Serfs were by and large slaves. The only major difference was that they were tied to a specific piece of land and couldn’t be sold off separately. Other than that, feudal lords could do with them as they wished.
Besides slavery was practiced in Europe for long after Rome, especially by the Vikings who would raid the serfs and take them as slaves. The Byzantine empire that survived the fall of Rome practiced slavery until its fall a thousand years later so your thesis doesn’t make much sense.
Even that difference wasn't always respected; in Russia there was essentially no difference between a serf and a slave. From the "Serfdom in Russia" Wikipedia page:
> By the eighteenth century, the practice of selling serfs without land had become commonplace.
There is a huge difference between serfs and slaves. Both are unfree by modern standards but that doesn't mean one wasn't a big progress over the other.
As I said the big difference is that serfs could also keep part of what they produce. They have incentives to work harder while slaves do not have any.
Feudal lords couldn't just do with them as they wanted. Yes, they were tied to specific piece of land but in return also got the protection of the lord in times of war.
Slavery was replaced as the dominant form for doing agriculture. Slavery still exists to this day but I don't see how this is relevant. We are talking broad stroke tendencies over a very long, long time. The more efficient forms of productions will always win out in the end. It shouldn't really be controversial that slave labor is not very efficient.
Serfs often had fewer rights than Roman slaves. Sure, they often couldn't be sold and moved around, but they also had no way of winning their freedom, their children were automatically slaves as well, there were no legal repercussions of any kind for lords that treated their serfs badly, there were no legal obligations to leave any kind of food for serfs etc. Roman slaves were protected by national laws to a much, much higher extent.
Additionally, feuds between neighboring lords, which were extremely commonplace in much of Medieval Europe, often involved deliberate attacks on serfs, with the sole purpose of killing them off. This was also mostly unheard of in Rome, and would have led to legal punishments against the slave killers if it could be proven.
Of course, this started gradually changing, and the exact conditions for serfs varied greatly between regions. But by-and-large, Medieval Europe was much worse off then many areas of the Roman Empire.
And in regards to efficiency, this all makes no sense. The Roman Empire was vastly more economically efficient than medieval Europe, particularly when it came to food production. The kinds of armies the Roman Empire could field (which is mostly limited by feeding them) were not seen again in Europe until near the modern era. The Roman Army ranged from ~300,000 soldiers in the time of Tiberius, to more than 600,000 in the time of Constantine. By comparison, with the exception of Charlemagne (who still raised at most 100,000 troops once, and could hardly sustain this), medieval Europe had tiny armies - William the Conqieror conquered England with 14,000 troops, for one example of the scale.
European farms during the middle ages were far more efficient than European farms during Roman times. Egyptian farms during Roman times were more efficient than both.
Do you have a source for that? The sources I can find like Varo, Cato, and Columella’s table of farm labor inputs versus pre-industrial British and European records show that they are comparable and Roman yield was often significantly higher thanks to well organized labor and very productive regions like Etruria.
The serfs you’re thinking of came much later thanks to populist land reforms, largely after the black plague decimated the labor pool and gave them huge leverage for the first time - a thousand years later. Until then, serfs were slaves with no other protections. They didn’t get to keep anything. They and everything they had belonged to their feudal lords. Slaves on the other hand got the protection of Rome and even had opportunities to rise to freemen, unlike serfs most of whom were tied to the land for life.
I don't think slavery was ever the dominant form for doing agriculture, except in some weird outliers such as Sparta. Because the vast majority of people were involved in agriculture in pre-modern societies. If almost everyone is a slave, keeping the slaves in check must be the primary job for most free people. Otherwise the slaves will revolt and overthrow the system. And if your society is little more than an oppressive machine designed to keep the slaves in check, you can't expect much long-term success.
> There is a huge difference between serfs and slaves.
Bullshit. Also, when you say "Yes, they were tied to specific piece of land but in return also got the protection of the lord in times of war", that was generally true of chattel slaves as well - owners like to protect what they see as their property, after all.
> Formal conversion to serf status and the later ban on the sale of serfs without land did not stop the trade in household slaves; this trade merely changed its name. The private owners of the serfs regarded the law as a mere formality. Instead of "sale of a peasant" the papers would advertise "servant for hire" or similar.
> By the eighteenth century, the practice of selling serfs without land had become commonplace. Owners had absolute control over their serfs' lives, and could buy, sell and trade them at will, giving them as much power over serfs as Americans had over chattel slaves, though owners did not always choose to exercise their powers over serfs to the fullest extent.
The Russian Empire was one of the most underdeveloped and economically impoverished forces in Europe. So yeah, my point.
People here focus on the aspect of freedom which isn't really that important. That is a more modern idea that we see when capitalism develops and there is an actual free workforce.
The point again is economic incentives. Slaves have the incentives to avoid the whip and otherwise work as slowly as possible. Most forms of serfdom allowed working part of the land for yourselves and getting to keep some of which you produce. So you have an interest in being efficient in your work.
> The Russian Empire was one of the most underdeveloped and economically impoverished forces in Europe.
The Russian Empire was considered a "Great Power" for nearly 400 years. Sure, the lives of the average citizen sucked just like that of slaves, but the lords in Russia were able to harness their labor for nearly unfathomable levels of wealth and domination.
The idea that serfs somehow worked harder because "they got to keep some of what they produced" is just pure fantasy. Serfs had to work hard because a lot of the time they were on the verge of starvation.
The Russian Empire was far behind Western Europe in terms of economic development. People still used the wooden plow in the beginning of the 20th century. Something like 80 or 90 percent of the population still lived in villages.
I not really sure what point you are making. I mean no one is going argue that the Russian model of serfdom was a good idea?
> The idea that serfs somehow worked harder because "they got to keep some of what they produced" is just pure fantasy. Serfs had to work hard because a lot of the time they were on the verge of starvation.
Slaves are fed regardless of much or little they produce so you are saying serfs they had a pretty big incentive to work harder. Well case in point.
Besides slavery was practiced in Europe for long after Rome, especially by the Vikings who would raid the serfs and take them as slaves. The Byzantine empire that survived the fall of Rome practiced slavery until its fall a thousand years later so your thesis doesn’t make much sense.