should serfs be allowed to emmigrate?

[unmerged(20889)]

Heres a question for a Russian expert maybe.

I was under the impression that Russian serfs were bound to the land (owned by the owners of the land they worked on).

If this was the case, should they be allowed to emmigrate as and when they decide they want to?

I am aware that alot of Russians did immigrate to other countries during this period, but whats the deal? Will a POP's legal status in their society restrict their freedom of action?

 

[unmerged(11874)]

One would think the slave pops wouldn't be able to emigrate, at least en masse... I'd be surprised if they could, inasmuch as that's part and parcel of the definition of "slave." The question, then, is how the serfs in Russia are represented, that is, which pop type are the serfs. I would figure they'd be represented as slave pops.

 

[Conrad]

There was a wide difference between serfs and serfs.

To simplify the picture:

Serfs in nothern Russia were the Czar's serfs. They were only bound to the land owned by the Czar, and I guess that they were quite comparable to free farmers in the west. They were the ones that colonized Siberia (and so it not so strange the the stereotypical Siberian Russian is blonde).

Serfs in southern Russia were the serfs of the nobility and had little or no right to leave the land owned by the nobleman.

Why is this relevant to Victoria:

North Russians would be best modelled as free farmer POPs (who can move within Russia), whereas south Russians would be best modelled as slave POPs (who cannot move at all).

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by Conrad
There was a wide difference between serfs and serfs.

To simplify the picture:

Serfs in nothern Russia were the Czar's serfs. They were only bound to the land owned by the Czar, and I guess that they were quite comparable to free farmers in the west. They were the ones that colonized Siberia (and so it not so strange the the stereotypical Siberian Russian is blonde).

Serfs in southern Russia were the serfs of the nobility and had little or no right to leave the land owned by the nobleman.

Why is this relevant to Victoria:

North Russians would be best modelled as free farmer POPs (who can move within Russia), whereas south Russians would be best modelled as slave POPs (who cannot move at all).

Well actually those Czar's serfs couldn't freely move within Russia, they were often ordered by the Czar to move when they did. Think about it: would so many willingly have moved to Siberia?

Anyway Russia didn't have serfs for that long a time in Vic era, IIRC they were emancipated in 1860s.

 

[Conrad]

P.S.

Most of the Russians that emigrated during the period were Jews.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

re Conrad

Most of the Russians that emigrated during the period were Jews.

It's true and I hope that possiblity to emigrate will depend also on your state goverment type. It wouldn't be wise if people can easily emigrate from for example proletariant dictatorship state to state with more freedom and better standard of live.

 

[Conrad]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
Well actually those Czar's serfs couldn't freely move within Russia, they were often ordered by the Czar to move when they did. Think about it: would so many willingly have moved to Siberia?

OK, I haven't got any references ready on this, but consider the fact that huge parts of European Russia and Siberia were colonized by serfs from nothern Russia. The Czar or his ministers sure did not have time to micromanage the colonization of every good land between the Volga and the Pacific Ocean.

 

[unmerged(4848)]

Originally posted by Conrad
There was a wide difference between serfs and serfs.

To simplify the picture:

Serfs in nothern Russia were the Czar's serfs. They were only bound to the land owned by the Czar, and I guess that they were quite comparable to free farmers in the west. They were the ones that colonized Siberia (and so it not so strange the the stereotypical Siberian Russian is blonde).

Serfs in southern Russia were the serfs of the nobility and had little or no right to leave the land owned by the nobleman.

Why is this relevant to Victoria:

North Russians would be best modelled as free farmer POPs (who can move within Russia), whereas south Russians would be best modelled as slave POPs (who cannot move at all).

Although not an expert in the question, I like Conrad's solution. I have been told so many times by Paradox when trying to fix gugs related to Hungary that main priority is: game engine-like thinking (events, game balance, etc.)

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by Dzoser
re Conrad



It's true and I hope that possiblity to emigrate will depend also on your state goverment type. It wouldn't be wise if people can easily emigrate from for example proletariant dictatorship state to state with more freedom and better standard of live.

Was there an iron curtain in 1920? My impression was that the revolution spawned a lot of immigrants.

 

[Conrad]

Originally posted by Sytass
Was there an iron curtain in 1920? My impression was that the revolution spawned a lot of immigrants.

True, the revolution drained the population of Russia, also trough emigration (Pipes in "The Russian Revolution" gives the figure of 1/3 of all able-bodied men were lost due to emigration, starvation and wars).

However, the people who emigrated generally belonged to the higher strata of Russian society. The communist regime was desperate to replace the loss of engineers and other specialists.

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by Sytass
Was there an iron curtain in 1920? My impression was that the revolution spawned a lot of immigrants.

Yep. A big portion of wealthier Russians left, a good thing they did since it was a way to avoid gulag treatment. Also the minorities which had their own state now (Poles, Estonians, Finns etc.) moved to their new homelands, while communists in those countries and elsewhere in the World, even from Canada and US, moved to help building communism.

 

[unmerged(19226)]

re Sytass

Was there an iron curtain in 1920? My impression was that the revolution spawned a lot of immigrants.

But for example peasantry in Russia wasn't able to move where they wanted. It was caused by laws proclaimed by Tsar. In Austria and Russia many people were investigated, invigilated and persecuted by state police because of their political or social convictions in XIX centuary.

 

[unmerged(5323)]

Great deal of Siberia was colonised due to run-away serfs, that escaped feudal chains to become free farmers.

 

[Conrad]

Alright, as no one believes me, I'll e-mail the source of my information.

She's a professor of history at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

I'll get back when I have more facts.

cheers,
Conrad

 

[unmerged(19173)]

In addition to the majority serfs there ware free peasants as well. The soldiers ware drafted from the serfs, which on retirement received freedom and a generous parcel of land. The Cossacks ware free peasants and ex serfs who had a privileged position in exchange for military service and protection of the borders. To get freedom and land the Russians didn’t needed to go to America, Russia had plenty.

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by todorp
In addition to the majority serfs there ware free peasants as well. The soldiers ware drafted from the serfs, which on retirement received freedom and a generous parcel of land.

Drafting soldiers from serfs wasn't that simple if they weren't Czar's serfs. The nobles demanded something back for loosing their property, thus less soldiers were drafted from their serfs and their life in general was a bit more limited. I guess you didn't make a difference between pre- and post-emancipation drafting?

You can get a generous amount of land, but if it happens to reside in Siberia the reward isn't that grand in the end.

 

[unmerged(21298)]

Originally posted by Grosshaus

You can get a generous amount of land, but if it happens to reside in Siberia the reward isn't that grand in the end.

Amount of Arable Land per capita
1999
US-.64
Russia- .86

This is without all the parts of Russia that it lost after 1918, including the Ukraine, one of the most arable nations in the world.

 

[Grosshaus]

Originally posted by CzarAleks
Amount of Arable Land per capita
1999
US-.64
Russia- .86

This is without all the parts of Russia that it lost after 1918, including the Ukraine, one of the most arable nations in the world.

Do you honestly think those large estate owners of European Russia would sell their land to some former serfs? Not a chance. To buy a farm you had to go East.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by Conrad
OK, I haven't got any references ready on this, but consider the fact that huge parts of European Russia and Siberia were colonized by serfs from nothern Russia. The Czar or his ministers sure did not have time to micromanage the colonization of every good land between the Volga and the Pacific Ocean.

I don't know about farm land, but the Tsars* micromanaged intensivly. Up untill 19-something they would sign every serf's marriage certificate personally, and that was just one of his uh, impotant duties.

*= I see Tsar spelt Tsar, Tzar, Csar and Czar on this forum and in history books, anyone know for sure which is correct?

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Either of the 4 ways is correct, I think, just depends on your translation. Maybe I'm wrong and there's and "official" one, though.