PlaymoFriends
General => Report & Review => Topic started by: Wesley Myers on September 02, 2011, 19:30:57
-
Yes, and most peasants probably too. But I don't like the look ;)
Just because someone was a farmer doesn't mean they were stupid nor backward.
-
Just because someone was a farmer doesn't mean they were stupid nor backward.
I only said peasants probably didn't have shoes.. Not that they were stupid. ???
-
I only said peasants probably didn't have shoes.. Not that they were stupid. ???
Why and how would they not be wearing shoes if they had the brain capacity to know what a shoe was and how to utilize it and when and why?
-
Why and how would they not be wearing shoes if they had the brain capacity to know what a shoe was and how to utilize it and when and why?
??? ??? You're confusing me (and it's past my bedtime too). Are you serious? :hmm: I just think a lot of people back then had no shoes. Most, actually.
-
??? ??? You're confusing me (and it's past my bedtime too). Are you serious? :hmm: I just think a lot of people back then had no shoes. Most, actually.
And what, pray tell, is this assumption based upon?
-
Wesley, I think the reason for a person not having shoes would be that they are poor, not stupid. Shoes were a lot more expensive then than they are now.
Please try to be a little more polite in the way you express your opinions.
-
Books and movies (I'm no expert :) ) - why do you think they did?
Regardless of historical accuracy (or lack of it), I don't like to see klickys with bare feet. A couple, ok.. More... meh. So I think when I get this set, that chinese guy is changing legs...
Edit:
Wesley, I think the reason for a person not having shoes would be that they are poor, not stupid. Shoes were a lot more expensive then than they are now.
Please try to be a little more polite in the way you express your opinions.
Thank you, that is what I meant.. Shoes were (me thinks, again, no expert - are you?) a luxury, not something "common folk" would have.
-
...
Thank you, that is what I meant.. Shoes were (me thinks, again, no expert - are you?) a luxury, not something "common folk" would have.
Shoes were around in the Middle ages, and peasants would have worn them.
There are tapestries and paintings depicting those of lower standing wearing shoes,
Especially in the late Medieval age, but also in the early period as well.
However, if I didn't know anything about the Medieval world,
I would probably make the assumption that they didn't wear shoes due to stories from the bible.
Jesus washing the feet of his disciples was the lowest social class task a man could do,
because people in Jesus' time (at least where he lived) did not wear shoes or sandals.
I am not sure when it became more common to wear shoes,
But I think in western culture, the wearing of shoes goes back fairly far.
-
Actually, in Jesus' time they did wear sandals, but they didn't cover very much of the foot, so their feet did get very dirty on dusty roads.
Interesting that in the medeival period poor people did have shoes. However it's not crazy to think anyone wouldn't. In Laura Ingalls Wilders accounts of her own childhood growing up in the US in the 1800s, children who lived out in the country, like herself, didn't wear shoes in the summer because generally they were poorer than the shop owners in towns, and they needed to preserve their shoes for the cold weather so they would not wear out. so there have been and still are some places where poor people, or at least their children, go without shoes.
However, as we couldn't possibly be any farther off topic if we were trying, I think it's time to split this topic. ;)
-
I don't know how people use to be back in the times, NO ONE has the truth, but poor people NOW don't have shoes. I see it everyday. :'(
So it is not that far from reality to assume in the past it was the same. They surelly were not stupid, no one said that. They just didn't have the means to get shoes. :(
how did we get to talk about this? SPLIT HERE please!
EDIT____sorry I posted while you were splitting... move this one too :lol:
-
It is important to note, that peasants were not really poor people.
I mean, they were. But they still owned a house and had the ability to save "money".
(Although, among the lower classes, they traded instead of using coinage.)
It was the poorer people like beggars and the sick who didn't/couldn't get a job,
That didn't have any money, and therefore couldn't buy shoes.
When people say there were only 2 classes, (low and high, no middle class)
They are wrong... kind of.
Really there were: The people with no money, the people with next to no money, and the filthy rich. ;D
-
it really depends on your definition of "shoe" as well... because even the poorest of the poor would wrap their feet in rags and cloth... or even cake them in mud leaves and straw before going barefoot in the cooler/cold seasons...
-
very interesting and informative :)
...btw, many whites(hope this terminology is ok here, or please delete this) in brisbane and darwin goes around in the city malls etc without shoes...I dont know why or if money has anything to do with it :P any ozzies here with an explanation?
-
Books and movies (I'm no expert :) ) - why do you think they did?
Regardless of historical accuracy (or lack of it), I don't like to see klickys with bare feet. A couple, ok.. More... meh. So I think when I get this set, that chinese guy is changing legs...
Edit:
Thank you, that is what I meant.. Shoes were (me thinks, again, no expert - are you?) a luxury, not something "common folk" would have.
Movies and television are not a source for factual historical information.
Books can (and do) often have an agenda other than the transmission of historical facts.
No one considers North American Indians so poor they did not have shoes. We know they had footwear, moccasins being the most common known. Yet, they were much poorer than any peasant in Europe.
A quick study of the feudal system is in order. The feudal system developed from the Roman system of land owners and those who worked for them. (These often, but not always, used to be slaves before the Church was able to influence the land-owners to abolish slavery.)
The peasant was required to give a certain amount of their income/goods to the lord in turn for protection/assistance from the lord. The lord then paid a certain amount of their income to the lord above them. Up this went to the king - who in early middle ages (commonly known as the "Dark Ages") was king because the other lords chose him for his leadership ability. (It wasn't until later period the king of an area become hereditary through eldest born son.)
The service was both ways both to and from the lord. The lord had many requirements to the peasant. They had to provide shelter, food, protection, employment, etc. (Much like what you expect at work today in order to have an effective working environment - BUT - this extended to 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.)
Clothing is part of shelter and if people did not have adequate clothing, they could not live.
It was when a lord (or group of lords) became so greedy they did not uphold their end of the feudal contract that peasant revolts occurred. (Much like a strike or walkout at a workplace today when management does not uphold its end of a contract or fair labour practice.)
What month of the year is it commonly calculated at when your earnings are finally tax paid and free?
Now imagine you only had to pay a 10% tithe.
When would you have more money? Now or the "poor" middle ages?
Imagine your home needed repairs and your lord had to provide the materials and labour in order to fix it?
Imagine you never had a mortgage - but yet - your house and land stayed in your possession and your family's?
Imagine if you got married and all you had to do was to go out and stake a household for yourself and it was yours. No banks, no mortgage.
There was no interest ever charged in the Middle ages. If you bought something on credit you only paid off the amount of the original purchase.
No homeless. Contrary to some claimed belief, the poorest and sickest had the protection of the lord. If you left your lord (which you could do - there were certain situations depending upon local laws and customs and contracts) then you were no longer part of that feudal contract (just like if you quit work, they don't have to keep your dental benefits and sick days in place). However, you could contract with a new lord if you wanted. You could also just go out on your own and make your own way.
In the Middle Ages there were 150 days of Obligation. These are not including all the days of the Sabbath. So add up how many statutory holidays a year there were. (no unnecessary physical labour was allowed on Days of Obligation and Sundays)
And people think we are so "civilized" you get one measly day a month stat. holiday (not even!) and three weeks holidays?!
As for shoes, specifically. Look at any medieval period illustration.
No one questions they all wore hats. Why would they not have shoes?! It's completely absurd to think that people who would use every usable part of an animal they hunted would not use the hide for clothing and shoes. That's what the Indians did. Moccasins are made of soft leather - they make great soles for shoes. Same in Europe.
Depending upon where you lived shoes could be made of wood (and still are to this day!).
Shoes were hardly a luxury. Neither are they today. You can buy expensive shoes today just like you buy cheap ones.
Don't want shoes? Then wear sandals if your climate is hot. Winter time you wore boots.
Believe it or not, they even had socks and underwear in the middle ages! :lol:
If by expert you mean did I write my Masters in Medieval History on "Shoes of the Middle Ages", no. However, as an History Teacher (secondary) with ancient and medieval periods as part of the curriculum I had better know what I'm actually talking about. If I don't, I go to credible sources to research.
-
Wesley, I think the reason for a person not having shoes would be that they are poor, not stupid. Shoes were a lot more expensive then than they are now.
Please try to be a little more polite in the way you express your opinions.
I was hardly impolite. I would ask how I was impolite?
Also, it was never I who expressed an opinion. Or did you mean Tahra? You stated my name, but she was the only one who expressed an opinion.
In fact, it should have been the comment about people not having shoes that should have been taken off as the start of this side thread, not mine. However, I see that opinion is still allowed to be on the other thread.
-
If anyone wants to "edumacate" themselves, as we jokingly call it in as professional educators here is a neat brief link:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/DEV.HTM (http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/DEV.HTM)
Where it came from:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOEHOM1.HTM (http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOEHOM1.HTM)
-
I was hardly impolite. I would ask how I was impolite?
Also, it was never I who expressed an opinion. Or did you mean Tahra? You stated my name, but she was the only one who expressed an opinion.
In fact, it should have been the comment about people not having shoes that should have been taken off as the start of this side thread, not mine. However, I see that opinion is still allowed to be on the other thread.
Honestly, Wesley, when I was splitting the topic, I couldn't even find Tahra's comment that started you on this rant, because it was a very brief, off-hand comment.
And yes, I do think it is very rude to jump all over someone for being wrong about something.
And yes, I do think you have expressed an opinion, as has Tahra. No one ever questioned whether shoes existed in that time period, we all know that and it is a fact that can be proven. That does not prove there were not some people, or even a lot of people who couldn't afford them, or who went barefoot in the summer and saved the shoes for winter, or who just liked to walk around barefoot sometimes to feel the grass between their toes. You also expressed the opinion that the only possible reason not to wear shoes would be stupidity. Well, that's a can of worms right there, and I'm sure an awful lot of people living in this world right now who do not even have food to eat, much less shoes or even clothing, would not appreciate that.
It's my personal opinion that most people in medieval times probably wore shoes, but that is just an opinion.
-
Movies and television are not a source for factual historical information.
I disagree, there are many shows that are factual,
Most times it is not enough for a very detailed account of whatever it is yo are studying...
But TV shows (if they are correct, and many are)
are a great introduction to that period of history.
Books can (and do) often have an agenda other than the transmission of historical facts.
No one considers North American Indians so poor they did not have shoes. We know they had footwear, moccasins being the most common known. Yet, they were much poorer than any peasant in Europe.
A quick study of the feudal system is in order. The feudal system developed from the Roman system of land owners and those who worked for them. (These often, but not always, used to be slaves before the Church was able to influence the land-owners to abolish slavery.)
The peasant was required to give a certain amount of their income/goods to the lord in turn for protection/assistance from the lord. The lord then paid a certain amount of their income to the lord above them. Up this went to the king - who in early middle ages (commonly known as the "Dark Ages") was king because the other lords chose him for his leadership ability. (It wasn't until later period the king of an area become hereditary through eldest born son.)
I don't believe this is completely accurate.
The process of a "King's" son taking the throne after the death of his father was well established by the early middle ages.
(William the Conqueror is an example.)
The service was both ways both to and from the lord. The lord had many requirements to the peasant. They had to provide shelter, food, protection, employment, etc. (Much like what you expect at work today in order to have an effective working environment - BUT - this extended to 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.)
Clothing is part of shelter and if people did not have adequate clothing, they could not live.
It was when a lord (or group of lords) became so greedy they did not uphold their end of the feudal contract that peasant revolts occurred. (Much like a strike or walkout at a workplace today when management does not uphold its end of a contract or fair labour practice.)
What month of the year is it commonly calculated at when your earnings are finally tax paid and free?
Now imagine you only had to pay a 10% tithe.
When would you have more money? Now or the "poor" middle ages?
Imagine your home needed repairs and your lord had to provide the materials and labour in order to fix it?
Imagine you never had a mortgage - but yet - your house and land stayed in your possession and your family's?
Imagine if you got married and all you had to do was to go out and stake a household for yourself and it was yours. No banks, no mortgage.
There was no interest ever charged in the Middle ages. If you bought something on credit you only paid off the amount of the original purchase.
The Middles ages are not as glorius as you make them seem.
True, the suffering of peasants is greatly over exaggerated, but it was still not so great.
No homeless. Contrary to some claimed belief, the poorest and sickest had the protection of the lord. If you left your lord (which you could do - there were certain situations depending upon local laws and customs and contracts) then you were no longer part of that feudal contract (just like if you quit work, they don't have to keep your dental benefits and sick days in place). However, you could contract with a new lord if you wanted. You could also just go out on your own and make your own way.
That I know is incorrect. The poor and sick would not be taken care of by their lord,
There are many saints who are known specifically for creating houses and handing out food to the less privileged.
In the Middle Ages there were 150 days of Obligation. These are not including all the days of the Sabbath. So add up how many statutory holidays a year there were. (no unnecessary physical labour was allowed on Days of Obligation and Sundays)
And people think we are so "civilized" you get one measly day a month stat. holiday (not even!) and three weeks holidays?!
That is true! <:> ;D
As for shoes, specifically. Look at any medieval period illustration.
No one questions they all wore hats. Why would they not have shoes?! It's completely absurd to think that people who would use every usable part of an animal they hunted would not use the hide for clothing and shoes. That's what the Indians did. Moccasins are made of soft leather - they make great soles for shoes. Same in Europe.
Depending upon where you lived shoes could be made of wood (and still are to this day!).
Shoes were hardly a luxury. Neither are they today. You can buy expensive shoes today just like you buy cheap ones.
Don't want shoes? Then wear sandals if your climate is hot. Winter time you wore boots.
There is something misleading about illustrations from the period.
They tended to... "look on the bright side of life",
like if everyone was perfect, this is how they would look type of thing,
Didn't they?
Believe it or not, they even had socks and underwear in the middle ages! :lol:
Though not the type we think of today. ;)
Cotton didn't become common until sometime just before the American Civil War, I am pretty sure.
Anyway, the main fabric they used was linen. :wave:
...
-
History is rarely, if ever, written by the poor and yet the poor at any time are the majority.
The writers of history often do have an "agenda", whether they are writing now or wrote in the past. But that agenda may not be a conscious one, it may be an unconscious one, the assumption that everyone is like them, that everyone lives like them, and that those who don't are in some way wrong and can or should be excluded or ignored, whether in written reference or in illustration. To some extent, we may all assume that we and those we know are the "norm" and the rest of the population are somehow lesser.
Remember, too, that it's only a few hundred years ago that the rich thought that the poor somehow lacked the "finer" emotions and sentiments simply because they were poor and/or because they were uneducated and that emotions such as love, pity and compassion were unknown to them.
And what do I think about shoes and the poor in mediaeval and earlier times?
Obviously, no one can say for sure whether serfs and peasants wore shoes or not, and if they did whether just some did (the better off) or all did. Nor can we say what those shoes were like. Maybe "foot covering" is a better term than shoes, and that could cover bark soles held on by rags or pliable twigs wrapped round the foot to costly, bespoke footwear and anything in between. An opinion can still be formed, however.
1. In times when life was lived much more at the "edge" of subsistence for the majority of the population, where you largely fed yourself from your own direct efforts on the land in a system of agriculture which was inefficient because your land was scattered about the area of the village in strips, because it was difficult to build up herds of cattle as the majority of animals were slaughtered each autumn, where there was a lack machinery and you had also to work on your lord's lands and this had first priority (e.g. you get the lord's harvest in before your own), it seems unlikely that shoes as we know them would be worn by the majority of the population as in these circumstances, the majority of the population would be concerned with keeping themselves alive and probably little else.
2. If they did indeed have 150 days a year when they didn't work because these were Holy days, had to work on their lord's land as well as their own and basically could only work during the hours of daylight there is still less time left for relatively sophisticated footwear or.
3. The fact that manuscripts written and illustrated by a relatively privileged class of people (monks and other clerics and lords' retainers usually) for the use of another more privileged class of people show peasants wearing relatively sophisticated footwear doesn't mean that they did, let alone that all peasants did. To give a parallel, mediaeval and Renaissance painters painted Biblical scenes with the characters dressed in the clothes the artists were familiar with and no doubt those illustrating mediaeval manuscripts did the same in the case of peasants, maybe never having seen a peasant close up.
On the question of the feudal system, the fact that lords (temporal or spiritual) had responsibilities to those below them, doesn't mean that they carried those responsibilities out. It seems more likely that wealth and responsibility moved upwards rather than was distributed downwards very much like today where there is wine in the boardroom and at the shareholders' lunches but money isn't spent on health and safety.
Just a few thoughts; others may follow.
(Oh, and Wesley, I came into this thread cold and I felt that the tone of your posts was a "shouting" one.)
-
In The Netherlands the peasants wear wooden shoes ;D
-
No one considers North American Indians so poor they did not have shoes. We know they had footwear, moccasins being the most common known. Yet, they were much poorer than any peasant in Europe.
Not all Indian tribes wore moccasins, particularly in the plains, or on the coast where the land might not be as hard or rocky. And many tribes did not consider themselves poor. Up to the end of the 19th Century many were very rich, though not in the things that Western civilization had. An individual in a plains tribe might be considered incredibly rich if he had a number of ponies, a few wives, and a good teepee. By their standard he would be. And then there were the Aztecs, who were incredibly rich by European standards.
But some people have agendas and would consider them poor.
As the line in Wicked goes, "There's just shoes Elphaba. Let it go. "
-
I personally prefer NOT to wear shoes. Even after coming home from a formal event, sometimes when I go back out I'm still wearing a suit and tie, but I slip on my flip flips (aka sandals, aka "thongs", aka slippers), lol.
At all times possible I try NOT to wear shoes unless it's dreadfully cold outside or I'm at a formal setting or work.
At all other times, my feet are o-naturale!!!
-
I, too, increasingly don't wear socks or shoes. Indoors I wear sandals and no socks most of the year, even in winter, only putting on socks when it gets really cold. During the summer, I wear sandals without socks in the house and garden (although not for walking as I find they don't give my feet enough support), and often just go barefoot indoors. It's nice!
-
after wearing long pants and socks&leather shoes 5&1/2 days a week, if i can, its bare foot indoors and sandals to malls/informal dinners. weather here is just too hot to dress like westerners ;)
(perhaps we watch too much 'desperate housewives' to think that westerners are always dressed their best even at home ;D)
-
(perhaps we watch too much 'desperate housewives' to think that westerners are always dressed their best even at home ;D)
We still dress for dinner, cheng, dinner jacket, black tie etc and Diane wears her tiara, and I have a suit I wear only for washing the car.
-
We still dress for dinner, cheng, dinner jacket, black tie etc and Diane wears her tiara, and I have a suit I wear only for washing the car.
black tie for dinner at home?! (I will be better prepared the next time you and Diane welcome me to your new home ;))
...Americans dont do they? ???
...and you meant your wet suit 8};D
-
Nope, nobody dresses for dinner here that I've ever met! In fact a lot of people don't even have a formal dinner, they just grab something and head off to their own seperate TVs. :-\
I almost always go barefoot at home, both inside and outside, at least if I'm just on the porch or patio or driveway. I wouldn't walk through the flowerbeds barefoot at least! :lol: Even during the winter, it's hardly ever cold enough for me to put shoes on before going outside to get the mail or get something out of the car. I even will leave the house barefoot, if I'm just along for the ride and not actually going in to any stores. I hate wearing shoes and socks. my mom had to cut the feet out of my sleepers when I was a baby because I hated having anything on my feet! :lol:
-
Nope, nobody dresses for dinner here that I've ever met! In fact a lot of people don't even have a formal dinner, they just grab something and head off to their own seperate TVs. :-\
I almost always go barefoot at home, both inside and outside, at least if I'm just on the porch or patio or driveway. I wouldn't walk through the flowerbeds barefoot at least! :lol: Even during the winter, it's hardly ever cold enough for me to put shoes on before going outside to get the mail or get something out of the car. I even will leave the house barefoot, if I'm just along for the ride and not actually going in to any stores. I hate wearing shoes and socks. my mom had to cut the feet out of my sleepers when I was a baby because I hated having anything on my feet! :lol:
lol me too! even when i go to my friends' homes everyone takes off their shoes before entering, but i'm the only (weird?) one that also removes his SOCKS as well, going completely barefoot unlike everyone else who was courteous enough to spare our eyes from the sight of a primal pair of bare feet! I especially hate the feeling of socks with no shoes! And I too hated wearing sleepers as a kid that had built-in feet! I vote that we do away with shoes alltogether, rich and poor alike! Who's with me?! :D
-
I've never asked her how she figured out I didn't like them before i could talk. ???
-
Lots of screaming... ;)
-
Why and how would they not be wearing shoes if they had the brain capacity to know what a shoe was and how to utilize it and when and why?
If you look at pictures of people in 1940s and 50s Malta you will see plenty of people - most of them belonging to the working class obviously - going about their business barefoot. Shoes were expensive for people like that - remember that not everyone was as well off as - say - the Americans (though even that is generalising - just look at the Great Depression). Europe was ravaged by two world wars which left many many people destitute. My grandfather used to say that sometimes they would own a pair of shoes but only wear one shoe at a time ... to make them last longer I guess. I'm sure this is still the situation in other, less lucky, parts of the world.
-
If you look at pictures of people in 1940s and 50s Malta you will see plenty of people - most of them belonging to the working class obviously - going about their business barefoot. Shoes were expensive for people like that - remember that not everyone was as well off as - say - the Americans (though even that is generalising - just look at the Great Depression). Europe was ravaged by two world wars which left many many people destitute. My grandfather used to say that sometimes they would own a pair of shoes but only wear one shoe at a time ... to make them last longer I guess. I'm sure this is still the situation in other, less lucky, parts of the world.
I'm sure your grandfather was joking, but I'm equally sure that conditions were as you say they were - people without shoes
Why and how would they not be wearing shoes if they had the brain capacity to know what a shoe was and how to utilize it and when and why?
The answer is because they either didn't have the time, skills and materials to make shoes for themselves or they didn't have the goods to barter for shoes or the money to pay for them. Consider, an African in Somalia may well have the brain capacity to know what a computer is and how to utilize it and when and why, but the reason they don't have one is covered in the previous sentence.
Pretty well every society tends to "pass back" its standards to earlier societies, this is why mediaeval and Renaissance painters paint figures in Biblical scenes dressed as if they (the figures) were living in the middle ages, because that was the norm for the painters. There is no definite proof either way about shoes, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was more likely that the majority of the population in mediaeval times didn't wear shoes as we would recognise them; if the majority of the population wore any sort of foot covering, then it was most likely something they had made themselves, e.g. rag "shoes", bark "shoes" or some sort of sandal.
And what, pray tell, is this assumption based upon?
To be frank, this is a condescending and arrogant statement.
On the question of classes in the middle ages, there were a range of these, the king obviously being at the top and his feudal lords below him to greater or lesser degrees. Below this were the rest of the population and in a system based on the ownership of land, these people owned no land, although they could have rights to land, e.g. in the form of the strip system for agrarian farming and the right to graze animals on the village common or to let pigs roam the woods for mast. They could be closely under the control of their lord, even to needing permission to leave the village. Over time, the system gradually changed with the appearance of a small middle class who provided services or made goods to trade rather than relying on the land for a living. (Although these would often still retain links with the land their family worked in their village, even though they lived now in a town.) But the lord still had influence to over them. It was the Black Death in 1349 which provided the circumstances for radical changes as the fall in the labour supply and the disruption in the ownership and management of estates meant that the links between the lord and his "vassals" was weakened severely or even broken. The landless peasant now could have the opportunity to get his own land or hire himself out as a paid labourer; the better off peasant had the opportunity to acquire more land, and so on leading to the appearance of a wage earning class of former peasants working on the land or in the towns and a middle class of wealthier farmers and people producing and selling goods and personal services.
Obviously, this is a summary of a complex development which was spread over a period of time.
-
... and even then.
History is also something local. What's the norm for one country or region doesn't go for another. Wesley wrote that Kingship wasn'r really passed on from father to son ... but it was definitly a custom for the Carolingian empire (around 700 AD) - though there were other empires where it wasn't, or where it was frequently interupted by usurpers ...
It seems to me that "shoes in medieval times" is quite a huge subject and depending on which location, timeframe and definition of shoe one can get complete different answers ...
Bogro
-
Yes, this is a very good point. One could ask whether people in the 20th century wore shoes, and of course the answer would vary widely depending on similar variables.