Agincourt and 'the bird'

[killercroc]

Maxie says: This discussion sprang out of a question about swearing on the boards. Since it was of some (however tenuous) connection to the original topic, it was left there, and seemed about to expire anyway. Since recent posters have made a point of complaining about it's being lodged in the original thread, I have recently split it off into its own thread.


Originally posted by Frozen
Can somebody clarify the rules on swearing for me? I've seen the b*st**d word used a few times recently on these boards, mostly by the same poster, and once used as a derogatory term for a British person. Yes, I'm British. Yes, I find it offensive. Can somebody clear this up for me? I deliberately go out of my way to avoid profanity on these boards - not only because I feel swearing is the recourse of an unimaginative mind, but also because I respect the rules of the board, which I thought forbade cussing...

Is that an established(I almost typed accepted!) slang term for the British? I've never heard it.

Speaking of that, I heard this guy on the radio today saying that flipping the bird came from a British vs. French battle. Battle of Agincourt or something like that. Anyway, the French expected to win and when they did they were going to cut off the captives middle finger so they could no longer shoot the dreaded English longbow. Well the British won(any surprise there?) And they taunted the French by waving their middle finger.

Also, pulling a bow string is known as plucking and the bows are made from the Yew tree. Pluck the Yew. and the flights were made from feathers back then thus, the bird.

The only problem with this story is that I thought the British flipped people off with a reverse peace sign.

As the resident Brit, do you have any input on that one, Frozen?

[James Harvey]

SO that's where 'flipped the bird' came from. Cool - it's so neat tpo know where all this little phrases came from...

[Joe Tully]

Your story is a popular urban myth debunked at (look out , some nasty words here)http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/pluckyew.htm

Evolution of the dirty word can be described through a link on that above page or just search snopes for that word. I'm not even going to post a link because the address contains said dirty word and I'm trying to be polite here.:)

Sorry Dick, but that isn't where "flipping the bird" came from. Though I'm not sure where it really IS from.

[Frozen]

killercroc wrote:

Speaking of that, I heard this guy on the radio today saying that flipping the bird came from a British vs. French battle. Battle of Agincourt or something like that. Anyway, the French
expected to win and when they did they were going to cut off the captives middle finger so they could no longer shoot the dreaded English longbow. Well the British won(any surprise
there?) And they taunted the French by waving their middle finger.

Close, but as far as I'm aware it was actually the inverse peace sign that originated in Agincourt as the French used to cut off both the forefinger AND index finger...

So, what happens if I report a post with swearing in it?

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Your story is a popular urban myth debunked at (look out , some nasty words here)http://www.snopes2.com/spoons/fracture/pluckyew.htm

Evolution of the dirty word can be described through a link on that above page or just search snopes for that word. I'm not even going to post a link because the address contains said dirty word and I'm trying to be polite here.:)

Sorry Dick, but that isn't where "flipping the bird" came from. Though I'm not sure where it really IS from.

I go to Snopes often to check out Urban Legends like that. Didn't with this one, though, oops! But still this "debunking" is the shakiest one I've heard. It was all kind of based on someone figuring it out instead of cold, hard facts. i.e. like when they debunk the wake up in a bathtub full of ice with your kidneys missing, they can say that no police department has ever filed a report about that.

This one wasn't like that. It never really refuted it with a fact that just made it an obvious myth.

I pretty much believe the stuff they say on Snopes, but when it gets right down to it we're taking the word of someone we've never met. And to boot, it came off the internet.

[happyheathen]

Originally posted by killercroc

i.e. like when they debunk the wake up in a bathtub full of ice with your kidneys missing, they can say that no police department has ever filed a report about that.

I pretty much believe the stuff they say on Snopes, but when it gets right down to it we're taking the word of someone we've never met. And to boot, it came off the internet.

Hmmm...

a. a person with no kidneys will die shortly - and anyone who was relieved of 1 kidney without her/his permission, and lived to tell the tale probably WOULD complain to someone...

b. If it's on the internet, you question the report's veracity (truth), but 'if it's on the radio, it must be true'? That's right up there with 'if it weren't true, it wouldn't be in the newspaper'...

c. what is the source for the '2-finger amputation'?
(soldiers exist to kill each other, not to cut off fingers and let them go)

One of our regular posters took great exception to part of this post. I have done my best to edit this post to remove the material in qustion, while leaving happyheathen's (legitimate) questions and assertions intact.
--Maxie

[Inque]

www.straightdope.com is another good site that has a lot of info.com

[killercroc]

Originally posted by happyheathen


Hmmm...

a. a person with no kidneys will die shortly - and anyone who was relieved of 1 kidney without her/his permission, and lived to tell the tale probably WOULD complain to someone...
That was my point exactly, that's why they said that if it did happen it would have been reported. I was kinda working on the assumption that everyone had checked out the sight. Upon rereading, I didn't make myself real clear. I meant that I buy their debunking of the kidney myth, but not so much the finger one.


b. If it's on the internet, you question the report's veracity (truth), but 'if it's on the radio, it must be true'? That's right up there with 'if it weren't true, it wouldn't be in the newspaper'......
I said that I heard it on the radio, gave the whole story, and then told everyone my problem with the story. Nowhere did I say 'it must be true.' And I do think it's fair to question the truth of stuff you read on the internet.


c. what is the source for the '2-finger amputation'?
(soldiers exist to kill each other, not to cut off fingers and let them go)

Well Frozen is the one who said that it was two fingers cut off. So he'd be the one to ask on that one. Like I said in my first post, I heard it on the radio. I never claimed any more or less.

I stand by my statement. As far as Snopes goes, this was a pretty shaky debunking.

[Joe Tully]

Well Frozen is the one who said that it was two fingers cut off. So he'd be the one to ask on that one. Like I said in my first post, I heard it on the radio. I never claimed any more or less.

I stand by my statement. As far as Snopes goes, this was a pretty shaky debunking.

I've heard the 2 finger version too, I think some British guy told it on The Tonight Show. I think it was that old guy from Cider House Rules and Jaws 4. "Good night you kings of blah blah blah..."

Snopes doesn't totally prove that the story is wrong, but the reasoning makes sense to me. Believe whatever you want though.

[Joe Tully]

Actually, I take that back. They pretty conclusively say that the finger has been around for a loooong time, before the battle, and they have the same stuff said at this link.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980904.html

The "pluck yew" line is very fishy, too. And as Snopes points out, the mutilation just doesn't make sense. Why would you chop off their fingers and let them go? Just kill 'em.

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Actually, I take that back. They pretty conclusively say that the finger has been around for a loooong time, before the battle, and they have the same stuff said at this link.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a980904.html

The "pluck yew" line is very fishy, too. And as Snopes points out, the mutilation just doesn't make sense. Why would you chop off their fingers and let them go? Just kill 'em.

Well I do pretty much think they're right. But this is still not conclusive enough to totally disregard the story. And it's probably impossible to nail it shut, cause you've got to believe the history books.

Like with the kidney thing, it is possible that you could search through all the police files to see if it realy happened. It'd be a lot of work, but you could do it.

When you get right down to it we're still taking the word of someone that we've never met. Like I said before I pretty much believe what I read on Snopes and The Straight Dope seems straight up to me, but I still can't profess that everything I read on there is true.

[Maxie Zeus]

No, medievals did not slaughter each other simply for the joy of slaughter. And the utilitarian calculus that "prisoners are worth more to us dead than alive" is a habit of the 20th century, not the 12th. (See Nazi atrocities during WWII.) The idea that the "finger" etymology is fishy because "Naturally, it would make more sense to kill the archers than mutilate them" says a lot more about our "modern and enlightened" ethics and morals than it says about the medievals.

Anyway, if you look closely, snopes.com's reasoning on the subject doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a mess of conflicting claims and inferences, many of which contradict each other. Archers weren't valuable, so they wouldn't be kept for ransom, and so would probably be killed, it says. Then it turns around and says this would violate the codes of civilized warfare at the time. Mutiliated archer's wouldn't be ransomed because they have no military value, snopes says. Then it turns around and says it would stupid to turn over even a mutilated archer to the enemy because the same archer could perform valuable service with an axe or sword. So which is it, snopes? Were they valuable or not? Was it bad form to kill a captured archer, or not? Until they get their basic logic and research straight, I'm not going to trust any "debunking."

Here's one suggestion for how a victorious general might reason in such a situation. (I have no idea if this is accurate): These captured archers are deadly, far more deadly than a guy with an axe. I can't just kill them, but I don't want to send them back to the enemy where they can just turn around and show up at the next battle. So I'll cut off the finger they need to be archers. Then my conscience is free of their murder, and the enemy will still be robbed of his archers.

[Joe Tully]

Anyway, if you look closely, snopes.com's reasoning on the subject doesn't make a lot of sense. It's a mess of conflicting claims and inferences, many of which contradict each other. Archers weren't valuable, so they wouldn't be kept for ransom, and so would probably be killed, it says. Then it turns around and says this would violate the codes of civilized warfare at the time. Mutiliated archer's wouldn't be ransomed because they have no military value, snopes says. Then it turns around and says it would stupid to turn over even a mutilated archer to the enemy because the same archer could perform valuable service with an axe or sword. So which is it, snopes? Were they valuable or not? Was it bad form to kill a captured archer, or not? Until they get their basic logic and research straight, I'm not going to trust any "debunking."

He's saying that there is no reason to bother to capture them for any reason. Archers had no value and could not be ransomed, and so would be killed on the battlefield. There is no point in capturing them in the first place, since you can't ransom them, and to capture them would mean having to take care of them, since killing prisoners is against the code. Instead of giving you just one reason why they wouldn't do that, he is just giving you multiple reasons. 1) Archers are worthless and can't be ransomed and 2) capturing them at all would mean they would have to be taken care of and not killed because of the code and 3) even if the code was ignored why would they mutilate and then kill the archers. There's nothing wrong with using those three points. If he didn't use the last one, people would complain that he was maybe wrong because they decided to break the code. It's not an either/or explanation he's giving, it's "all of the above." He also has read records from the time and says there's no mention of anything like that from anyone involved in the battle at all.

What he's saying about the archers' value is that no one would pay for the mutilated archer because there is no real value to them, but the enemy wouldn't just set them free for no cash because they could still fight for their cause. They have lost their value because they can't use the bow, but could still do something. But just because they could do something doesn't mean that they could do it well enough for you to pay for them. I could play football if I had to, but the NFL isn't beating down my door. But if they could somehow get rules to change so that I could be an extra man on the field, they'd consider accepting me (okay, maybe not, but you get they point I'm trying to convey) If you have the money to pay for knights who were trained in hand-to-hand combat, or archers who did combat on rare occasions, you'll pay for the knights.

So you'll still distrust the debunking, even though snopes and rightstuff.com say that the middle finger has been around as proven in literature from before the Battle of Agincourt, when Snopes has the Latin phrase for it and rightstuff cites the literature in which it was described? Okay. But realize that these sites have explanations and proof for what they say, but to believe your story, all you have is just that: a story. No record, no nothing.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Joe Tully


He's saying that there is no reason to bother to capture them for any reason. Archers had no value and could not be ransomed, and so would be killed on the battlefield. There is no point in capturing them in the first place, since you can't ransom them, and to capture them would mean having to take care of them, since killing prisoners is against the code. Instead of giving you just one reason why they wouldn't do that, he is just giving you multiple reasons. 1) Archers are worthless and can't be ransomed and 2) capturing them at all would mean they would have to be taken care of and not killed because of the code and 3) even if the code was ignored why would they mutilate and then kill the archers. There's nothing wrong with using those three points. If he didn't use the last one, people would complain that he was maybe wrong because they decided to break the code. It's not an either/or explanation he's giving, it's "all of the above." He also has read records from the time and says there's no mention of anything like that from anyone involved in the battle at all.

But here you left off one further snopes reflection (which you add back into the mix below): The enemy would not want to return archers to the enemy because they are too deadly on the battlefield. Put that claim together with the above 3, and there is NOTHING you can do with them. You can't kill them (goes against the military code). You can't capture them (they won't be ransomed and are expensive to maintain). You can't let them go (because they are too dangerous). So what ARE you going to do with them?

You're right, I just have a story and nothing more, and explicitly acknowledged I had nothing to back it up with. Except that, given the above reflections, mutilation does have plausibility on its side. It's not killing, it's not capturing, and it renders them harmless. Plausibility is not proof, and I would never say it is. I'm just complaining that snopes hasn't thought out its own claims thoroughly enough to be able to see that mutilation, by snopes' own reasoning, is a plausible recourse.


What he's saying about the archers' value is that no one would pay for the mutilated archer because there is no real value to them, but the enemy wouldn't just set them free for no cash because they could still fight for their cause. They have lost their value because they can't use the bow, but could still do something.

If this is true, then mutilation does not make sense. But then what is the victorious army to do with all those defeated archers? Can't kill them, can't keep them, can't turn them loose, even mutiliated. And that pretty much exhausts the possibilities. After reading snopes I found myself wondering: What exactly WERE the French planning on doing with the archers after Agincourt?


So you'll still distrust the debunking, even though snopes and rightstuff.com say that the middle finger has been around as proven in literature from before the Battle of Agincourt, when Snopes has the Latin phrase for it and rightstuff cites the literature in which it was described? Okay. But realize that these sites have explanations and proof for what they say, but to believe your story, all you have is just that: a story. No record, no nothing.

The other citations are the strongest part of snope's claim, and if accepted are certainly sufficient to debunk the claim without a lot of baroque reasoning about what to do with prisoners. However: (1) Before you can accept that snopes knows its stuff with regard to these other citations, it helps to think that snopes is intelligent and reliable. Usually such a reputation doesn't have to be established at the forefront. But when they call into question their ability to think through the implication of their reasonings (as I claim above that they have) that gives me pause. I'm not saying I reject the debunking--on balance, I'm pretty sure snopes is right--but I would like to hear it from some other experts, something I wouldn't have wanted if snopes had resisted the impulse to wander into this thicket. (2) Snopes actually engages in this baroque reasoning because they think the mutilation story is silly on its face. That is, they don't talk about post-battle strategies in order to debunk the story itself, but to make those who accepted it look foolish, gullible and stupid. This is not necessary in order to debunk the claim itself, and backfires if (again, as I claim) their own reasoning about the "absurdity" of the story doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Joe Tully]

Can't kill them, can't keep them, can't turn them loose, even mutiliated. And that pretty much exhausts the possibilities. After reading snopes I found myself wondering: What exactly WERE the French planning on doing with the archers after Agincourt?

Well, according to Snopes, the moral problem sounded like it was with killing prisoners. No problem with someone on the battlefield. Though I guess that could cause problems if someone just surrendered. Snopes doesn't say anything about that. I guess they could keep them for later trade or whatever. Or just kill them at the moment of surrender, but that might be dishonorable. Yeah, I guess I kind of see how he hasn't quite explained it all, like you say, there's a few things he hasn't thought about, but for the most part, the reasoning seems sound. That link at straightdope.com had some exact citations of where it was found in Roman literature, named the book the guy read, who the people were and so on, but didn't go into speculation about the battle itself. But yeah, I can see how you see some minor holes in the story.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Well, according to Snopes, the moral problem sounded like it was with killing prisoners. No problem with someone on the battlefield. Though I guess that could cause problems if someone just surrendered. Snopes doesn't say anything about that.

Oh, yeah, and I'm sorry if I was unclear about where I took the moral problem to lay. Of course, the whole matter would have been a lot easier on the victorious army if all the archers could be relied upon to die in battle. And given how much armored knights hated the longbow and the archers who used them, I'd bet they weren't very scrupulous on the battlefield either.

Archer: "I surrender, sir knight!"
Knight: "Too late, I'm already about to chop your head off!"

Anyway. . . I actually like snopes a lot. That's one reason I so startled by what they had to say.

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Maxie the mod.



Oh, yeah, and I'm sorry if I was unclear about where I took the moral problem to lay. Of course, the whole matter would have been a lot easier on the victorious army if all the archers could be relied upon to die in battle. And given how much armored knights hated the longbow and the archers who used them, I'd bet they weren't very scrupulous on the battlefield either.

Archer: "I surrender, sir knight!"
Knight: "Too late, I'm already about to chop your head off!"

Anyway. . . I actually like snopes a lot. That's one reason I so startled by what they had to say.

.Ooops. I quoted the wrong person and quote. Meant to quote Maxie saying this....

I feel the same way as you. I like Snopes and use them as a resource quite often, but this particular case has some holes.

Reading your and Joe Tully's dialogue made me think of another problem with the story. They say that archers are worthless, but that's not really true. Maybe they couldn't swordfight and battle like knights, and they're poor. but it does take a reasonable amount of skill to shoot a bow, especially the way they did it, lobbing arrows. Couple that with the fact that these arrows can penetrate all but the thickest armor, and the fact that Archers were devastating on the battlefield, often turning the tide of battle before the knights are even sent into play, and it makes you wonder about the "worthless" claim.

It seems like they were prejudice against this story from the getgo. Also, it helps when your debunking something to give a plausible explanation as to how it really came about

[freebooter]

cut off the captives middle finger so they could no longer shoot the dreaded English longbow.

I think you mean the Welsh long bow

The mutilated archers could be ransomed back to the English in exchange for the release of captured French soldiers.

[BourgeoisBuffoon]

I think Freebooter's right on those two points he made. There were certainly still soldiers as POWs on both sides; thus a POW exchange would be the best option.

The longbow, as others may have said, (sorry....) were the first weapon to make knights obsolete; just look at Angincourt and a few battles after it. The French took ghastly casualties.

[freebooter]

I was told it was because that is the finger proctologists use to examine people. (only because it is the longest)

[Maxie Zeus]

I was at the bookstore today, and made a special note of looking at histories of Agincourt and medieval warfare. Nothing about the origin of "the finger" but one military history made a passing reference to mutilation, noting that English morale was very low before the battle of Agincourt: Although the men-at-arms could expect to be captured and to lead a fairly comfortable existence until they were ransomed, it said, the lower level soldiers could mostly expect to be killed on the field by the better armed knights, and that Henry V had warned his archers that if captured they could expect to lose at least 3 of the fingers on their right hand so that they could no longer use the longbow in future fights.

Sounds to me like snopes may have screwed up this part of the story. "Pluck yew" and "the finger" probably have another origin, but the urban legend at least seems to have mixed up the origin of that vulgar gesture with a real medieval practice, and one with resonance on the field of Agincourt.

[Frozen]

Happyheathen wrote:

c. what is the source for the '2-finger amputation'? (soldiers exist to kill each other, not to cut off fingers and let them go)

From my wife's collection of history books, I have gleaned the following information:

* Under the rule of Henry V, ALL males had to learn how to use the bow from the age of thirteen onwards.

* Prior to the battle of Agincourt, the French forces, in the face of the advancing English forces, had a 'razed earth' policy, if you will, torching areas they were abandoning in the face of the advancing English to ensure that the English gained no natural resources.

* Neither the French nor the English simply butchered prisoners - no more than we would today. (Glib remarks about the slaughtering of prisoners seem more revealing about our society.) These were civilised people, not barbarians. There are various reasons for this, one being it just wasn't done (call it chivalry, if you will), and, a point particularly salient to the French, Englsih supply lines were already stretched by the time of Agincourt, due to the French 'razed earth' tactic, and the distance the English were from home. Therefore, to place an increasing stress on Englsih resources, the French rendered captured bowmen useless by cutting of the fingers in question - and then returned them, thus Henry V has innmuerable useless men to feed as well as his troops.

* Henry V DID slaughter the French he captured at Aginncourt, however. Some of the French prisoners escaped and ransacked the English baggage train, and stole Henry's crown - thus, in a fury, he had them all butchered. This is considered as THE black mark against Henry V as a monarch - BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SLAUGHTER PRISONERS.

* The inverse peace sign is a traditional English gesture that dates to well before Agincourt - it was just well used by the English to show they were able bodied opponents.

This post contains invaluable information, but was originally far more irate--kindling for a flame war. I have edited it to maintain the historical data while removing inflammatory material.

As far as I can judge, Frozen has done great service, both in settling the nature of the treatment of captured longbowmen (at Agincourt and during the Middle Ages generally), and in helping to debunk the original urban legend (which proves to be not grotesquely inaccurate) about the origin of 'flipping the bird' and the inverted V-sign.

Truth is the greatest weapon in these disputes, people, not emotion. If we cannot correct each other while keeping our tempers in check, we'll just get a lot of smoke and heat, and very little light.

--Maxie

[James]

Crikey, all this is fascinating.

I knew the archers were the key to Henry's tactical success at Agincourt, but I didn't realise all the swearing on the board actually orginates from Henry and it is he that is to blame for those duff threads!

Thanks everyone - I now understand a lot less more!!

Mixing up facts with hopless fiction,

SJJ

:D

[Frozen]

I started this thread because I had a very real and valid issue I wanted addressing - this whole Agincourt thing kinda sprang out of nowhere.

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen
I started this thread because I had a very real and valid issue I wanted addressing - this whole Agincourt thing kinda sprang out of nowhere.

I suppose that's the whole fun of these threads - watching them spiral off topic - providing no one gets offended of course.
Certainly I found the topic of Agincourt interesting, although it's link to the original topic is tenuous at best. I suppose it has certainly given life to a rather straight forward thread! Some interesting points have been made - I now feel the urge to add Agincourt onto my list of things to do (which seems to be growing at an alarming rate thanks to the board!) :D

[Frozen]

SJJ wrote:

Mixing up facts with hopless fiction,

Eh? Don't quite follow you, old boy...

[James]

Originally posted by Frozen


Eh? Don't quite follow you, old boy...

Silly mood, sir. Apologies. Ignore ma rants.

And now I stop.

:D

[killercroc]

I caused it to go off topic. Sorry guys. But what a debate we've had, huh?

Frozen- your point about the supply lines is like the missing link in this argument. That's a great reason to cut off finger and return them. As a matter of fact a similiar tactic was used in Vietnam. Kill an enemy and there one rifle out of commission. Injure an enemy and there's 3 rifles out of commission. The injured soldier, plus the two guys carrying him.

[Maxie Zeus]

This is an interesting topic, but I do not want to see it spiral off into namecalling and insults.

If you have a valid fact, an interesting theory, or a legitimate question to offer, please do so. If you feel you must criticize another poster, or defend yourself from a personal attack, take it to a mod.

In my current incarnation, you don't want me sitting on you . . .

[Maxie Zeus]

I would have preferred to leave this thread unlocked, for further discussion about the battle of Agincourt and the place and treatment of footsoldiers and archers in medieval warfare. It was my hope that recent unpleasantness could be controlled without impeding the progress of that discussion.

But it has become clear that that will not happen. Therefore, I am locking the thread until further notice. Certain posts have been edited.

If this thread is unlocked at a future date, do NOT revive the controversies I have edited out. Anything I have left in is fair game for comment.