Quick Fire Questions (A Place to Ask and Answer)

[allmywires]

I remember reading somewhere that the French, after the humiliation of their huge host of knights getting slaughtered by a small force of English longbowmen at Agincourt, started cutting the first two fingers off English right hands. This meant the victim could no longer draw a bow.

Apparently, the English rude gesture of a "two fingered salute" evolved from this -- they liked to show the enemy they were still fully equipped with all the fingers needed to draw a bow.

I also believe the finger-chopping practice continues in some of the never-ending African civil wars, since an enemy with no trigger finger can't fight very well.

If the other woman knows your MC is an archer, perhaps it's not her pinky she would aim for.

That 'two fingered salute' story is brilliant. I think I may just use that in my work!

True about not aiming for the pinky, but I do still want her to be able to shoot. It's only early days in the war for her. I'm thinking that maybe it will be a torture scene, and she'll start with the little finger, but mercifully get interrupted before she loses the whole caboodle.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

That 'two fingered salute' story is brilliant. I think I may just use that in my work!

Please do. I believe it to be true, but I may have read it on the internet...

True about not aiming for the pinky, but I do still want her to be able to shoot. It's only early days in the war for her. I'm thinking that maybe it will be a torture scene, and she'll start with the little finger, but mercifully get interrupted before she loses the whole caboodle.

Of course. Starting with the pinky and working her way along is a very effective torture both physically and psychologically ('cos she knows what's coming next...). And a timely interruption leaves your MC still able to shoot.

 

[Vertigo]

To the best of my knowledge that story is absolutely correct.

 

[Bowler1]

DOE - the chopping of the two fingers was true and the two fingered salute was around for a long time before the battle of Agincourt.

It was a very effective end to a bow mans career.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Ah, right effect, wrong battle. All Fantasy archers please beware of the vengeful enemy with the small knife.

 

[Gumboot]

The story of the French cutting off archers' fingers is false, and actually even a little applied logic proves it so.

In Medieval warfare, prisoners were taken for one reason and one reason alone; ransom. Firstly, archers were peasants, and considered worthless and inferior, so no Frenchman would ever both taking one captive; they'd just kill them. And even if they did take them captive, cutting off their fingers would render them worthless for ransom, thus it would be pointless taking them prisoner.

It's a nice story, but there's no factual basis for it whatsoever, and it only originates in the 1980s. In fact the first documented reference to the inward v-sign being used in an insulting way is 1901, in the UK.

 

[Abernovo]

In mediaeval England, foresters and bailiffs were known to lop off hands of poachers. In some cases, they removed the hand or the fingers of a person just caught in the forest with a bow. In a similar way, they mutilated pet dogs in villages around the forests, removing claws, so they could not hunt.

As to the 1901 reference, it was caught on film in Rotherham, being used by a worker who apparently objected to being filmed. That usage would suggest the gesture is older than that date.

As to the longbowman's alleged use, it's more vague. The French knights did hate bowmen, although that was at least partly to do with bowmen being common born and besting the aristocratic knights, not to mention the common soldiers going round the battlefield afterwards and finishing off the noblemen, then robbing them.

It was common knowledge that bowmen would have no mercy and were likely to be tortured and mutilated prior to being killed, because of this hatred. It is more than possible that part of the myth may have come from archers demonstrating a bow-grip with their hands as a taunt to captured knights, held for ransom. However, as Desmond Morris said, the truth is we'll probably never know the origins of the gesture.

 

[Gumboot]

The problem with the longbow reference is that the weapon reached its zenith in the Hundred Years War, which ended in the middle of the 15th Century. And yet there is not a single reference, in any language, of the reverse V gesture as an insult, until 1901. If this gesture existed for the intervening 500 years, why is there not a single record of it? Particularly given it was supposed to have originated in warfare which was always extensively documented by heralds. There were French and English heralds at Agincourt, who gave detailed accounts of the battle. So too for many other battles of the Hundred Years War. Not one of them mentions mutilation of archers, or the gesture.

In fact the first time any suggestion of any link between the gesture and English archers emerges is in the 1980s, at least 530 years after this supposedly happened. Where's the historic record? There isn't one, because it's an explanation that was invented in the 1980s and applied retroactively.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

In my understanding, it wasn't the offensive v sign that originated from this, but the victory, they waved their fingers to show they were victorious. There is a lot of dispute as to where or when it happened; Agincourt is the most commonly attibuted battle. It may be an urban myth that's grown a bit and been attributed to a particular battle but it seems to have become embedded that it did happen, and with all these myths that refuse to go away, I suspect there's a grain of truth in there somewhere....

 

[HareBrain]

I can't help noticing (being an observant sort of chap) that victory begins with a "V", and that two fingers also looks like a "V", thus negating the need for any other explanation.

Also, there doesn't seem to be any reference to its use before WWII.

 

[Vertigo]

Following a little bit of research it does seem that the English archers were told by their commanders at Agincourt that if the French captured them they would take off three fingers as punishment for being archers. However it would also appear that this was purely a bit of propaganda on the part of the English and had no basis in real French intentions. Three fingers because it seems the heavier weight war bows were drawn with three fingers rather than the modern two (I didn't know that!). Which makes the two fingered sign unlikely to have drived from this.

Edit: I should have put in my source: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k50254g/f212.image (this is from the French National library!) The Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages.

 

[Abernovo]

Odd, I was taught to draw the bow with three fingers: index above the arrow and the next two fingers below, thumb and pinky kept out of the way. It still produces a V, although it looks half way between a 'flipped V' and a Vulcan greeting.

Obviously the wrong fingers are parted for a greeting, before anyone comments on that. Getting back to the question, it wouldn't surprise me that the story came about through propaganda.

 

[Vertigo]

Yeah I'm going dippy Aber!

When I was looking this up the emphasis on it being three fingers and three fingers being needed for the heavy war longbow got me all confuddled! Three fingers it was then and three fingers it is now!

Unless you're using a compound bow with a release mechanism. Yes, they have them as well! So the archer just squeezes a trigger and off the arrow goes. I think there are even some that release automatically when you stretch out to full draw. However none of these are allowed in normal international target archery.

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Gumboot, the lack of historical record is a worry. I recall Romeo and Juliet featured the insult of "biting the thumb" exchanged between servants of those two warring families. Surely Shakespeare would have recorded the two-fingered salute in one of his plays based upon English monarchs and the endless wars that seated them upon the throne or removed them.

But even without any real history behind it, an urban myth can still form the basis of a fantasy story. Especially if the reason for mutilation is personal revenge rather than potential ransom or lack of it.

 

[allmywires]

But even without any real history behind it, an urban myth can still form the basis of a fantasy story. Especially if the reason for mutilation is personal revenge rather than potential ransom or lack of it.

For me the fact the story is false is almost better. I can appropriate it for my work under the guise of originality

 

[David Evil Overlord]

And then sue the urban myth-makers for plagiarism?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The only thing is, Allmywires, is it's a very, very well known myth. We used to refer to it, as an alledgedly, as castle tour guides as soon as the word longbows was raised....

 

[allmywires]

The only thing is, Allmywires, is it's a very, very well known myth. We used to refer to it, as an alledgedly, as castle tour guides as soon as the word longbows was raised....

I'm so clearly a complete novice when it comes to archery... It makes a lot of sense (as much as mutilation can ever make sense, I guess). I mean it's not a massive plot point really but I will still refer to it. Though maybe I won't go as far as claiming to have invented the process myself...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That's the way I'd go, it's too good not to use....

 

[Warren_Paul]

I'm so clearly a complete novice when it comes to archery... It makes a lot of sense (as much as mutilation can ever make sense, I guess). I mean it's not a massive plot point really but I will still refer to it. Though maybe I won't go as far as claiming to have invented the process myself...

That's the way I'd go, it's too good not to use....

Definitely. Many books make use of some real world myths and expand on them to encompass some big story. Russell Kirkpatrick did a real good job of this by taking Maori and Christian myths/histories and applying them to a fantasy world.

He has his own version of God, Jesus, and the Devil, and somebody who plays the role of "the right hand of God", even his own version of the Garden of Eden, and of the Ark of the Covenant, and a race of people that reflects the lifestyle of Maori and their histories before Europeans came to New Zealand - including their creation stories.

All adapted to fit into his own imaginary world. Really good books.