Talk:Battle of the Golden Spurs

Weapons used
Removed: "Some infantrymen were equipped with new multi-barrel gunpowder weapons, but their impact on the outcome is questionable."

Removed as it is unsourced and sounds unlikely: 1302 is very early for any sort of gunpowder weapon in Europe, and they would have been cannons, not man-portable firearms. This isn't my area of expertise however, so if 213.54.17.19 can cite a source for this, I'd happily be corrected.--QuantumEngineer 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like bollocks to me. The most advanced weapons that I've read about in use at this battle are crossbows. ericg &#9992; 06:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the Flemish use of the Geldon; a long spear used with two hands like a pike, it's use here by well disciplined infantry militia foretold the gradual decline of cavalry and the importance of the pike in the subsequent centuries. I find it odd that it wasn't mentioned in this article but that the Goedenac was. I was also suprised to see that the French were given credit for having 1000 pikemen on the field. I'm sure this is a mistake and they were normal infantry spearmen, most likely using a single handed spear and shield. The section does have a source but I don't have access to that book and everything I've ever read says that the most interesting thing about this battle was the use of the Flemish Geldon, I don't think any other army had pikemen at the time except for perhaps the Scotts. Master z0b 06:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dutch spelling
I'm updating the spelling of "Vlaenderen" (old spelling, pre-WWII) to "Vlaanderen" (current spelling). Even for old books the spelling is routinely updated out here, most of us can't even read the old spelling without significant effort.

If you need a reference: any dictionary will do ;-)

213.118.140.120 18:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistake
Recent historical research revealed that the secret pasword most probably wasn't Schild ende vriend but 's Gilden vriend (friend of the guild)


 * This could be, since some people from west-flanders also have problems with SCH, pronouncing it as SK like the french do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.39.16 (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Casualties
The casualty figures in the box and in the text don't gel. 400 noble deaths on the Flemish side or 100? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.130.17 (talk • contribs)


 * The text states that 400 nobles fought with the Flemish, not that 400 died. I don't see any disagreement within the article. ericg ✈ 18:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Decisive victory?
Why is this a decisive victory - there are no long term consequences associated with this battle. The reason why they speak Dutch in the area rather than French in Flanders is more to do with the geographical location (close to Holland)

I understand that this battle is however Important in that infantry beat cavalry and would continue to do so but this battle alone did not result in a change in military tactics or a change in the politics of Europe or even the region because the French returned to assert their authority anyway. Correct me if I am wrong. Tourskin 01:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, this battle has very little to do with why we speak Dutch in Flanders today and Flanders remained a part of France afterwards. In fact, the County of Flanders ceased to be a part of France only with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549, more than two centuries later. Hence, it was only a temporary victory.--Ganchelkas 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above but I don't think it has anything to do with geographical location either, it's not as if the flemish imported their language from the Netherlands, if anything, it's the other way around. I agree that it's not a decisive victory though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamadude (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It was not a decisive victory, French authority over a good part of the southern cities of Flanders was already reestablished with the battle of Mons-en-Pévèle/Pevelenberg in 1304. Over the next two centuries, Flanders would be a chess piece manipulated by the French and the English in the Hundred Years War, until it was finally incorporated into the lands of the Dukes of Burgundy.


 * The only real historical significance of the battle comes from the book written about it by Hendrik Conscience. It had no lasting effect on the medieval county of Flanders and the rest of what is now called Flanders (parts of the Duchy of Brabant and the Prince-Bishopric of Liege, which were part of the Holy Roman Empire and not of France) were either not involved or sided with the King of France to undermine their rivals. The Belgian King Leopold I and the writer Hendrik Conscience began the tradition of assigning importance to this battle to stoke national pride. Oda86 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Illustrations
The second picture has nothing to do with that battle. It has to do with the XVIth century. See: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcontenten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.198.73.88 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Forces?
I have a question on the Flemish force. It state's nowhere there were any troops not coming from (current) Flanders. However, in the article on Pieter De Coninck, it states: "This battle, won by a motley alliance of Flemish and Namur petty nobles and many commoners, was later famously called the Battle of the Golden Spurs." So some Namur nobles were present. On Wikipedia in Dutch, it can also not be found in the paragraph on the "Flemish" army, but in the part on "Vlaamse feestdag" (eng: "Flemish Community's official holiday"), it states "Nochtans stonden in 1302 de troepen van het Graafschap Namen, nu in Wallonië gelegen, aan de Vlaamse kant,..." (eng: However, in 1302 the troops from the county (?) Namur, now in Wallonia, were on the Flemish side"). It could seem the parts on the Flemish force are somewhat biased by Flemish national politics, though it could be simply a mistake. Does anyone have a reliable source on this? Kbentbeu (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The medieval County of Flanders and the current Flemish region are not geographically identical. There was nothing odd about troops from Namur fighting on the same side (which they did). The word "Nochtans" (meaning "however") projects current day nationalistic sentiments unto the past. Language differences were not a point of contention in Medieval politics, "Wallonia" did not exist and "Flanders" did not refer to "the Dutch speaking part of Belgium". The Duke of Brabant (which belonged to the Holy Roman Empire and not France) fought alongside the French even though most of his territory is in what is now called Flanders. Aside from starting every article mentioning the County of Flanders with a disclaimer that this is not the same thing as the Flemish region, I see no way of avoiding this kind of confusion. Oda86 (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good to mention the participation of Namur in the belligerents section, but I think saying Flemish-Namuroise victory is a misrepresentation, while they did help, the Flemish were the overwhelming majority and the battle is about defending Flemish objectives. Namur was simply sending some troops to help defend. To me, this is the same as saying the Battle at Hastings with William the Conqueror's army was a "Norman-French-Breton-Flemish victory". The two leading political entities in this war were the Anglo-Saxons and Normans. The rest were but a small portion of William the Conqueror's army and did not take a leading role so they are not mentioned in the victory.
 * So in short, Namur in belligerents is accurate (even though Jan van Renesse from Zeeland helped too), but including them in the victory adjectives is misrepresentative (no Namuroise objectives were being fought over) and inconsistent with other battle description patterns. 2A02:A03F:640D:7E00:9195:A78B:8D32:FE81 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Forces?
It is stated in the text that the french had 2500 cavalry + 1000 crossbowmen + 1000 spearmen + up to 3500 light infantry = up to 8000 total

in the infobox it says 2500 cavalry + 8000 infantry

which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.167.204.124 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the infobox figures match the source given, and there is no source for the given numerical breakdown for the infantry, I must assume the latter is in error, probably WP:SYNTH by someone poor at math. I've removed the numbers for the breakdown.  Thanks.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Klauwaards vs Liebaards
In the background text it says that many cities were split between the "lillies" (leliaerts) and the "claws" (clauwaerts). Contemporary sources use the name of "Liebaerts" or "Liebaards" (contemporary spelling) for the faction that was pro the Count of Flanders. Liebaard comes from an old Flemish/Dutch word for an heraldic lion or leopard (distinction between the two animals did not exist yet in medieval Dutch), i.e. "Liebaert." The name "Clauwaerts" is of later origin and was used by the pro-Flanders faction in the rebellion of Jacob Van Artevelde (1329). So, "Liebaerts" or "Liebaards" is the term that should be used here.