This destroys the French knight

>Good, we're pushing them back--
>Charge into them, monseiur
>Are you sure. They might be spearmen and there's obstacles--
>AND LET THOSE PLEB INFANTRYMEN STEAL AWAY A NOBLE VICTORY FROM US?

And that's how the French got fucked at Golden spurs.

What's the secret behind it's antibaguette properties, looks like a stumpy spear to me

cheap and easy to use

And Agincourt

in modern Dutch, yeah, but 'dolk' and 'dag(ger)' have probably the same word origin

>De herkomst van de naam is onduidelijk. De Vlamingen zelf noemden het een gepinde staf. De naam goedendag komt als 'godendac' uitsluitend voor in Franse verslagen uit de tijd van de Guldensporenslag. Guillaume Guiart, die meevocht in de oorlog, vermeldde het wapen voor het eerst in verband met de veldtocht van 1297 en schreef: Goden-dac, c'est Bonjour à dire.[1] Daarna komt de term ook voor in de kroniek van Froissart[2] en bij Giovanni Villani. Hij is mogelijk afgeleid van 'dag', hetgeen dolk betekent in het Keltisch. Dagger is in het Engels 'dolk'. Goedendag wordt dan goede dolk.[3]

similar story indeed, but the Flemish didn't even need the mud, French arrogance was sufficient

And at Nicopolis

Hubris shall forever be the downfall of the French.

>French colony

>getting invaded by your own 'colony'

>get invaded by your own colony led by your own frenchman.

Why are the french so cucked

that is not what the text says though, the text says that dag is from celtic and the source says that goedendag is an interpretation of the french word 'godendart'

Civil war between different factions of French people.

the text considers both possibilities

text does not say 'dag' and 'dolk' are related, dag would more likely be the origin of the french word.

yeah i get what you mean and Dutch has probably little to do with it. it still would mean good dagger though
i'm a bit tired

>goudeune tague !

>the american revolution was a British civil war

Forever and ever i swear we are so fucked

>didn't have mud

Just literal dikes and defences, you absolute retard.

from what i recall the cavalry charge was stopped by the heavy infantry and not by significantly exploiting the terrain
do you have sources that state otherwise?

This destroys the French.

this is low iq boasting

Add typhus in summer

the vast majority of the flemish army was light infantry
that's what makes the battle so remarkable, it was at the time considered impossible for light infantry regardless of numbers to stand up to heavy cavarly, let alone 2 armies of equal numbers.

I think the "peasant army BTFO-ing armoured knights" is a bit exaggerated like with Agincourt. I'm pretty sure there were quite a bit of heavily armed professional troops on the Flemish side but correct me if i'm wrong.
For example the gambeson and chainmail coif+helmets are clearly visable, not your standard peasent gear i'd say

>lost the war

The trauma is still there, everytime it snows a bit in France the road are blocked.

>implying it's one continuous war

It's a bit difficult to imagine what the flemish army would have classified as
flanders was a wealthy, urbanized (by medieval standards) region so their levies would have been far better equipped than average
but it's up for debate if this would have made them high quality light infantry or heavy infantry

It is safe to say the flemish army was rather unique by that time's standards which most certainly did contribute greatly to the outcome, and while exaggerations regarding the battle are almost inevitable, still all sources do agree that the flemish side lacked heavy cavalry and did not significantly outnumber the french army which makes the outcome remarkable given how powerful heavy cavalry was during that era.

That said, like with Agincourt there were major tactical blunders on the french side and in both cases the french would go on to win later battles and eventually the war, still I'd consider the golden spurs an early sign of the fact that warfare was slowly starting to change.