Talk:Battle of the Golden Spurs

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds like bollocks to me. The most advanced weapons that I've read about in use at this battle are crossbows. ericg ✈ 06:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Weapons used 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dutch spelling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Illustrations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Forces?