Barefoot warriors

Savages are used to walk barefoot. Shoes would just inhibit them.

>>1974600
When you walk barefoot all the time the skin on your soles gets super thick. In rainy weather and mud (common in northern Europe) it has much better friction than shoes with a flat profile, especially since you can grip with toes when climbing up a muddy hill f.e.

Vikings sometimes used to take their shoes off for fighting.

>>1974600
The Ethiopian Royal Guard had boots until they discovered they severely reduced their marching speed.

>>1974600
Only 150 to 200 years ago peasants in my area of Northern Germany thought of shoes as something for degenerate weaklings.

>>1974613
It still seem risky, especially on a battlefield where you have sharp things lying around.
I guess the extra flexibility was more desired.

>>1974646
Not really, you'd have to step right on the edge of a sharp sword, which is extremely unlikely, plus swords get blunt quickly in battle. And viking shoes would offer almost no protection against that anyway.

File: IrishSamurai.jpg (631KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

631KB, 1920x1080px

Yes, the Irish almost never wore shoes in battle, even the kings didn't wear shoes. Their skin on their feet would have hardened and became used to walking and running on harsh terrain without much damage.

File: Oxhide_boots._Loulan,_Xinjiang._Early_Han_220_BCE_-_8_CE.jpg (94KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x602px

Consider this: In modern fencing and HEMA, you want to wear a nice pair of grippy athletic shoes so that you can get proper leverage and shift your weight appropriately.

A pair of boots in the classical or medieval era would look like this. It would limit your range of mobility, and offer little grip.

File: 8852_11_28.jpg (7KB, 285x277px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 285x277px

>>1974732
What's with the duelling gauntlet thing they're all carrying?