A change of Pace: Russian Abolishment of Serfdom

I was wondering after the Mongolian invasion of Russia is their any way BEFORE the 18th century to abolish serfdom?


What changes will be neccessary to bring these changes?

And what happens because of these?
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I really don't think so. You need to somehow weaken the Russian nobility, but that would probably weaken Russia as a whole. And serfdom existed in many neighboring kingdoms like Poland and Lithuania.

On a relating issue, slavery only slowly died out in Russia in the late 1500s/ early 1600s.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Serfdom in the crushing Russian imperial sense didn't really exist until the early 1700s. There were serfs, yes, but they were just as (if not more) well off than their Western counterparts.

To prevent the hyper-rigid caste serfdom that Russia developed, you'd have to stop the Petrine reforms, which are what turned backwards, medieval Muscovite Russia into giant, badass European Russia.

So kill off Peter or find some way to keep Russia Muscovite and you prevent serfdom in Russia from becoming so entrenched.
 
Won't it also help if one tsar tried to create a middle class or had made taxes less oppressive?

Because wasn't it due to the increasing taxes that freed peasents increasingly put themselves into slavery?

EDIT: Sorry I double posted again
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
In much of easten and northen Europe we saw a strengthening of serfhood and the transformation of renting to serfhood in the 17-18th century. This resulted in a increased food production and adoption of new agricultural technics, both to domestic use but also to export. So a Russia which doesn't strengthen serfhood are going to have less foreign capital, it's peasants are going to keep older less productive methods going. So ironic while the individual peasant may be richer, it's going to hurt the urban population which are going to smaller and the royal treasure which are going to be smaller. Which will make Russia military and economical weaker.
 
In much of easten and northen Europe we saw a strengthening of serfhood and the transformation of renting to serfhood in the 17-18th century. This resulted in a increased food production and adoption of new agricultural technics, both to domestic use but also to export. So a Russia which doesn't strengthen serfhood are going to have less foreign capital, it's peasants are going to keep older less productive methods going. So ironic while the individual peasant may be richer, it's going to hurt the urban population which are going to smaller and the royal treasure which are going to be smaller. Which will make Russia military and economical weaker.


Why would the urban population be smaller?
 
So with a less prosperous farming class people won't be able to have as much time or as much money to move into the city?

Couldn't their be an alternative way of increasing the urban population without the enserfement of the working class?
 
You also have to look at the Serf's view.
While Whe look at it as the Serf being Bound to the Land -- The Serf looked at it as the Land being Bonded to Him.

Most of the better off and connected Peasants knew about thing like the Clearances going on in Britain and across Europe.
This is why the Serfs revolted in the 1860's and demanded the Tzar redact the Edict Freeing them.
However by the time Tzar Alex reissued the Edict in the early 1900's there were enuff Serfs having moved to Urban/Factory work that the issue passed without comment from the Former Serfs.

Any attempt to Free the Serfs pre 1800, has to take this into consideration.
 
To prevent the hyper-rigid caste serfdom that Russia developed, you'd have to stop the Petrine reforms, which are what turned backwards, medieval Muscovite Russia into giant, badass European Russia.

You could simply alter the reforms so serfdom isn't as rigid.

Maybe Peter decides to loosen restrictions on the peasants or leave them as they are for some reason.
 
In much of easten and northen Europe we saw a strengthening of serfhood and the transformation of renting to serfhood in the 17-18th century. This resulted in a increased food production and adoption of new agricultural technics, both to domestic use but also to export. So a Russia which doesn't strengthen serfhood are going to have less foreign capital, it's peasants are going to keep older less productive methods going. So ironic while the individual peasant may be richer, it's going to hurt the urban population which are going to smaller and the royal treasure which are going to be smaller. Which will make Russia military and economical weaker.

Is there a third option that enables newer, more productive techniques to be imposed but keep the peasants' personal freedom?
 
Is there a third option that enables newer, more productive techniques to be imposed but keep the peasants' personal freedom?


That's what I am wondering I mean if it wasn't for the 16th century wars between Moscovy, Sweden, and Poland. There wouldn't have been a mass exodus from Moscovy to other countries. Which meant that their was a harder migrationary restriction in Moscovy.

Peter the Great's policies were greatly influenced by the Great Northern Wars, having a population ready for warfare that could be conscripted even in Peacetime. I forget what state peasents are compared to serfs but I do know that Serfs are on noble lands, state peasents are on Royal lands but I am not sure what are the differences between living conditions, wealth and others.
 
Last edited:

Valdemar II

Banned
Is there a third option that enables newer, more productive techniques to be imposed but keep the peasants' personal freedom?

That's what I am wondering I mean if it wasn't for the 16th century wars between Moscovy, Sweden, and Poland. There wouldn't have been a mass exodus from Moscovy to other countries. Which meant that their was a harder migrationary restriction in Moscovy.

Peter the Great's policies were greatly influenced by the Great Northern Wars, having a population ready for warfare that could be conscripted even in Peacetime. I forget what state peasents are compared to serfs but I do know that Serfs are on noble lands, state peasents are on Royal lands but I am not sure what are the differences between living conditions, wealth and others.

I would say no.
 
With a moscovy that is less dependent on serfdom, will it overall lead to a stronger russian state or will it be less as powerful as OTL Russia
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
With a moscovy that is less dependent on serfdom, will it overall lead to a stronger russian state or will it be less as powerful as OTL Russia
Muscovy wasn't dependent on serfs; it was dependent on peasants who rented land from the Crown and the State. A Muscovy that doesn't carry out the Petrine reforms by breaking Russia into a service-state remains weaker and more backwards than OTL's Russia.
 
Top