Flemish mediaeval military

I'm Flemish and I'm ashamed to say that part from the period round 1302 ( I live near Courtrai) I don't know their mediaevil military units.

Were they like the French (technically Flandres was French) or not? And if so why did the goedendag ( or godendac) and the badelaar make their appearance in the Flemish armies and not in the French?

I know a bit about the economic and political situation of Flandres so you don't have to go explaining the basics.

Thanks in advance

P.S. what was a soldier wielding a goedendag really worth? ( I read somewhere that a trained soldier equiped with a goedendag was expected to kill 2 knights while a knight could kill 10 normal footmen. I believe this is a somewhat biased opinion as at Courtrai the 'goedendag men' relied upon pikemen to stop the charge of the horses.

As far as I know the only difference was the use of the 'goedendag' or 'morgenster' (great to pull knights from their horses because of the chain), and the use of these very cool Frysian horses, the biggest and most intimidating warhorses ever.

http://home.hccnet.nl/r.v.dragt/friesnieuw.gif

Only the english Shire horse is bigger, but those are only suitable to work on the farm.

You really caught me by surprise about those horses. I've been in Friesland so i've seen them, they're really magnificent animals. A part of what are the Netherlands today was part of Flandres, namely Zeeuws Vlaanderen, but I really doubt that Friesland was also a part Flandres. Their language for one thing is entirely different compaired to dutch or Flemish dialects. But then again Flandres was a nation crafts and trade so the import of the horses wouldn't have been a big problem.

Another question about the Flemish riding horses from Friesland: Wouldn't the French also have acces to those horses and if so to what extend?

Friesland used to be a lot bigger then it is now, it stretched from the current Dutch province up to Denmark. The Netherlands and Belgium were just a bunch of seperate kingdoms, but there was a lot of trade and these horses were the finest warhorses, because of their rediculous size and their fearless character. I don't think the french ever got a hold of them, the province that is now called Drenthe was all swamp and very hard to cross, it must have been very expensive to get them all the way there.

And yes they are cool. Pitch black and a *schofhoogte* up to 1.75, bigger then the people back then.

Found a cool picture, talk about raw power.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...x-DSC00069.JPG

If you're near a university, to a search for the author Kelly DeVries. He has a book on infantry warfare in the fourteenth century that deals heavily with Flemish forces.

Friesian horses, understandably, were exported. However, the medieval Flemish were better-known for their infantry than their cavalry. The Flemish pikemen were the Swiss of the Middle Ages.

Spearmen, really. The pike is a bit different and quite specific animal.

Anyway, all the sources I've seen on the topic have emphasized the quality of the Flemish infantry (they were apaprently in demand as mercenaries). If the Italian example is anything to judge by, that would seem to imply a rather high degree of mercantile urbanization and the usual sort of military ethos, espirit de corps and solidarity that infantry from at least comparatively free, urbanized regions seem to always have been fairly strong on (and which incidentally greatly helps the cohesion, discipline and general "knit" of heavy infantry). I've also seen it mentioned that the densely inhabited region was able to put into field an army about as large as the entire French kingdom, which would again suggest an unusually high degree of urban developement (plus a large "middle class" able and willing to fight; the Swiss pikemen were similarly drawn from urban areas).

If agrarian feudalism tends to produce powerful heavy cavalry, then mercantile bourgeoise seem to tend to produce motivated good-quality infantry. (And we know which one died out in the end, don't we ?) The region in question by all accounts and indications falls well into the latter group.

I believe the Godendag came of age in the city militias. After all it was a fairly short, cheap and easy to produce weapon, suitable for militia.
Pretty much every early mitia had their own weaponstyle in the early days, depending on the city's wealth. The Flemish were just very lucky to find a good design that suited them perfectly.

The Godendagman taking on two knights is a stretch. And he most certainly couldn't deal with 20 footmen.
Expected losses in a prepared battle where the French did as expected of them, then it would be fitting of 2:1 losses. But these Goedendagmen were trained to deal with the French knights in specific situations, as other lesser battles showed they could not withstand the French when it wasn't on their terms.
Unfortunately for the French, they were very predictable and thus 'easily' countered.

I understand the elusive Godendags (nobody seems to have a very clear or reliable idea of what exactly the damn things were like, beyond some sort of spiky club or mace) were roughly the equivalent of the Swiss halberd - good for the melee and killing men in tough armour, but not so hot for actually stopping a cavalry charge. That would suggest they were primarily used as support weapons, deployed either in rough ground (which handily helped nullify cavalry charges) or behind or amongst the main line of spearmen who didn't have to worry about being out-reached by lances.

There seem to be very few mentions of the weapon in general, and those that exist seem to be around early 1300s or so. That would suggest the Godendag, although workable, was an ultimately unsatificatory design and was replaced by other polearms for the same purposes - this would be the period when those weapons were really coming to the fore, anyway.

The goedendag in Dutch refers to the English morning star, as far as I know. Iron club with nasty spikes on the head, which, like a war hammer, easily pierces the relatively thin armor worn by medieval warriors. To my knowledge it was not a staff weapon and neither were warriors equipped with it tasked with the same job as the supporting infantry of later pike formations (halberdiers, sword-and-bucklermen, Doppelsoldners, etc.).

The Flemish being able to produce as many fighting men as the entire French kingdom? I would say so -- if we take the French royal demesne versus the Flemish cities as our point of view. Otherwise, no. Estimates put the population of the modern Netherlands at something nearing the one hundred thousand around 1100 (need to look this up), which was little compared to the fact that some Flemish cities already sported populations grazing or even exceeding the ten thousand mark. Meaning: they could perhaps produce a couple tens of thousands of troops, but I doubt it was able to match the entire population of France.

Most Flemish 'pikemen' were mercenaries, also (an example that they also fought for Philip Augustus etc.), and therefore the number of men hired relied on the pool of available mercenaries and the wealth of the cities. Methinks the former was the major limiting factor.

Not surprised it was replaced... What I have seen of it was a large wooden club with a metal band across it and a socketed spike so that it could be used in a stabbing motion. And its rather short length... Well, combined I wouldn't think it would have been a particularly good weapon in general, but against outnumbered and isolated knights it could hardly have been better (easy to use, cheap, hard hitting, uses small space). Against formed infantry or formed cavalry it would have been in serious trouble.

On the other hand the French had a lot of forces tied down in garrison duty all over the place, plus the fact the feudal lordlings weren't always as forthcoming in mustering under banners as they should... If one assumes the Flemish mobilized most of their available reserves - all the apprentices, craftsmen etc. from the cities and so on - that'd add up to one pretty big army. The guys who go abroad as mercenaries aren't the same guys who stay home working and only go to war for their own community, after all, and even the mercs may feel obliged to come defend their homes in a crisis (I understand the Swiss tended to flatly break contract and march to defend their homes if need be, for example).

'Course, it'd also shoot the economy in the leg, necessitating an ASAP conflict and causing problems if too many men died on the field. Them's the breaks with citizen militias - the Italian city-states had the same issues.

I am not very familiar with citizen service amongst cities in the Middle Ages. To my knowledge -- and this mainly stems from the knowledge that the kings made the cities their pillar against their feudal subjects at the end of the Middle Ages -- the cities raised money to pay mercenaries to serve as good/crack troops, and there was little in the way of a citizen army à la Greek polis. I'm ignoring militias now, not knowing what their quality was (in the Russian cities they were of medium quality, but far inferior to the druzhina, as an example).

Regions with lots of free, mercantile cities like Italy and the Low Countries tended to have pretty tough and confident citizen militias too. Plus well fortified cities on the side - I understand the burghers regarded being able to fight in defense of their homes and shops something of a privilege and a matter of fierce pride, and not in the least (and quite correctly) as an important symbol of their relative freedom from the feudal order. City walls were something of a prestige item besides a practical defensive measure - you weren't a proper freetown if your city walls weren't as formidable as the budget allowed.

That said, they tended to have the funds to be able to hire mercenaries as needed too, and to act as cadres and standing garrisons in peacetime.

'Course, even the free cities were usually at least theoretically subject to one feudal lord or another, and were obliged to pay for their privileges with funds and usually also at least limited military service when needed; in practice the barons tended to have to deal with them more or less as equals, not in the least as trying to press matters by force against the wealthy, proud and well fortified towns wasn't the most prudent internal policy available...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

The goedendag in Dutch refers to the English morning star, as far as I know. Iron club with nasty spikes on the head, which, like a war hammer, easily pierces the relatively thin armor worn by medieval warriors. To my knowledge it was not a staff weapon and neither were warriors equipped with it tasked with the same job as the supporting infantry of later pike formations (halberdiers, sword-and-bucklermen, Doppelsoldners, etc.).

---

A goedendag had a chain between them to give it some extra oomph, a spiked ball chained to a stick hits hard and wraps around armour. There are also standard spiked maces that are also called goedendag's but the chain variety is most commonly refered to.

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the goedendag was a morning star, which is a spiked mace to my knowledge. Although I must admit the Dutch language does not have a word for 'flail'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Hmmm, I was under the impression that the goedendag was a morning star, which is a spiked mace to my knowledge.

---

Well it was one of those as well, these were also called goedendags in some parts of Holland, you can see some varieties in Delft if you visit the war museum; but the one with the chain is the most widely accepted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Although I must admit the Dutch language does not have a word for 'flail'.

---

It does have a word for "flail": "(dors)vlegel".

btw, I bought a book by J.F. Verbruggen a few weeks ago, which has a large section on flemish foot soldiers and some famous battles they fought. Maybe I'll post some interesting quotes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cutepuppy

It does have a word for "flail": "(dors)vlegel".

btw, I bought a book by J.F. Verbruggen a few weeks ago, which has a large section on flemish foot soldiers and some famous battles they fought. Maybe I'll post some interesting quotes.

---

If you could give me the title of the book I could look it up. (How old ist this book?)

First time ever I've seen the Godendag described as a "chain" weapon, I must say. Some sort of big spiky club is what most read it as. Weren't flails more of a Bohemian Hussite thing ?

Side note: Medieval weapons terminology in contemporary sources tends to be... inconsistent at best. Keep that in mind.

What I found about the goedendag ( or the godendac as it was called by the French) was that it was a club reanforced with metal on the end and one spike. It was about 1,5 m and the Flemish actually called it a pinned staff. Just look at this website http://www.liebaart.org/goeden_e.htm

But what would be the real ability of this weapon? Yes it's cheap and very effective against armor but was it the cost/effectiveness of the weapon that made it so infamous or could it have been a weapon of choice for a Flemish nobleman.

PS I know some have commented on it before but were the Flemish goedendag men to be compared to ordinary urban and vity militia across Europe or were they more skilled? ( And how skilled would that than be?)

(linked the site -Kraxis)

That was the very weapon I tried to explain earlier... Now I have only been at that site concerning that Godendag, but it does seem rather extensively worked out. They have written accouts, some image of the time and archeological evidence.

Sure it could have ben more detailed, but it was not the intention of these guys to give a professional account of the weapon.

Well, they don't seem to have measured up to the standards of the Swiss halberdiers... but that might just be the weapons, too.

But as a rule of thumb the commoner militias from areas with strong heavy-infantry traditions (such as the Low Countries, whose spearmen had been sought after mercenaries already in the Early Middle Ages) tended to be of a markedly better quality than was the norm of such troops. Differences in actual weapon skill were likely minor (althoug the quality of gear might well be a step better), and in any case not very important; the vital point was unit-level cohesion, drill, moral fibre and espirit de corps. Even a horde of peasants in a tight clump with sharp sticks can blunt a heavy cavalry charge *if* their nerve holds; if it doesn't, no amount of skill or armour will save them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

If you're near a university, to a search for the author Kelly DeVries. He has a book on infantry warfare in the fourteenth century that deals heavily with Flemish forces.

---

Hmmm, I could only find: Battle of the Golden Spurs.

The Myth

During the last century some incorrect things were written about the goedendag and taken for granted. The famous French architect Eugene Viollet-le-Duc thought the goedendag (le godendac) to be some sort of stretched halberd. Others thought it to be a plowshear on a pole. But most still think it is an iron ball with pins suspended on a chain and a short wooden stick. All wrong!


hmmmmmmmmmmmm looks like I have been mythed. I could have sworn that they usually had chains, that is what I was told anyway :san_embarassed:

On effectiveness, next page says:

The combination of the pike with the goedendag turned to be an extremely effective defence. The Flemish soldiers at Courtrai were lined up in a way that every man with a pike had a man with a goedendag as his neighbour. The men with the pikes took the shock of the charge by the French knights and the men with the goedendags finished the job.

Maybe they were so good because you could swing it in both directions, while a halberd had only one cutting edge?

Halberds invariably had a spike, hammer or hook opposite the axe - either for laying down the smack against different kinds of armours or pulling down foes as appropriate. Anyway, seeing as how battleaxes (regardless of size) almost never had two blades either...