>Mid-18th century (around 1750): Roughly 50–55% of Russia’s population were serfs.>Early 19th century (around 1800): About one-half to two-thirds of the population — estimates range from 52% to 60% — were serfs.>Just before emancipation (1850s): Of Russia’s roughly 60–70 million people, around 23 million were privately owned serfs and several million more were state peasants, making about 70–80% of the rural population subject to some form of servitude.
is there a period on russian history that isn't just misery
>>18051009>isn't just miseryWhat are you consider misery, retard? The existence of peasantry mind broke you?
>>18051016>peasantryRussian serfs had no freedom of movement, no freedom to marry who they choose, no legal protection against violence from their masters, could be sold to another master, etc. etc.Being a literal slave is not the same as being just a peasant.
>>18051016>slavery is a good thingleast mind broken russian
>>18051024>Russian serfs had no freedom of movementThat's a lie, they had freedom of movement. albeit limited>no freedom to marry who they chooseThat's a lie>no legal protection against violence from their mastersThat's a lie>could be sold to another masterPeasants were tied to a land, and not to a person, so another lie.>Being a literal slave is not the same as being just a peasant.In conclusion either you just dumb and don't know what a serf is, or you mislead on purpose because you a faggot.
>>18051033>another retard doesn't know the difference between serf and slave
>>18051038>they had freedom of movement. albeit limitedHow limited?
>>18051042>he believes serfdom and slavery were differentare you autistic or do you also believe the kings are gods?
>>18051046>How limited?Limited to the area of their living. Many peasants went into nearby towns and cities during winter for job for example.
>>18051053>>he believes serfdom and slavery were differentI know that serfdom and slavery were different. The fact that you don't know just show what an ignorant moron you are.
>>18051059enjoy the whippings, then. "non-slave"
>>18051054Nigga, that is slavery.
>bro, I just have to do what my lord tells me and can't go anywhere without his permission, but I'm definatelly not a slaveThe Rvssian sovl...
>>18051065>>18051066>>18051072>don't know about serfdom in Europe>don't know about conditions of living of lower classes in Europe during XVIII/XIX centuryI get it by your replies that you are just some NAFO troons and history is not your real concern, but at least educate yourself a little, at least that way your faggotry will be less obvious
>>18051083Other countries abolished serfdon much earlier than Russia and didn't have such large percentage of their population as serfs.
>>18051002Is this why russians are the way they are? They're basically peasants dragged kicking and screaming into modernity in the space of a few decades?
>>18051108>Other countries abolished serfdon much earlier than RussiaGerman states abolished serfdom within a century before Russia, absolute nothing of a historic scale>and didn't have such large percentage of their population as serfs.Because Russia had a large agrarian population sparsely populated across even large mass of land. Half of peasantry belonged to the state.
>>18051137>century before Russia, absolute nothing of a historic scaleThat 4-5 generations of non-slaves. Big difference.
>>18051143>That 4-5 generations3 generations at best>Big differenceWhat big differences? Most of them were still peasants, just now paying rent for the land they used.
>>18051009I've never heard of a "Russian Renaissance". Have you?
>>18051009The latter years of Stalins rule and his successor. Then the Russian civilization bore the fruits of the immortal science of Communism piloted by a Philisopher king.
>>180510092 Million years ago, before it was inhabited by hominids.
>>18051054>freedom of movement, albeit limited>freedom limited to nearby towns and cities for jobs/marketSo they don't have freedom of movement. They just have a large pen. Absolutely foolish argument.
>>18051137>German states abolished serfdom within a century before RussiaSome German states never even had serfdom, and many western states abolished serfdom much earlier
>>18051024Serfs weren't slaves you don't get what this was all about.The problem with villages is that there are seasons when you don't have anything of note to do. Like ok homesteading but that's something you have to do wherever you live. As such what happened was that the free peasants would look for odd jobs in the meantime and sometimes simply didn't come back because they've settled in let's say a town. Serfdom was a welfare scheme to keep peasants in the villages, just so you would have the workforce for when you need it, commie era state farms were basically the same. The Russians kept serfdom for a very long time despite pleas from the nobility to stop - ok wait a while did the American plantation owners plea the government to outlaw slavery? Of course not. What's the catch? The Russian nobility was going bankrupt because things they had to provide to peasants and relative hands off attitude they had to adopt when dealing with the plots of land these peasants leased hereditarily meant that they couldn't modernise their farms properly and as such the profits from selling the crops didn't outweigh the costs in a more globalised economy.The actual life of a serf was the most low effort existence you could imagine. Literally living on autopilot. Just like the Sovchoz/Kolkhoz worker - no you wouldn't know luxury but you could get by. No need to travel, take risks, leave you family. It's not that it was good but you can see how there are large amounts of people who would just live like this and not complain.
>>18052976>a lot of Russians want to be slavesOk
>>18053505There is an 18th century story of a Silesian peasant(tenant) crossing the border to Poland just to become a serf. Serfdom sounds harsh when you compare it to living in an apartment and working a tech job, but when effectively you'll live the same life you would as a tenant or even free peasant but you get a safety net it becomes more reasonable of an offer. For a serf, good harvests, bad harvests, as long as he has enough to live it doesn't matter. His hut gets destroyed his master has to get him new one built(and the peasant will usually work his feudal dues building it). A tenant peasant has to pay his rents no matter the harvests(at some point Zamoyskis in Poland tried to turn their serfs into peasant farmers but reversed it because of their serfs protesting the change). His hut gets destroyed he has to figure it out it's nobody elses problem. People who don't understand why serfdom was so prevalent simply have difficulties with empathy.
>>18053729It is understandable that Russians are so retarded that being a serf is preferable to them than being a free peasant capable of controlling their own destiny. This also explains why Russia was the first nation to adopt state Communism. It's essentially the same thing. Vatniks don't care about anything except staying alive long enough to chug the next handle of fermented potato juice.
Vatniks never change >If we ask any educated Russian who has never specially occupied himself with historical investigations regarding the origin of serfage in Russia, he will probably reply somewhat in this fashion: "In Russia slavery has never existed (!), and even serfage in the west-European sense has never been recognised by law!" Russia by Dr Mackenzie Wallace, volume 2 page 236, published 1877 (little over a decade after the abolishment of Serfdom)By the way, the author was a Russophille, who lived in the country for a number of years, and was a member of the imperial Russian geographic society >>18051038>>no legal protection against violence from their masters>That's a lieTechnically they did (though even legally their masters held the upper hand massively, and were legally able to fine, inflict cooperate punishment, exile or even force their serfs to join the army if they wanted to), but the legal limits of the landlords were basically never enforced. From the same book as the above quote >Certainly none of the serfs, and very few of the proprietors, were aware that the law placed any restrictions on this right.>>could be sold to another master>Peasants were tied to a land, and not to a person, so another lie.Wrong>the proprietors sell their peasants and domestic servants not even in families, but one by one, like cattle, as is done nowhere else in the whole world, from which practice there is not a little wailing"an imperial edict from April 15th 1721.
>>18053752Both examples I gave were from 18th century Poland.
>>18051009Medieval times before the Mongol invasions weren't that bad
