[Dayseed]

Hoser,

What is this "something" that tells you the French armies were not only willing to mutilate prisoners, thus violating the moral code which prevailed in Europe, but also boast to Henry the V's army that they would do so? (Although Henry V DID violate said moral code by executing the French prisoners, it is believed he did so to free guards to continue the expedition while forfeiting the ransom money.)

I'm also guessing you don't know much about the actual battle at Agincourt. It wasn't the English longbow that won the battle at Agincourt, it was the mud. French knights churned the living crap out of the heavily soaked field as the arrows cut them down. The rest of the French lines charged the English line, crowding as they did so. Heraldic accounts attribute more deaths to the English knocking the French into the mud where they sank in their own armour than the "feared" longbow.

No mention of triumphant bowmen chanting "Pluck Yew" is noted in the histories.

What you've read on the internet there is a humourous account, signifying nothing.

[Blue_Nose]

However, my ukulele mutilated, regenerated index finger is very real.

[HockeyBabe]

so it was really chopped clean off and it grew back?

[Blue_Nose]

It's about half a centimeter shorter than it was, and the circulation is bad.... it hurts in the wintertime.

[HockeyBabe]

so it grew back only half a cm short...that's not really a big deal...so yes! it's true! humans can be like lizards!

[Blue_Nose]

...sigh...

[HockeyBabe]

ok ok...I'm sorry for joking...

[Blue_Nose]

Just tell me you don't want to be a doctor when you grow up.

[HockeyBabe]

no...either a wildlife biologist or a model...maybe I'll model my middle finger..

[The Hoser]

Dayseed Dayseed:

Hoser,

What is this "something" that tells you the French armies were not only willing to mutilate prisoners, thus violating the moral code which prevailed in Europe, but also boast to Henry the V's army that they would do so? (Although Henry V DID violate said moral code by executing the French prisoners, it is believed he did so to free guards to continue the expedition while forfeiting the ransom money.)

I'm also guessing you don't know much about the actual battle at Agincourt. It wasn't the English longbow that won the battle at Agincourt, it was the mud. French knights churned the living crap out of the heavily soaked field as the arrows cut them down. The rest of the French lines charged the English line, crowding as they did so. Heraldic accounts attribute more deaths to the English knocking the French into the mud where they sank in their own armour than the "feared" longbow.

No mention of triumphant bowmen chanting "Pluck Yew" is noted in the histories.

What you've read on the internet there is a humourous account, signifying nothing.

I never made mention of the Battle of Agincourt. I said that the French had reason to fear the Egnlish Longbow, and it wouldn't surprise me if Archers fingers were chopped off by the French in order to prevent them ever from wielding the deadly English longbow ever again.

And yes, my knowledge of the Battle of Agincourt comes mostly from reading the histroically-based-but-highly-fictionilized works of Bernard Cornwell, so I don't know an incredfible amount, plus The 100 Years War was never a favourite of mine.

[Dayseed]

Hoser,

If the thrust of your post is that you could identify with the malarky in this internet tale, then congratulations.

However, the history of the battle at Agincourt tells a different tale.

[The Hoser]

Dayseed,

Don't be so defensive, eh? I never said that most of the stuff he posted was true, just that the Longbow was definatly a deadly weapon, and several times it won the English the day. If necessary, I'll dig up a few battles, but I'd rather not. I think that the French would have had the common sense to realise just how deadly an Archer could be, and that, without his fingers, he could never again draw a bow, and, thus be rendered unable to fight.

[Dayseed]

Hoser,

There's nothing about being defensive, don't project. You've now got to make a case for why it would be advantageous for the French to amputate fingers on a "catch and release" style program after a battle than to outright kill the prisoners.

If I mistook you for one of the people who swallowed that internet tale hook, line and sinker, I apologize. My bad.

[Blue_Nose]

The Hoser The Hoser:

I think that the French would have had the common sense to realise just how deadly an Archer could be, and that, without his fingers, he could never again draw a bow, and, thus be rendered unable to fight.

Why wouldn't the french have the common sense to cut off the first two fingers, or all of them, or the head along with it?

[The Hoser]

Dayseed,

If I were a French soldier during the 100 Years War, I would sleep tighter knowing that any and all prisoners skilled in the use of an English Longbow would never again, should they gain freedom, be able to use said Longbow. (Though, if I were a French soldier, I would be counting my blessings the English never widly used the Composite Bow)

Think of it as giving the French a sense of closure... Maybe they didn't kill them outright because 5,000 English soldiers can be quite the barganning chip, if it ever came to that.