After reading the Click and Clack version of the story, multicultural author,  Michelle Young, set out to determine the real story. She contacted a friend, Richard Harrold, a British teacher in Thailand.  Richard is particularly interested in  this period of history and has graciously granted permission for me to publish his reply to her.

After you have read his version you will be asked to researched the facts. Any  information must be confirmed through reliable sources before it can be judged valid.

So, without further delay, here's still another version of the how the "one-finger salute" came about.

What you have sent me is a hybrid of several stories surrounding the origin of the "two-fingered salute" (sometimes known as the Harvey Smith because when  annoyed with the judges - as he seemed so often to be - that show jumper gave the two fingers several times on prime time television in the nineteen seventies when the gesture was still considered beyond the pale for innocent viewers!).

The story is that French soldiers at Agincourt threatened to cut off the index and middle fingers of captured archers in the army of Henry V. Actually the archers were almost all Welsh - not English. The Welsh had invented the longbow, at that  time the most feared weapon in Europe (so much so that it was widely assumed there could never be another war as the army with the longbow would always win - plus ca change eh?). Anyway, after crushing defeats at Poitiers and Crecy, the  French army - still without Joan D'Arc who wasn't to rescue their fortunes for several years (this was the Hundred Years War, remember) - assembled at Agincourt in 1415 thinking they had the upper hand at last. Their confident troops  (they outnumbered Henry's army by about seven to one) approached the English camp (battles were decided quite formally in those days) made the boast that they would cut off the two fingers of any captured archers and then returned to their  camp.

Henry won the day and the archers trooped past their captured French opponents jeering and waving the two fingers at them (it's two fingers in the UK - not one). The "pluck yew" is pure invention - although ingenious.

However, the truth is somewhat more complicated and has to do with the economy of Britain and the reasons for the war itself. England was a wool economy. English wool (again - it included Welsh wool) was sold to the most skilled weavers in  Europe (the Flemish) and the resulting yarn used for a number of purposes not necessarily connected with textiles.

One of these uses was the manufacture of bow strings. Welsh wool twisted into  twine made the strongest bow strings in Europe. This technical detail was crucial to Welsh success in warfare at that time (remember the Welsh prince Henry Tudor defeated even the mighty Richard III to take the throne of England later in the  century). The strength of the resulting twine enabled the Welsh to cut a much narrower notch in their arrows than were the French. In mediaeval warfare archers soon ran out of arrows and relied on being able to use arrows fired by their  opponents (you may possibly have heard about the Romans designing their javelins to make them impossible to throw back as they always broke on impact with the ground - or a body!). The narrow v-shaped notch in Welsh arrows was too  narrow for the French to be able to fire them back using the thick-twined bows they carried. The Welsh, however, were easily able to fire back French arrows as they fitted the narrow bow string perfectly well.

Conscious that it was the v-shaped notch which was the difference between the two armies' relative fortunes that day, the archers filed past the captured French waving v-shaped fingers and elbows and the terms became associated with jeering  success over unfortunates for the next five hundred years. Of the two gestures only the crooked elbow has come to have sexual connotations, but neither is very polite.

As a postscript I might add that I think most Britons considered the American one finger ruder than the English two-fingers. Certainly we use both, but a scale of  coarseness would certainly place the one finger as having greater power to offend.

Got to go. Hope this helps.

Now that you have read both versions what can you say about the accuracy of the two stories. To me, Richard's version seems much more believable, but how can we be sure? If we use the criteria for evaluating information, his version scores  slightly better, but neither version meets enough of the criteria to be declared as reliable, valid information.

Since this story took place over five-hundred years ago, it's unlikely that  we will be able to find other sources to confirm or deny either story as a whole. The best we can do is to look for clues by verifying or disproving facts from either version.

Your job is to verify or disprove as many of the facts as you can. Conduct research and begin to build your case as if you were going to present evidence in court. This will not be an easy task. I'll tell you right now there is no single reliable source to provide you with all the evidence you need . You will have to build your case by proving or disproving one fact at a time.

When you finish your research, you must write a paper that shows what you have learned about the truthfulness of the two stories. You paper MUST include all of   your sources of information. How you present it will depend on you, but whatever you conclude, you must back it up with facts gathered from reliable sources.

This is NOT an easy assignment. It may be unlike any assignment you have done in the past. You have two versions of a story. The first is from a radio show listener whose credentials you do not know. The second is a version offered by an English  teacher. Neither one has been established as a history expert. Therefore, regardless of which version you believe, PROOF requires that you find reliable sources to prove or disprove either version.

Below I offer a method of approaching the assignment.

I suggest you take the Click and Clack version, underline every fact, create some  questions about each fact and then try to prove or disprove each one.  I have do exactly that in this version of  the Click and Clack story. Many of the facts have  been underlined and linked to the question or observation about each one. You can use this as a tool in your research.

This is just one way you can organize the information you find. Another way it to use a fact matrix. Here is an example of a matix and some suggestions for its use.

Simply answering the questions or filling out a matrix will not be accepted as a final  product . The questions, answers and/or matrix. should be used as a tool to help you organize your thoughts and presentation. Your final presentation should be in the form of a narrative.

Now if you have read this far you deserve some additional help.  The story of the English waving their fingers at the French is told in the first person account by Jean  Froissart.  Froissart (circa 1337-circa 1404) is best remembered as a historian and
as the author of the Chronicle, a document that is essential to an understanding of Europe in the fourteenth century and to the
twists and turns taken by the Hundred Years' War.

The Chronicle is a primary source of information.  As far as I know, there is no text of it available on Internet, but there are pictures from it and information about  Froissart.  If you take my other suggestions and read this information, you will get a very important piece of information that will help you in your quest. It is important  because one piece of information will prove that neither the Click and Clack version nor the Richard Harrold versions are completely correct.
 

[ OII Home Page ]