Discussion of Shoes Split From Re: 5136 Pirates with arsenal

[WarriorOfToys]

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.

[Baron Marshall]

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...

[cheng]

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  any ozzies here with an explanation?

[Wesley Myers]

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!   

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 Myers]

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.

[Wesley Myers]

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

Where it came from:

http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc-carlson/shoe/SHOEHOM1.HTM

[bonniebeth]

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.

[WarriorOfToys]

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!

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!   


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.

...

[playmofire]

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.)

[Hadoque]

In The Netherlands the peasants wear wooden shoes