Don't trust historians! or English archers...

A good little analysis of the two-finger myth:
Us on Facebook:

[skiskate]

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."-Abraham Lincoln

[lindybeige]

Agree wholeheartedly on both points.  I've never seen any in-period evidence for either.  On the other hand, though I have heard the 12-arrows-a-minute as a rate quoted often, I don't recall its being said to have been a recruitment requirement.

The two-fingers thing may have a grain of truth in it.  Even if the French never crippled captured archers, an archer might still wave fingers in mockery.  But, without evidence, this is pure speculation.

Are you sure Churchill wasn't simply asking for another cigar?

[LukeJamesMurtaghl]

As a historian and archaeologist, it's true that you shouldn't just blindly trust historians, but you should also not just blindly trust archaeologists. Both can make assumptions and exaggeration and both can be influenced by contemporary politics.

[JTWilliams]

I've broken down Matt's grammar into a small collection of common phrases and words.

"However"
"Primary Sources"
"And in actual fact"
"Context"
"A sort of"

Oh and "Cheers guys" :D cheers Matt!

[Robert]

But we can blindly trust you can't we, Matt? D:

[LionofCaliban]

On the archers, surely if it was the case, wouldn't there be evidence in the ground? Namely though bodies missing said fingers. 

Since I can't seem to find anything of the sort, I try to treat it is as a myth.

[wkoslo]

This is an email conversation I had with Juliet Barker, author of "Agincourt" a few years ago: "In "Agincourt" you reference the 1415 exchequer records for the Duke of York, reporting an incident in which 4 archers are removed from the rolls for failing to fire the necessary ten arrows a minute. How could I read this entry in the original records? Would this be available online perhaps?"

And this is Ms. Barkers response: "The manuscript reference you are seeking is in the National Archives, in the exchequer records (E) and the call number for the manuscript is E101/45/19. It certainly won't be on line but you can get copies through the National Archives website either sent to you via e-mail or as photocopies. (I prefer the latter as being more legible). A word of warning - you need to be able to read exchequer script and latin to be able to decipher it!"

I think we are over analyzing this minute thing, if I asked 30 random people to sing row row row your boat, an average length of time to sing it would soon emerge, I believe the same is true for a timed event. Somebody simply counted, or sang a song, etc. that was close enough to act as a measure of competence for archers.

[BobSamson]

As a American Civil War buff, I have learned quite well that historians are influenced by modern happenings and viewpoints.

[lookatthebirdie]

To paraphrase Matt: "Why wouldn't you just kill the English archers if you didn't want them to fight you again"
I would argue there are, logically, a few potential reasons. Obviously, the primary reason for an English king/lord to pay the ransom for his troops is to return them to fight, however, it also serves as a PR move. Imagine if a French lord captured 100 English archers, he'd be able to get the most money for their return if they were unharmed (from the point of capture). He'd be able to get SOME money for them if they were not able to fire a bow ever again. Let's say the French cut off 2 fingers on both hands. "Why would the English buy back a man that couldn't fight, " you might ask, because if the French demanded a reasonable price for these maimed men and the English said "we can't use 'em, chop their heads off, see if we care!" That would be probably be bad for PR back home, and at the least it would negatively impact morale.

The net result of maiming the men is a win-win for the French:
-If the English refuse, the morale of their army will likely be impacted and it might even lead to negative repercussions in the homeland (of course news didn't travel very fast back then). I'm not sure whether the French would be better off executing these maimed men, because such executions might hurt morale, but they might also decrease the likelihood of surrender (that is, the English might prefer to fight to their death). 
-If the English accept, the French gain money but do not give their opponent any fighting men. I'm sure you might be able to hold a spear if you only had 3 fingers on each hand, but not very well, and at the least these men who spent years training in archery would no longer be effective archers.

[rasnac]

"History is an invention of historians" as Napoleon Bonaparte supposedly said.

[socialistshirker]

What's your primary source for Churchill associating his gesture with archery?

[isabellavonneissenau]

As a historian myself I must say it can be very difficult to understand primary sources without having a vast knowledge of their historical context. Furthermore, if you can only read translations of the primary sources you only exchange the interpretation of the historian with the interpretation of the translator.

[quidestveritas]

The other one (not military related) was Prima Nocta - perpetuated by nonsense like Braveheart. No evidence it existed in medieval Europe whatsoever.

[the_rha]

I recently find out that most of "facts" about medieval times people repeat after book writters like Walter Scott (or Henryk Sienkiewicz in my country). For example every person I met thinks that sabres are much lighter than swords (like at least 3 times lighter) because in one (not historially accurate) book they read about that.

[michaelfurgessons]

My god Matt is brutal!"why not kill them?" lol ;)

[avatar]

I've always felt they should already be teaching this way of thinking in primary school. It doesn't matter how many facts kids learn at school, if they haven't been taught HOW to evaluate new information, they'll be open to all sorts of BS as adults.

[bensmith]

As a historian, I have complained about these sorts of statements by historians for a long time.  Many historians, especially when they make statements outside of their area of expertise.  Many of the professors I've worked with have done this with all sorts of things.  Video liked.

[Cahirable]

Matthew Strickland cites a few modern longbow reenactors who use 140lb+ longbows and say that 6 arrows a minute is roughly as fast as they could loose in a sustained manner. Like you say, you can't always trust reenactors or historians, but it is interesting what experimental archaeology can turn up.

[Oddwatch]

I thought you were reasonably well informed until this video.  Wow, have you changed my mind on that. You make sweeping generalisations about historians while only referring to Victorian era claims.  A time not exactly known for having properly established protocols for research and study. Claims of which, in proper academic circles, have been known to be untrue and for very many decades now.  You've completely discounted the fact that historians regularly and frequently re-visit topics and revise their understanding as new information and research comes to light.  In fact, I have only ever heard these myths repeated and proliferated through re-enactors and WMA/HEMA enthusiasts, never in academic circles.

Then you talk about referring to original prime sources.  I'm sorry, but how are you expecting the average enthusiast to refer to prime materials when they are often in non-modern languages such as Middle German or Latin.  The average person is never going to be able to engage in original sources because they can't read them. The best they can hope for are translations. Guess what? It's historians who supply translations of these texts transposed in to modern vernacular.  Historians with years of training in methods of research, languages, and how to take those sources and review them in the context of the era.  This training takes many years through a bachelors degree, a masters, and often a phd.  But oh no, mistrust their training and specialisation in the topic because YOU are out-of-date on recent research.