under the title of serf. Being at the bottom of the social ladder, they had marginal rights and privileges under their oppressive landlords. However, as the rest of industrial Europe sped forward, Russia fell behind. From 1861 to 1866, the government began to emancipate these serfs, in hopes of creating an entrepreneurial class to industrialize and regain their former glory. Even so, the various classes perceived this momentous change for the peasants differently. The peasants thought the recent changes were not enough, and wanted more, while the upper class believed that the reforms were doing more damage than assistance, and each side proposed solutions that tried to compromise each opinion. 1st Paragraph: The peasants believed that the recent reforms in their favor were not enough, and wanted more. * Document 1 * Data shows how activities in Russia affected rebellions * During and after 1861 (when Alex II freed the serfs), the rebellions decrease * From 1891 (start of famines) to 1907 (which contained Russo-Japanese war and Bloody Sunday), rebellion drastically increases * Although serfs were emancipated and human bondage was abolished, the peasants wanted more and weren’t afraid to take action during hard times for Russia * Document 2 * Peasants communicating to Tsar Alex II * Blaming land owners for giving peasants the worst land, and standing by as the peasants starve ...
Words: 773 - Pages: 4
...German Peasant Revolt DBQ The German peasants of the 1524-1526 revolts were caused by interpretations of Lutheran ideals, the peasants desires to break free from serfdom, and the general search for equality in the eyes of god. The response to the peasant revolts varied among the social, political, and religious affiliations, ranging from cruel condemnation to fervent support of their cause. The rebels organized swiftly and fought hard, this determination helped achieve social reform, which the most important German reformer, Martin Luther, was completely opposed to. Though the revolts were blamed on Lutheran reforms (Doc 1), Luther himself vehemently refuted the dispute (Doc 7). He refers to the peasants as dogs and is generally cruel towards their cause. Though a religious reformer, his dependence on the German nobility would not allow him to support the peasants; therefore his point of view is one in support of quelling the rebellions. The peasants may not have had the support of their greatest religious inspiration but they still drew on his word in order to justify their fight. The peasants claim that because all men are equal under the eyes of god, they have just as much divine right as the nobles do (Doc 3). These religious drives were set out in the Articles of The Peasants of Memmingen and would be responded to by the nobles, thus connecting Docs 3 and 4. The nobles would retort to the religious grounds of the peasants by ensuring them that their salvation was not...
Words: 799 - Pages: 4
...Work in the 21st Century is very different to what it was in the Middle Ages. Today work is apart of everyday life, and therefore creating a rewarding standard of living. Not only is work needed to sustain the needs of an individual or family, people pride themselves on their work ethic, no matter what line of work they are in. “The fall of the Roman empire marked the beginning of a period generally known as the Middle Ages.” Whilst there are many positive aspects of work in recent centuries, in Medieval times workers were referred to as Peasants. Peasants were people who lead a tough and rigorous lifestyle. Men worked long hours in fields, planting seeds, and taking care of livestock, while women were delegated the household chores. Whilst this may sound comparable with today’s lifestyle, peasants had a poor standard of living because they were under the rule of the Lord. This meant they had to give back to the Lord. The church required 10% of everything the peasants produced. They believed in the Lord but work was still perceived as punishment by God for man’s original sin. Work was heavily despised due to the risk of death. Work in crops was standard for male peasants and if those crops failed, they were given harsh penalties. They were forces to eat grass, nettles and other plants. Many starved to death. Whilst work was potentially life threatening on a daily basis for peasants, it was the only way of life they were accustomed to. The higher level of society in the...
Words: 441 - Pages: 2
...Castro 1 Jessica Castro Professor Kazarian Mosaic II 22 November 2013 Paper 2 - Thoreau on Work, Debt, and Slavery For this paper, I chose to focus on subject 7 of the syllabus which was Thoreau on Work, Debt, and Slavery. The first chapter of Walden, Thoreau states that his neighbors seem to work their lives away and are deeply in debt. Readers have come to read Thoreau’s book on stolen or borrowed time, robbing their employers of time. Readers are also imposing slavery upon themselves. These three claims relate to one another in the mode of economy. In order to acquire the necessities of life, man must work to make a living. In order to make a living, man must have money to acquire tools in order to make that living. If man does not have the means in which to acquire tools, he himself becomes the tool of production via labor power. Men who constantly work in order to produce these necessities daily are slaves to themselves and to those who employ them. One without the other leaves man without life’s necessities; thus, leading to his demise. In Walden, Thoreau claims: . . . my townsmen, whose misfortune it is to have inherited farms, houses, barns, and cattle . . . Better if they had been born in the open pasture . . . might have seen with clearer eyes what field they were called to labor in (8). Castro 2 In this passage, Thoreau clearly provides an example of how man works his life away. The inherited land given to the new “serf of the soil” must be constantly...
Words: 1039 - Pages: 5
...In the middle ages there were trades and one of those trades was being a carpenter . In the middle ages things were different and there are also similarities that are still the same today . In the middle ages there were guilds and if you weren't a noble person born into a family that was wealthy you had to make a living for yourself . That was finding a trade , you would go find a guild. A guild is where you go to find the necessary tools and skills to make it in life . The typical in and out everyday life for a carpenter is what you see today . They would be hired to work on people's houses everyday build things or they might have their own shop and hire other carpenters to help them finish projects . Even in the middle ages carpenters...
Words: 480 - Pages: 2
...Although feudalism is taught as a simple legal and military exchange between a lord and a vassal to children in middle school, in actuality it is more complex. Feudalism has been greatly debated by historians because the terms ambiguity has caused an inadequate evaluation of Medieval European social relationships. In “The Tyranny of a Construct: Feudalism and Historians of Medieval Europe,” Elizabeth A.R. Brown rejects feudalism because it lacks a concrete definition that is accepted and implemented by all historians, and because feudalism is set as a standard to compare countries. Consequently, conflicting definitions and narrow analysis cause historians to inaccurately describe Medieval European society. Feudalism constantly causes confusion...
Words: 393 - Pages: 2
...the negative implications of Russia’s system of serfdom that stifled economic and industrial growth, as well as Russia’s outdated and ineffective military that limited Russia’s presence in Europe and demonstrated her lacking industrial sector. Alexander was shown to be a keen reformer and managed to effectively tackle these problems, with his emancipation of the serfs, followed by his overseeing of successful economic and military reforms. Arguably the greatest problem that faced Russia in 1855 was the outdated and feudal – like system of serfdom which lagged far behind the social infrastructures of other major European nations. This system, in which over 23 million serfs were forced to work for their food and keep under private landowners, Nobles, and the state, was both economically inefficient (as Russia required a free labour force for industry and internal markets to grow) and attracted rising opposition to the Tsarist autocratic rule. For these reasons, Alexander decided to emancipate the serfs in an attempt to quell unrest and bring Russia “up to date”, famously stating: “It is better to abolish serfdom from above than to await the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below”. This shows that Alexander II saw the threat of grievances among the serfs with the ruling administration and wished to protect his own position from threatening opposition. This desire for self-preservation limited the success of the serfdom reform, as Alexander’s “Emancipation of the Serfs”...
Words: 1110 - Pages: 5
...Nichole Poore Hist 4440 Mid-Term Essay October 7th, 2006 “It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.” Charles Dickens’ introduction to his novel, A Tale of Two Cities, describes the lives of the peasantry in Europe between 1300 to 1650. For many peasants, their lives could be depicted as overwhelming, depressing, discouraging, and hopeless; yet, many events during these 350 years opened up opportunities for the peasantry to improve their lives. Events ranging from the Hundred Years War to the Black Death, and up until the beginning years of the Renaissance, changed the lives of the peasantry dramatically, all for the better. Before the Black Death reached Europe, peasants’ lives were very difficult. They usually never left the manor on which they served without the master’s permission. It was illegal for them to even move to another city or manor, if they so desired. They were forced to pay rent to their landlords for the land they cultivated themselves. In addition to the rent that was required of them, “they were also required to provide free labor on the lands used by the lord, known as a demesne.”[1] Although there were rewards to living on a manor, the peasantry had more advantages when the manorial system began to break down at the beginning of the fourteenth century. Even though the nobility still dominated rural Europe, peasants were beginning to move out of their status as servants. The Black Death, striking Italy in 1347, was one of the events that...
Words: 2275 - Pages: 10
...There were many reasons for the downfall for the Middle Ages, but the most crucial ones were the decline of the feudal system, and the declination of the Church's power over the nation-states. In feudal society, everyone had a definite place and a definite role, with the power resting in the hands of the local lords (instead of a central government). The lords, or nobles, lost power after the Crusades, when the Europeans came into contact with the more advanced civilizations of the Byzantine Empire and the Muslims. That spurred the growth of trade, which in turn gave rise to a money system. The money system in turn caused the birth of a middle class, which didn't fit anywhere into the feudal system. It was made up of the serfs and peasants that left the feudal system in search of making money in trade. For the middle class, the king granted Charters, made a uniform law, started banking, offered protection, and expanded territory. In return, the middle class payed taxes to the king. While t his money economy grew, the feudal lords were put into an economic squeeze. As one may see, that didn't leave much of a place for the nobles, who were rapidly losing power. Another thing that contributed to their loss of power was the enforcement of Common Law, which applied throughout the kingdom. The effects of the Hundred Years' War hastened the decline of the feudal system. The use of the longbow and firearms made the feudal methods of fighting obsolete. Monarchs...
Words: 609 - Pages: 3
...Decline of Serfdom | Why did the Peasants’ Revolt Occur? Did the insurgents hope to abolish serfdom? How and why did serfdom decline and eventually disappear in England, notwithstanding the failure of the 1381 uprising and other influences of lower class protest against social inequality and injustice? | Naomi Woods Student 297278812/22/2011 | The Peasants Revolt is one of the most well known revolts of Medieval England, the revolt began as a local revolt in Essex in May of 1381, but it soon spread throughout the South East of England affecting many smaller towns along the way and having the biggest impact on London when the people turned their grievances towards the young King Richard II. This revolt was not a planned revolt but rather a spontaneous revolt fuelled by numerous grievances and sparked by the poll tax Parliament had introduced to help pay for the war in France. Incidences in the villages of Fobbing and Brentwood in Essex are said to have triggered the uprising. On 30 May 1381 a tax collector attempted to collect the poll tax from the villagers of Fobbing, the villagers, lead by a local land owner refused to pay and he was forced to leave empty handed, later Robert Belknap (Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas) arrived to investigate and punish the offenders, On June 2 he was attacked in Brentwood. By this time the counties of Essex and Kent were in full revolt the peasants and artisans of Essex demanded the King to completely abolish serfdom and the...
Words: 3202 - Pages: 13
...Feudalism means many things to many people. One camp limits the concept to “the hierarchical relationship between a lord and his vassals” (Lefebvre, 1976, p. 122). In this tradition, “history was not just written from the perspective of the top but was also limited to studies of the top” (Kaye, 1984, p. 73; e.g., Ganshoff, 1964). The critique of this narrow conception of feudalism was spearheaded by, among others, Rodney Hilton (1949, 1973, 1985) and Marc Bloch (1961). Although recognizingthat “feudal Europe was not all feudalized in the same degree or accordingto the same rhythm and, above all, that it was nowhere feudalized completely” (Bloch, 1961, Vol. 2, p. 445), these historians deployed a broader conception that sought “to describe a whole social order whose principal feature was the domination of the rest of society, mainly peasants, by a military landowningaristocracy” (Hilton, 1976c, p. 30).3 This broader conception of feudalism has strongly influenced the worldhistorical perspective since the 1970s (see esp. Wallerstein, 1974). One major exception to this generalization is Giovanni Arrighi (1994, 1998), who in key respects has returned to the earlier, narrower conception of feudalism. In Arrighi’s scheme of things, feudalism is limited to rural social relations in medieval Europe. Although feudal relations are no doubt very relevant to an understandingof English, French, Polish, Swedish and many other “national” histories of the European world[,]...
Words: 662 - Pages: 3
... Life in the medieval times was dominated by the feudal system. Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe were so different but were so similar at the same time. The social classes the were different, there are more social classes Japan and their social classes were different. The way they treated their women was similar but still had its differences, in Japan there was more equal rights. Their armor was just completely different, one wore leather and iron and the other wore chainmail and plate armor. One of the many differences in Feudal Japan and Feudal Europe is the social classes. In Feudal Japan the empower is at the top of the social class then, shogun, daimyo, samurai, peasants, and merchants. In Feudal Europe the king was at the top then, nobles, knights, and serfs/peasants. In Japan, there are people that are less important than peasants, but in Europe the peasants the the least important of all the people. The women in Japan and Europe were treated very similar, but there were some differences. The Japanese women that belonged to an aristocracy could take part in politics. They could also become samurai warriors if they were not in the aristocratic class. Even though they were allowed to become samurai, a man of equal rank could give her orders. Female samurai could give orders to men of a lower rank. The European women were largely confined to household tasks, for example, cooking, weaving, and baking. They also hunted for food and fought in battles. They were very...
Words: 432 - Pages: 2
