Flemish/Belgian military history

[Peasant Phill]

I'm from Flanders but I'm a bit ashamed to say that my knowledge of the military history of this region is fairly poor. That IMO is in a big part due to the Flemish education (or at least the the education that I got) where the emphasis was on the whole world rather than on Flanders or Belgium. If the emphasis was on Flanders/Belgium it focussed on internal politics or the economical situation. Even The Belgian independence was barely touched (and believe me the actual clash between the revolutionaries and the Dutch army wasn't something to write home about).

This has probably a lot to do with the lack of chauvinism on part of us Belgians. I'm convinced you French, Brits, Americans, ... were absolutely bombarded with the glorius past of your country.

Now I'm finishing my masters degree and I still don't know a lot about 'my history' except the recent and the political history. I'm just hoping the history buffs here can fill me in on some of the military achievements (or direct me to some good websites or books).

There are three achievements that sprung to mind:

- an honorable mention by Julius Caesar. "The Belgians are the bravest of all Gauls". But what did the Belgian tribe(s) do to disserve this?

- a hard fought (semi)independence during medieval times in which the battle at Kortrijk/Courtrai of 1302 was the most important victory. I think this battle is underrated here at the .Org in spite of its great importance (I always notice Agincourt being mentioned in this light), the pope was woken from his sleep 7 days after the battle to be told that for the first time a army entirely of infantry had defeated a knight heavy army.
I even read here, by a fellow Belgian of all people, that the peasants got lucky while in my opinion a well equipped, disciplined Flemish army deployed very good so the French knights couldn't charge at full speed.
What other battles were fought in that period? (I know a bit of Westrozebeke fought in 1304)

- WWI where the Belgians fought along side the Brits and the French to stop the Germans and a brave belgian AFAIK who flooded the region to stop the Germans or to force them to retreat.
Give me some details if possible.

Thanks in advance.

[English assassin]

Showing my ignorance, but wasn't Belgium the catholic bit of the Spanish Netherlands, and therefore presumably also quite a bit of fighting to kick the Spanish out?

Other than that I am afraid my only knowledge of Belgian military history is as a battleground for assorted British armies. Though I do know the Belgians acknowldge they were liberated by the Commonwealth troops in WWII, which is more than a certain other nation next door does.

[Kralizec]

The Belgians mentioned by Caesar have very little, if anything to do with the people inhabiting the same general area over a millenium later. They were Kelts (not actual "Gauls" as the Romans called them), and much later the area was overrun by germanic tribes, driving them off/and or absorbing them (by the time they were romanized anyway)
I don't know if the old Belgians actually fought braver then proper Gauls, or if it was just propaganda from Caesar. Here and there in his writings he would have exaggerated to make his achievements seem greater, or to cover for his own military mistakes.

Flemish militia are known for their use of the Goedendag, wich is not a mace- that's a common misconception. It was more like a staff with a sharp pin on top and it was apparently quite effective against armoured knights. The militia used both goedendag weapons and pikes, and I believe that on some occasion they would use mixed formations so that knights would need to deal with both when charging.
Again later the northern Netherlands would rebel, while the Flemish part stayed with the Spanish Habsburgs. The watergeuzen would from then on block or pirate the sea entrances wich the city of Antwerpen was dependent on for her commerce and the economic importance of the Flemish lowlands declined, Amsterdam would take over the torch and become a booming merchant city.

IIRC Belgium tried to stay neutral in WWI as the Netherlands did, but apparently they were to much in the way and got cought in the middle of the fighting.

[Peasant Phill]

Showing my ignorance, but wasn't Belgium the catholic bit of the Spanish Netherlands, and therefore presumably also quite a bit of fighting to kick the Spanish out?

Yes, at that time the region later known as belgium was part of the Spanish empire, emporer Charles was even born in Ghent. But to my limited knowledge it was for the most part the protestant north ( the Geuzen) that fought the catholic Spanish but there could very well be some battles between included Spanish troops and people from South Netherlands.

[/QUOTE]Other than that I am afraid my only knowledge of Belgian military history is as a battleground for assorted British armies. Though I do know the Belgians acknowldge they were liberated by the Commonwealth troops in WWII, which is more than a certain other nation next door does.[/QUOTE]

Flanders and later Belgium has always been the theatre of international disputes because of its strategically value (middle of Western Europe and the sea trade) and its riches. And as for the liberation It certainly weren't the Belgians themselves alone (although Belgians fought in British forces and there was a Belgian underground movement).

[Peasant Phill]

Flemish militia are known for their use of the Goedendag, wich is not a mace- that's a common misconception. It was more like a staff with a sharp pin on top and it was apparently quite effective against armoured knights. The militia used both goedendag weapons and pikes, and I believe that on some occasion they would use mixed formations so that knights would need to deal with both when charging.

They formed up in such a way that there was a militiaman with a goedendag between two pikemen. The pikes stopped the charging knights and the so they would make an easy target for the militiamen. After that day the goedendag, derived from godendac which means big knife or something similar, got a reputation with the French troops. 1 Flemish soldier with a goedendag would be able to slay 20 French knights, which of course was one hell of an overstatement.

The most important reason for me that caused the Flemish victory in 1302 was its deployment just after a stream. The French knights could get over the stream well enough but they couldn't pick up enough speed to break the Flemish lines. In the center there was more room to accelerate and there the French did break the lines to some extend until their commander was killed.

[ShadesWolf]

- a hard fought (semi)independence during medieval times in which the battle at Kortrijk/Courtrai of 1302 was the most important victory. I think this battle is underrated here at the .Org in spite of its great importance (I always notice Agincourt being mentioned in this light), the pope was woken from his sleep 7 days after the battle to be told that for the first time a army entirely of infantry had defeated a knight heavy army.
I even read here, by a fellow Belgian of all people, that the peasants got lucky while in my opinion a well equipped, disciplined Flemish army deployed very good so the French knights couldn't charge at full speed.
What other battles were fought in that period? (I know a bit of Westrozebeke fought in 1304)


Do you have a copy of MTW, if so you might want to download my historic battle for Courtrai.

[cutepuppy]

I'm flemish as well, with a general interest in history (mainly antiquity and middle ages) since I was 8-9 years old (I'm now 26). I will try to answer your questions, but i will do it in Dutch (sorry for all those who don't speak it), mainly because I can't concentrate now to translate my thoughts into english.


I'm from Flanders but I'm a bit ashamed to say that my knowledge of the military history of this region is fairly poor. That IMO is in a big part due to the Flemish education (or at least the the education that I got) where the emphasis was on the whole world rather than on Flanders or Belgium. If the emphasis was on Flanders/Belgium it focussed on internal politics or the economical situation. Even The Belgian independence was barely touched (and believe me the actual clash between the revolutionaries and the Dutch army wasn't something to write home about).

This has probably a lot to do with the lack of chauvinism on part of us Belgians. I'm convinced you French, Brits, Americans, ... were absolutely bombarded with the glorius past of your country.

Now I'm finishing my masters degree and I still don't know a lot about 'my history' except the recent and the political history. I'm just hoping the history buffs here can fill me in on some of the military achievements (or direct me to some good websites or books).

There are three achievements that sprung to mind:

- an honorable mention by Julius Caesar. "The Belgians are the bravest of all Gauls". But what did the Belgian tribe(s) do to disserve this?

- a hard fought (semi)independence during medieval times in which the battle at Kortrijk/Courtrai of 1302 was the most important victory. I think this battle is underrated here at the .Org in spite of its great importance (I always notice Agincourt being mentioned in this light), the pope was woken from his sleep 7 days after the battle to be told that for the first time a army entirely of infantry had defeated a knight heavy army.
I even read here, by a fellow Belgian of all people, that the peasants got lucky while in my opinion a well equipped, disciplined Flemish army deployed very good so the French knights couldn't charge at full speed.
What other battles were fought in that period? (I know a bit of Westrozebeke fought in 1304)

- WWI where the Belgians fought along side the Brits and the French to stop the Germans and a brave belgian AFAIK who flooded the region to stop the Germans or to force them to retreat.
Give me some details if possible.

Thanks in advance.

De vermelding van Caesar van 'Belgen' (Belgae) gebeurt-zoals je wellicht wel weet in 'de bello gallico' (over de gallische oorlogen). De exacte zinsnede luidt: 'Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae, propterea quod a cultu atque humanitate provinciae longissime absunt, minimeque ad eos mercatores saepe commeant atque ea quae ad effeminandos animos pertinent important, proximique sunt Germanis, qui trans Rhenum incolunt, quibuscum continenter bellum gerunt. '
Ruw (en zeer kort) vertaald betekent dit: Van hen (de galliërs) zijn de belgen de sterkste (tot hier het gekende liedje, maar wat volgt stelt het voorgaande in een ander daglicht), omdat elke vorm van cultuur en (beschaafde) mensheid ver van deze provincie verwijderd zijn, handelaars er niet vaak komen en ze dus geen verwijfde geesten worden, en ze wonen naast de Germanen, tegen wie ze constant oorlog voeren.
Als je de hele zin dus leest, bemerk je dat caesar impliceert dat de Belgen dapper zijn omdat ze (enigszins cru gesteld) onbehouwen boerenpummels zijn.
Je weet wellicht dat 'Belgae' een verzamelnaam was voor 5 à 6 stammen, waaronder de Eburoni, Menapii, Nervii, Atuatuci,... Enkele van deze stammen, voornamelijk de Menapii onder Boduognat en de Eburoni onder Ambiorix, verzetten zich hardnekkig tegen de Romeinse overheersing en werden bijna volledig uitgeroeid.

De guldensporenslag vormt het hoogtepunt van wat de Fransen de 'Vlaamse oorlogen' noemen.
De strubbelingen tussen het graafschap Vlaanderen en het koninkrijk Frankrijk startten aan het einde van de 12de eeuw (tijdens de regering van Filips van den Elzas en Philippe II Auguste). Philippe II wou ten allen prijze de relatief zwakke positie van de Franse koning in de (belang)rijkste gewesten verstevigen, waaronder dus Vlaanderen. In de loop der jaren (eeuwen, want ook zijn opvolgers bemoeiden zich intensief) kwam dit tot uiting in drie grote 'campagnes':

1) Tegen de Engelse koning in het zuidwesten van Frankrijk (Normandië, Bretagne, Anjou en Aquitaine)
2) Tegen de graaf van Toulouse in het zuidoosten
3) tegen de graaf van Vlaanderen in het Noorden.

De campagne tegen de Engelse koning had tot gevolg dat Philippe II vervroegd terugkeerde van de 3de kruistocht, enkele jaren (1194-1199) tegen Richard I (Leeuwenhart) streed, totdat deze het leven verloor. Nadien zette diens broer John I de strijd verder maar in 1202-1204 verloor deze het grootste deel van zijn leenheerlijkheden in Frankrijk, met name Anjou, Normandië en Bretagne. Deze strijd werd heropgerakeld in 1213-1214, met als hoogtepunt de veldslag bij Bouvines (1214), waar een Vlaams-Engels-Duitse coalitie werd verslagen door de Fransen.

De campagne tegen Toulouse gaf aanleiding tot de albigenser kruistochten (+/-1209 - +/-1229).

Afhankelijk van de houding van de Vlaamse graaf ontbrandde de 'koude oorlog' tussen Vlaanderen en Frankrijk soms in bloedige conflicten. In een eerste hiervan, de slag bij Bouvines, koos de vlaamse graaf de zijde van de anti-franse coalitie. De nederlaag deed de Vlaamse zaak geen goed en in de komende decennia kon de Franse koning zijn greep op dit wingewest versterken. Gelukkig voor Vlaanderen waren de opvolgers van Philippe II niet echt in het graafschap geïnteresseerd. Lodewijk VIII, een getalenteerd veldheer, toonde meer belangstelling voor de Engelse kroon (hij was 8 maanden koning van Engeland) en het graafschap Toulouse. Lodewijk IX (de heilige), ging liever op kruistocht, Philippe III vocht om de controle over Sicilië met het koninkrijk Aragon. Dit zou echter veranderen onder de heerschappij van Philippe IV en Gwijde Van Dampierre.

...to be continued...

continuing...

De expedities van zijn vader en grootvader zadelden Philippe IV met een geweldig begrotingstekort op, en aangezien de Franse kroon de afgelopen eeuw ongeveer alle semi-onafhankelijke graafschappen of hertogdommen onder controle had gekregen, was het nu de beurt aan vlaanderen. Om een ingewikkelde zaak kort te behandelen, Philippe IV slaagde erin graaf Gwijde (die zijn dooppeter was en van wie hij de ridderslag had ontvangen) via allerlei juridische spitsvondigheden in de gevangenis te gooien en het graafschap grotendeels te annexeren na een militaire campagne in 1297 en 1298. De engelse koning Eduard I (die kort tevoren al het grootste deel van aquitaine had verloren aan Frankrijk) kwam Vlaanderen te hulp, door ondermeer een leger van +/- 8000 soldaten naar vlaanderen te sturen (voornamelijk boogschutters uit Wales), maar trok zijn troepen terug na een akkoord met de Franse koning. De ontevredenheid onder de Vlaamse bevolking bleef nog een aantal jaar doorsluimeren, tot het vuur van de rebellie ontbrandde tijdens de 'Brugse Metten'. Hierop stuurde de Franse koning een uitgelezen leger naar Vlaanderen, dat werd verslagen in de Guldesporenslag. De Franse koning wou zo snel mogelijk wraak en zond opnieuw een leger naar Vlaanderen. In september 1302 trok dat zich terug toen het werd geconfronteerd met het Vlaamse leger, uit angst voor dezelfde desastreuze afloop als in Kortrijk. Tezelfdertijd stelden de Vlamingen zich agressiever op. Ze belegerden (en veroverden) een aantal steden in Henegouwen, Frans-Vlaanderen, Zeeland en Holland. Tijdens enkele (minder betekenisvolle) schermutselingen werden legers uit die graafschappen verslagen of tot de aftocht gedwongen.
In 1303 was er opnieuw een treffen tussen Franse en Vlaamse legers. In de buurt van de stad Arques kwam het tot een confrontatie tussen de milities van Ieper en Sint-Winoksbergen enerzijds en ongeveer 1600 man Franse zware cavalerie. De milities van Sint-Winoksbergen werden zwaar toegetakeld, maar werden op tijd ontzet door de Ieperianen onder leiding van Willem Van Gullik. De Vlamingen wonnen de veldslag, maar ten koste van vele levens.
Ook in 1304 vond er een belangrijke veldslag plaats tussen de Fransen en de Vlamingen. Niet in Westrozebeke, maar in Mons-en-Pévèle (Pevelenberg). Aan beide kanten stonden nu veel meer troepen dan tijdens de guldensporenslag (zowel VLamingen als Fransen hadden 12000 à 15000 soldaten). De vlamingen slaagden erin om een groot deel van het Franse leger op de vlucht te jagen en de Franse koning te verwonden, maar omdat ze merkten dat hun bagage geplunderd werd door Franse infanterie, trokken ze zich tijdens de nacht terug. Tijdens de veldslag verloren de Vlamingen hun spirituele leider Willem Van Gullik. Enkele dagen eerder verloren de Vlamingen ook al Jan Van Renesse tijdens het beleg van Zierikzee. Het verlies van hun bevelhebbers, en het heroveren van bezette steden door Hollanders en Fransen leidde tot het verdrag van Athis-sur-Orge (1305), waarin Vlaanderen werd gedwongen een enorme schadevergoeding te betalen.

Echt rustig werd het echter nooit en in de periode 1323-1328 brak er een rebellie uit in de westhoek. Deze werd, na aanvankelijk succes, neergeslagen in de veldslag bij Kassel (1328). Opnieuw volgden enkele relatief rustige jaren, maar in 1382 werd een hoofdzakelijk Gents leger verslaan in de veldslag bij Westrozebeke. De laatste daad van Vlaams verzet tegen 'Fransen' werd beslecht in de slag bij Gavere (1453), waar een Gents leger werd verslagen door de Bourgondiërs.

Enkele anekdotes over WWI: de sluiswachter die de ijzervlakte liet onderlopen heette Karel Cogghe en de Duitsers staken de universiteitsbibliotheek van Leuven in brand, wat in heel Europa afschuw verwekte (bijna meer dan het starten van de oorlog zelf).


if you want to know more, ask. Or let someone else translate the stuff I wrote.

[Aenlic]

For the WWI part, my only specific knowledge is that I believe the first use of Krupp's Big Bertha guns was against the Belgian concrete dome fortifications around Liege. Sadly for the Belgian soldiers inside, the guns proved to be particularly effective at smashing the fortifications which were supposed to be impervious to such assault. Some of the first atrocities, as in killing of civilians, appear to have also taken place in Liege after the advance; although such atrocities were not limited to just one side in that war.

[Strike For The South]

One musnt forget the Beligian waffle which has brought pleasure to millions dare I say billions of people

[Avicenna]

One musnt forget the Beligian waffle which has brought pleasure to millions dare I say billions of people

...and what secret connection to military history do WAFFLES have? :inquisitive:

[Strike For The South]

The power of breakfest can be weilded in a many number of ways.

[Watchman]

I've read the Romans had the curious notion that the farther a "barbarian" tribe lived from "civilized" folk - read Romans - the less softening cultural influences they were exposed to and the fiercer fighters they were. The Belgae were apparently among the more distant Celtic tribes (I understand they dwelt in southern Britain too) and as such were duly regarded as particularly ferocious.

'Course, they just might not have killed off their professional warrior class in a drawn-out civil war like the Gauls and were thus able to pit better fighters against the Romans...

As for Medieval times, I understand the Low Countries region urbanized rather early on (producing quality militia troops through largely the same dynamics as Northern Italy and Helvetia) and was even before that a well-known source of capable mercenary infantry. Courtrai, however, was AFAIK won primarily by using terrain to stump the cavalry charge and the unprofessionalism of the chivalry that made them engage formed infantry in such advantageous position in the first place. I read somewhere the French later shredded the Flemish militias in more open terrain; developing an infantry doctrine that enabled commoner militias to even go into offensive against heavy cavalry on open ground and triumph was left to the Italians and the Swiss.

[Archayon]

i liked the detailed story about the (social and) political difficulties between France and Flanders in the 14th century.


For the ones interested at it ... some periods and highlights in "belgian" history. (it appears to be a HUGE reading :book: )

i don't know all the names of the regions in english, but i'll do my best.
Someone, feel free to help/edit.

Antiquities
as mentioned before, the "Belgii" of which Caesar spoke were celts, living in "French-Flanders" (this translation of Frans-Vlaanderen really looks silly). It is the most north-western part of France, so a little south of Belgium.


High middle ages: separate regions becoming undependent

We should go back 'till the division of the kingdom (empire) of Charlemagne, Verdun, 832. The middle part of it, named after the grandson of Charlemagne, "Lotharius" (Lotharingen in dutch, in english? Lothar or something maybe?), was shortly afterwards divided betwen the west (which became France) and the east (which became HRE, or Germany). Divided is not the best word for it, because all the regions were fairly undependent. The counts/dukes/princebishops/... all were feudal dependent on the German emperor, and the count of Flanders was dependent on the king of France. Due to the invasions of (mostly) the Vikings, everyone was busy defending his own main territory. So the king of France and the German emperor couldn't provide their newly-achieved regions with troops. Therefore, the local rulers had to fight them off themselves. They succeeded, gaining experience and independence of their feudal lord. In the 11th century Flanders had become in fact independent of France, only on paper they had to obey their feudal lord, but he was ignored. The other regions, Brabant (with Louvain in it), Luik (don't know the english translation, liège in french), Holland-Zeeland and Utrecht in the north and many others (this were the most important ones) also gained independency in the same way as flanders did, but 1.5 centuries later. In theory, they still had to obey the German emperor, just like Flanders had to obey France. Those regions were all fighting each other, due to personal dynastical reasons. Sometimes, they became a personal union (like Holland and Zeeland, and for some decades Henegouwen, Hainout?, with it).

In the 13th century, all those regions became an economic union, while they were, politically, still fighting each other. Some of the reasons for this were the growing cities and wealth, especially in flanders (only northern italy was that full advanced in western europe that time), and the big rivers stimulating the growing trade (the Rhine, the Schelde, in english?).
By that time, Germany and France did their best to become centralised. Germany tried to conquer the regions (who were theoretically speaking still dependent on them!), but G. lost in 1288, the battle of Woeringen. France, being further centralised, was more successful: see the war between Flanders and France described above in dutch, or the war between Guy of Dampierre and Filips IV the Bold (? in english?). They did an effort in 1217, when the count of flanders was murdered (Charles the Good), to place their man on the throne, but it failed. G. of Dampierre was captured in 1297, and that was the starting of the war.

(little anekdote: that war had it origins in a economic conflict between 2 regions: the use of the Schelde between the cities of Flanders, containing Ghent and especially Bruges, and Floris V, the strongest ruler of Holland-Zeeland, and his growing capital: Amsterdam. France chose the side of H-Z, seeing a chance to re-establish their power in Flanders, and England chose the side of Flanders, but never gave some real important support. The conflict was finally fought between Flanders and France only, made bigger by a social conflict: the patricians in the cities fought with the French, the guilds supported the counts grandson, William of Jülich).



that for the high middle ages.



The Burgundians in the 14th century: political unification


In 1369, there was a marriage between the Duke of Burgundy, and the daughter of the Flemish Count. When that count died in 1384, the Burgundian Duke got Flanders (which gave him a huge prestige at the French court).

Due to some dynastic accidents (dying of counts without heirs, and marriages), and some military conquests, the whole region of the Low Countries (the Netherlands + Belgium), became burgundian.
By that time, having conquered almost all the regions, the Duke of Burgundy became the most powerful lord in the HRE. He forgot about France, and spilled his efforts trying to be chosen as the next emperor of the HRE. It's 1435 now (Luxembourg was added in the fourties, 1442 i think? maybe 1444, and Utrecht in the fifties, 1451? something like that).



The Habsburgs (english?), in the 15th century: institutional unification


1477, Charles the ... (Stoute in english?), died at Nancy, fighting the swiss in an attempt to make a corridor between the Burgundian Kreits (Low Countries) and Burgundy.
His daughter married Maximilian of Austria, grandfather of Charles the Emperor (english?), of Habsburg.
Those 2 people, made the biggest efforts to unificate the insitutions of the Low countries.
When the empire of Habsburg was split, the Low Countries became part of Spain (Filips II). In 1568, start of the 80y during war, the rich, urban west of the Low Countries fight some independence war against the Spanish. The agraric East didn't want to take up weapons, they felt comfortable with the Spanish. Things turned out differently: it was the NORTH going independent and the SOUTH staying part of Spain. Reasons: katholic Filips II against the protestant north, and the nobility being angry they were taken their priviliges.
The north did not choose a king, but lay the power in hands of one of the institutions, made by the Burgundians and formed under Charles the Emperor. The Republic (of the Netherlands) was born in 1585, but had to wait for recognition untill the treaties of Münster, 1648.


Occupation of the South, 1585-1814

We will leave the Republic north for a while. It became a small, but economic and political very strong nation, with its heights in the first half of the 17th century. After that, it had many invasions to fight from the French.

The South was occupied by the Spanish. Order was restored, absolutism was introduced (in fact: they became a spanish province).


1702, the Spanish king died, without heirs. Some pan-European war broke out. The French (Louis XIV) occupied "their" Low Countries in 1701, held it untill 1706. Then some coalition (British + Republic of the Neth) held it. In 1713, it was given with a treaty to Austria (Charles the VIth, i believe). His daughter, Mary-Theresia, and her sun, Joseph II, were the new absolutistic rulers.

1789: damn French again: the French Revolution.
1792: the French, who wanted to spread out their revolution, wanted to "liberate" the liberal voices in the South, and occupied it (some years earlier there was a revolution in the south too, 1789-1790, but it was rather a traditional than a liberal one). The French also supported the liberals in the north, and helped them achieve power there. 1799, Napoleon occupied the south, installed some younger brother as a king in the north, and some years later took the north himself.



Liberation and unifiation again

The French were kicked out of the north in 1813 (they were loosing much power by then, many lost skirmishes since 1812 for napoleon). One year later, the coalition troops liberated the south.
England decided to make some "neutral" country of the north. Questions from the north to unificate with the south again, were given a positive answer. A bigger buffer could be formed against the French. William I was chosen as a king, a constitution was made and signed. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands was born.

The north and the south independent, 1830 - now

Due to some problems (the catholic south, of wich the southern part spoke french, were not happy with a protestant king making everything dutch), the oppositional groups united, and declared a revolution in 1830. Accidently, all of the oppositional groups seemed to have their roots or center in the south.
Some skirmishes were fought, but in 1839 even William I considered the south lost.

The Netherlands (north) and Belgium (south) were born.
new constitutions were signed, some king was put on the throne in the south, parliaments were chosen, ...

The south, Belgium, still has a northern Dutch part (Flanders), and a southern French-speaking part (Wallony, english?). Some flemish nationalistic movements, at this moment unified with "racistic" rightists, want to be independent, or to become one again with the Netherlands, also speaking dutch. Tensions are becoming bigger, we speak now of a federalistic state, with 2 parts: Flanders and Wallony, being independent of each other, but not that much federal as the US. We live in an interesting time you know :inquisitive: Future will learn what comes...



Something about "names":

"Belgium": the Low Countries, Nederlanden/ de Lage landen in Dutch, les Pays-Bas in French (all exact translations of regions laying rather low, without mountains), are names describing north + south. The french did not have a adjective of "Pays-Bas", instead they used "Belgique" (meaning: of the low countries), referring to Caesar (and referring wrong). When Belgium was formed in 1830 by French-speaking liberal and catholic elites, they made a new word out of the adjective "Belgique".
The Netherlands is a litteral translation of "Nederlanden", to make the distinction between the post-1830 country and the Low Countries, North+South.

Flanders: interesting one. There are 2 of it:

1) The medieval Flanders, being the most western part of belgium (provinces: west-flanders and east-flanders), and the north-western part of france (French-Flanders? odd name again), being half of it. This last part was recaptured by France, but they still speak some strange combination of Dutch and French there.
2) Flanders, the northern half of Belgium, containing the provinces West-Flanders and East-Flanders (both in the west, difficult i know), Antwerp (in the middle), Brabant (with Brussels and Louvain, south and east of Antwerp), and Limburg (most east, in a corner made by the Netherlands and Germany).


Funny thing actually: Flemish nationalists use historical battles (like the famous 1302, the only major battle in 14th century medieval Flanders did actually WIN against France) and stuff from the MEDIEVAL flanders to encourage the we-feeling in MODERN flanders... Funny because like 60 % of medieval flanders is now France, the other 40% is like 1/3th of Modern Flanders (the other 2/3 were neutral in the medieval French-Flemish conflict, or even against Flanders!). Frightening when extremistic populistic parties rape history to whip up people who don't even know their own history....




Feel enlightened...

:idea2: Arch

[Archayon]

As for Medieval times, I understand the Low Countries region urbanized rather early on (producing quality militia troops through largely the same dynamics as Northern Italy and Helvetia) and was even before that a well-known source of capable mercenary infantry. Courtrai, however, was AFAIK won primarily by using terrain to stump the cavalry charge and the unprofessionalism of the chivalry that made them engage formed infantry in such advantageous position in the first place. I read somewhere the French later shredded the Flemish militias in more open terrain; developing an infantry doctrine that enabled commoner militias to even go into offensive against heavy cavalry on open ground and triumph was left to the Italians and the Swiss.


You are well informed :book:

About the terrain ...

the latin french-loving sources speak of fosses canals or something.
the flemish sources don't mention anything.

The French sources describe the fosses as treacherously made by the flemish, the night before the battle.


There was a lot of interesting (and less interesting) research about this terrain alteration lately.
Long time, the main historian of the battle of Courtrai, J.F. Verbruggen, thought there were brooklets in front of the Flemish army. The french knights who crossed it, were too close to the flemish for a full charge.

Since 2002 (700y Battle of the golden spurs celebration), other voices raise, like the one of P. Trio (promotor of my papers gheghe). He proved we cannot know much about those brooklets: we simply enough don't have the sources. He suggests the brooklets were some brooks and small rivers that were troublesome when the French retreated.

As for sure: the French were winning the battle first (crossbowshooting and then infantry charge). The knights didn't want the victory went to the infantry and mercenary crossbowmen, and charged without having the order to charge (lovely feature in MTW too, those too-proud-to-think-knights). They rode over their own people, and got slaughtered (and killed) by the Flemish (who didn't know they could get richer by capturing knights than by capturing booty). (some sources mention the command not to take prisoners until the battle was won).




Indeed, in the following battles, they won. I thought it was the battle of West-rozebeke (?), but i'm not sure.



:idea2: Arch



edit: corrected some spelling/grammar errors :shame: plz don't mind my crappy english

[Kralizec]

Interesting stuff! :book:

[Aenlic]

Very nice information, Archayon! Thanks! :bow:

[GoreBag]

I've read the Romans had the curious notion that the farther a "barbarian" tribe lived from "civilized" folk - read Romans - the less softening cultural influences they were exposed to and the fiercer fighters they were. The Belgae were apparently among the more distant Celtic tribes (I understand they dwelt in southern Britain too) and as such were duly regarded as particularly ferocious.

'Course, they just might not have killed off their professional warrior class in a drawn-out civil war like the Gauls and were thus able to pit better fighters against the Romans...

It was actually particularly true for the Belgae. Unlike other Celtic tribes, drug use was illegal and life was particularly stoic and hard in order to build stronger warriors. And yes, since the Belgae were not Gallic, they did not expend their warrior class in petty wars to be more easily absorbed by Rome.

The Belgae also had some presence in Hibernia and Southern Britannia, but nothing comparable to their own kingdom in the region that now bears their name. Interestingly, though, their presence in Ireland as predecessors to the Goidilic migrations had a profound effect on the language in Hibernia, producing a separate Celtic language called Ivernic. It's noted for including the latin-type character 'k', which is not seen in Goidilic languages.

[Watchman]

It was actually particularly true for the Belgae. Unlike other Celtic tribes, drug use was illegal and life was particularly stoic and hard in order to build stronger warriors.Betcha that should be read as "buncha poor peripheral primitive savages who couldn't afford and get all the nice stuff their sophisticated southern cousins did and no doubt were duly green with envy". It's pretty easy to see how for example Mediterranean wine and similar luxury products might have some difficulties arriving as far north as they lived, especially as the Gauls along the way probably had way more to buy it with...

[Aenlic]

Goidilic is now called q-Celtic, as opposed to the other branch which is now called p-Celtic rather than the older Brythionic. It is generally believed that the q-Celtic which comprises Irish and Scottish Gaelic and Manx as well as the extinct Celtiberian was the older group in the British Isles. The p-Celtic branch arrived later and composes the Welsh, Briton/Breton, Cornish and Gaulish.

The Belgae may not necessarily have been entirely Celtic. Julius Caesar lumped a lot of different tribes together as the "Belgae" and others as the "Galli" and still others as the "Aquitani" in his writings. His groupings don't necessarily fall along language and cultural lines. There appears to have been a great deal of cross-tribe melting by the time of Caesar. Caesar calls the Eburones a Germanic tribe; and yet, their leader Ambiorix has a definitely non-Germanic and very Celtic name. Some of the tribes Caesar called Germanic were Germanic. Some were not, like the Eburones. Some were possible mixes of both, ruled by one or the other over the opposite. Caesar made a huge mess of it, historically, and we're still trying to extract ourselves from the mess he created in his writings about the peoples of the area.

As for languages, Caesar includes the Suessiones as Belgae, but they were most certainly not speakers of q-Celtic, which was far older. In fact, the Belgae in Belgium may not have been the same tribe as the Belgae in Britain or the Belgae in Ireland. The Belgae in Britain certainly spoke p-Celtic, not q-Celtic. The Belgae in Ireland spoke q-Celtic, as GoreBag pointed out in discussing the "k" difference. But could the Belgae in the Lowlands have spoken q-Celtic? That doesn't seem sensible, since Caesar lumped them together with tribes which were definitely p-Celtic speakers. Then again, he differentiated them from the Galli, who were also p-Celtic speakers. But I think it unlikely that the Belgae of Caesar's time in the Lowlands spoke q-Celtic which was a centuries older branch and already pushed out of Britain by the p-Celtic speakers like the Welsh and Britons.

I suspect that the confusion is all due to several Celtic tribes, from both the p-Celtic and the q-Celtic groups sharing the common proto-Celtic root word of "bel-" for shining or sun. One of the Celtic (Gaulish) gods was Bel or Belenus. I don't think it's much of a stretch for several tribes to name themselves after their sun god. And from there, it isn't much of a stretch for Caesar, who wasn't particularly diligent about the differences, to confuse them all together. He managed to lump Germanic tribes and Celtic together and call them all Belgae; but that doesn't mean they were the same Belgae as those in Ireland, who spoke a decidely different version of Celtic.

[Ambiorix]

- an honorable mention by Julius Caesar. "The Belgians are the bravest of all Gauls". But what did the Belgian tribe(s) do to disserve this?

Caesar had a habit of flattering his opponents in his books, this was used to make his feats all the more impressive. With this said, the Belgae were definitely some of the braver troops he encountered and were not put down nearly as easily as their southern neighbors.

It would take a longer time than I'd like to talk about his whole campaign against the Belgae, but I will talk about one of them in particular... Ambiorix. After some previous successful years by the Romans, Ambiorix, chief of the Eburones, revolted against the Roman presence with the help of the Nervii amongst others. Through some trickery, they were able to gain a huge upperhand against the Romans and destroyed many of their cohorts in the region, the number is around 15 IIRC.

This obviously angered Caesar, and he once and for all put down the revolt, all but destroying the countryside. It is interesting, however, that Ambiorix successfully escaped. He is rumored to have slipped east of the Rhine, to be undefeated against the Romans.

When the Belgians gained independence 19th century they were looking to find national heros to celebrate. They found mentions of Ambiorix, and supposedly he has become a figure of folklore although I'd think you would have heard about him and his military feats if this was true. Anyways there is a statue of him in Tongeren (sp?) .

[Kralizec]

After that day the goedendag, derived from godendac which means big knife or something similar,

Knives are blades good for cutting and sometimes stabbing. Daggers are just stabbing weapons- compare goedendag ~;)

[Peasant Phill]

When the Belgians gained independence 19th century they were looking to find national heros to celebrate. They found mentions of Ambiorix, and supposedly he has become a figure of folklore although I'd think you would have heard about him and his military feats if this was true. Anyways there is a statue of him in Tongeren (sp?) .

Of Course I've heard of Ambiorix and I've been to Tongeren where his statue stands and the Gallo-Roman museum is situated. So it's not as if Ambiorix isn't a national hero of some sorts but he hasn't really got a cult round him like other national heros have in other countries. You have to remember that Belgium is only 175 years old, it never existed before 1830 so the founders of Belgium just needed a figure they could use to spark a kind of nationalistic idea in peoples head. Ambiorix never fought for Belgium, he fought for his tribe.

[Peasant Phill]

Knives are blades good for cutting and sometimes stabbing. Daggers are just stabbing weapons- compare goedendag ~;)

You're right, I just used the word knife wrong it should have been dagger (as you pointed out.

http://www.liebaart.org/goeden_e.htm
"Literally it means good day. But this name was only used in French sources of the time describing the weapon. They name it 'godendarz' or something of the kind. The origin of the name 'good day' is therefore unknown. There is a debate about its ethymology. Some think it originates in the combination of 'good' and 'dag', or in other words a "good dagger". Dag having the same root as a dagger, being a thrusting weapon. But recent studies showed that to be not the case. Most probably the name derives from a French word. The Flemish people themselves called it a 'pinned staff'."

[GoreBag]

Betcha that should be read as "buncha poor peripheral primitive savages who couldn't afford and get all the nice stuff their sophisticated southern cousins did and no doubt were duly green with envy". It's pretty easy to see how for example Mediterranean wine and similar luxury products might have some difficulties arriving as far north as they lived, especially as the Gauls along the way probably had way more to buy it with...

Not really, no.

Aenlic, we can pretty much dismiss most of what Caesar wrote of the Celts. Although I do consider the Belgae Celtic through and through, what do you consider 'fully Celtic'?