J.F. Verbuggen suggested that the Flemish urban militia infantry did not have any real form of training for weapons such as the pike. He argues that the militia would have had to learn to maneuver with their weapons "during a campaign, on the march, and on the battlefield" and attributes their general ineffectiveness in the attack (in contrast to their more successful defensive engagements) to their lack of regular drill or training. If Verbuggen is correct, then that makes the Flemish pikemen distinct from their counterparts in the crossbow and shooting guilds. The shooting guilds were a major part of civic and political life, whose competitions were important and exciting events. The Dukes of Burgundy were very active in maintaining their ties with the shooting guilds. John the Fearless participated in a crossbow competition in 1408 at Oodenarde, going so far as to wear the same uniform as the other men of the Guild of St. George. Phillip the Good, in 1440, did not personally participate in the competition held at the city of Ghent, but still used the event as a way to emphasize his ties to the guilds and the broader civic community. He formed his own team which included the son of a man who had been killed during a rebellion in 1437. It seems contradictory that such attention and importance would be given to the crossbow guilds but not the pikemen. However, it may simply have been easier to arrange shooting guild practice (which would primarily be standing and shooting at targets) than regular pike drill (which would require coordinating hundreds of men for days at a time, resulting in great public expense).

There is other evidence pointing to certain kinds of military training in urban centers. Shooting competitions (with either bow or crossbow) were common across Europe. Civic records for the city of London show that people fighting with swords and bucklers was a matter of public concern and resulted in crackdowns about weapons in the streets by city officials. Obviously, it is hard to draw conclusions from such limited evidence, but clearly there was some interest in and experience with weapons among the regular people of London. Again, the conclusions we can draw from this are limited. This is not to say that regular London military recruits were expert swordsmen or that this would have a significant impact on the battlefield. However, I find it difficult to believe that men from military families, who had relatives with combat experience and were preparing to serve in combat themselves, would not have bothered to familiarize themselves with the weapons they carried. English archers were expected to participate in hand-to-hand combat and acquitted themselves reasonably well, so they clearly had some knowledge of arms besides their bows. Italian communities seem to have had some kind of organized war games to prepare their militias for combat. These activities had names like the "little battle" or "shield games," and apparently had designated fields. They were conducted with shields and batons, with iron weapons being strictly prohibited. These games became so organized that special defensive equipment was made. Interestingly, this equipment can also be seen in a castle garrison record from 1202, showing that these sorts of training games were not limited to the cities alone. By the late middle ages, the importance of these games had diminished, to the point that citizens participating in them were mocked for making a show of being warlike without actually being good soldiers.

Sources: J.F. Verbuggen, "Arms and the Art of War: The Ghentenaar and Brugeois Militia in 1477–79."

Aldo Settia, "Military Games and the Training of the Infantry"

Laura Crombie, "Defense, Honor and Community: The Military and Social Bonds of the Dukes of Burgundy and the Flemish Shooting Guilds"

As a follow up question; how common was mandatory service during this period? Particularly in a feudal system. Were the men allowed return home for harvest season?