As part of this thread on the v-sign (the rude British one, not the victory/peace one), I was looking at the Snopes debunking, which I have a number of problems with.
What I need to know is what happened to prisoners after a battle? Nobles were, AFAIK, ransomed (with some notable exceptions at Agincourt and Crecy). What of the commoners? From a programme on the Crusades, I think that washer-women were ransomed as well, but I’m wondering about the light troops, the squires and (most importantly) the archers.
Were they ransomed en-mass, disarmed and returned for free, allowed to make their own way back, put in the mines or just killed outright? If they were killed outright, I take it that most commoners would not surrender, preferring to melt away or fight to the death.
I’m at work right now, and thus don’t have access to my books, but I seem to recall reading about archers getting their middle fingers cut off (thus effectively ending their careers as archers) and then released. I don’t know if that’s apocryphal, though. I’ll try to check it out and repost later.
Manatee is correct. Archers, specially during the hundred years war, tended to have their middle fingers severed so as to render them useless in future conflicts.
As noted, nobility, Knights, royalty, etc were almost always ransomed back. The money would go a long ways in maintaining an army and was certainly the smarter thing to do.
Those of lesser rank, commoners, etc were typically killed, maimed, imprisoned, or, let go, depending on the situation. I’m at work too, so I can;t verify the details, therefore I won’t delve deeper.
Why should having your middle finger cut off render you useless as an archer? I could see that you might have to go through a retraining period but it seems that index and ring fingers would work just as well as index and middle.
At least on my hand the index and ring finger are much too far apart, and if they are bent I can’t get them close togehther with a reasonable force. Ok, I my experience in archery is close to non-existing, but it looks like a very real disadvantage.
I have issues with the snopes article. Addressing the clearly spureous ‘Pluck Yew’ in the same article as the far less spureous treatment of medievil captured commoners. Though the article states that scribes did not record the mutilation of prisoners, it does not say what happened to injured or surrendering common soldiers. Are there any record of what actually did happen to enemy commoner soldiers who were left alive after a battle?
As the article said, removal of just a finger would be counterproductive (though I guess better tactically then returning the captured unharmed), but wiouldn’t destroying the good hand (a mace would do that quite well) be tactically sound. The returned and mutilated commoner could not fight effectively with only their weaker hand usable, they would have difficulty even helping prepare others for the battle. If they wern’t fed by their own people it would damage moral, if they were sent home, it might damage moral (getting captured might then seem a soft option for cowardly common soldiers).
Although the snopes link appears to be talking only about the middle finger. The more common version of this story (and the one referenced in the OP) is that it refers to the rude-in-Britain “V” sign with the back of one’s hand facing out, and that the French would have removed both the index and middle fingers, making the victim pretty much worthless with bow, mace, pike, etc. Unless they did some serious kickass strength training to build up those ring and pinky fingers.
You’ve spent half a lifetime to get him where he is with the longbow, now you’re going to spend another half a lifetime getting him to be any good with a sword?
No. A pike though, yes I can see that. Send him to the front!
As some have said, please don’t fall into the trap of believing that that Snopes article is useful. It isn’t and in fact is creating as many problems as it solves.
The quote that it addresses is a joke, but it then muddles along to pretend that it’s addressing the legend. It isn’t as the legend is that the index finger as well as the middle were removed (hence the unique British & Commonwealth v-sign rather than the bird). Or so the legend goes. Try wielding that pike now .
Also, as you note, we’re not talking about any old archer here. These guys trained from ~10 years old and actually deformed their bone structure (as seen from skeletons found on the Mary Rose). Apparently the way that they drew the bow was more of a snapping action familiar to modern weightlifters, rather than a gradual pull. Also, the pull is estimated as 100-175/200 lbs, whilst today a 60 lb bow is apparently considered extremely powerful. So any weakness (even just losing 1 finger, which isn’t the case anyway) would mean you likely couldn’t use it.
Anyway, back to the original question. Anyone know what happens to non-nobles who are captured during the Hundred Years War? Were they even captured or were they just killed out of hand?
Nice speculation, but I have never read of such a thing happening. Usually, the common soldiers didn’t surrender- as no one would accept their surrender, since they had no ransom value. They scattered, and those that didn’t get away were ridden down.
Of course, in the east there were some atrocities with prisoners getting killed or maimed. These were noted as they were noteworthy- that is they were unusual. In Roman times, and in the "dark ages’, the common soldier was sold into slavery, most often.
During the Hundred years war, sometimes the French took some nasty vengance on the "Goddams’ (English) that were ravaging the countryside as Free Companies. But this was sporadic and not organized. The Free Companies would ransom their “common soldiers”, however.
Remember- the Royalty and Nobilty were in charge, and they didn’t think much about the combat value of “the common soldier”.
Nice. Thanks for that. So that effectively quashes the two-finger chopping legend, as (1) there’s no record of it happening and (2) all the archers captured would have been killed out of hand.
Do you have a link to anything reputable that confirms the instant death thing? Sorry to ask for a cite, but I want to present a cast iron case to Snopes.
John Keegan’s discussion in The Face of Battle of the killing of the hostages after Agincourt suggests that it was standard practice to kill the peasantry:
The context is the question of whether the archers would have any qualms about killing the other prisoners, as notoriously ordered by Henry. Keegan’s interpretation is that the men-at-arms would have been reluctant to kill their social peers, but the scruffy archers were happy to butcher the hostages having already shown no quarter to the others.
Incidentally, the most noble of the French prisoners were still spared and ransomed.
It is in part the notoriety of Henry’s order to kill the prisoners that makes me question that it would be standard practice to kill all captured commoners. If it was standard to kill the commoners who due to there birth were of no value for ransom, why the notoriety of ordering all the unransomable soldiers (commoners, freemen, and poor nobility) killed. I heard in a BBC documentory the theory that the archers were used to do the killing because they were not bound by rules of honour which would make the job onorous to a man-at-arms. This suggests to me that there is no taste for killing those allready defeated.
Like I said- they didn’t try and take them prisoner in the first place. Thus, they didn’t need to worry about what to do with them. The common soldier broke and ran, and the knights rode them down, and those that got away - well, they got away.
Henry gave the order to kill the Nobles & Knights that were going to be ransomed. AFAIK, the english didn’t take any of the common footsoldiers prisoner. No one did. Why do so???
Incidentally, were those Free Companies that you mentioned earlier mainly made up of people who fled battles and then banded together, or were they actual mercenary companies raised by England to cause trouble, or were they just opportunist companies that formed themselves independent of the crown?
.