Teaching history

[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;1722952]

Missed that episode.
Where did the 2 fingered salute come from then?

Originaly I believe, from Agincourt. did I read somewhere you had a degree?. not in History, I bet.;):D
Linc .7

2 degrees.
You missed the point. I was taught Agincourt. Mr Fry says not, so I was asking the poster what Mr Fry’s answer was.

It has been pointed out that 3 fingers are used to draw a longbow.
If the 2 V fingers were hacked, the remaining 2 would not be able to draw a bow.

The expression F off was certainly around before WW2, but I’ve no idea when the V sign was tagged to it.

So, what has that to do with Churchill’s V sign?

Nothing, other than that the possible urban-myth origin of the (non Churchill) two-fingered salute and the suggestion that archers used three fingered to draw their bows happened to be mentioned in a book that I was reading about (amongst other things) Winston Churchill and the V-for-Victory campaign.

To date it is the only mention I have seen of the three-finger debunk of the archer’s two-fingered salute (or possible urban-myth).

So, what has that to do with Churchill’s V sign?
Surely that was literally ‘V’ for Victory (I think originally a BBC campaign?) and bullishness that could be understood in US and UK and nothing to do with archers?

Teaching history??

whether archers draw with the three fingers or two… not sure on that one to be honest. unfortunately with so many years, sometimes myth can become mixed up with the legend. but more than likely Id say 3 fingers, makes the drawing alot easier. where the two finger thing comes from im not sure, as im more modern history than medieval :S lol

What’s the question?

I’ll re-post this as it seems to have been missed first time round.

I was reading something last night about this, or rather the V-for-Victory slogan during WW2 (and how aristocratic Churchill had to be reminded to get his famous two-fingered-salute the right way round!), anyway, the author stated that it was probably an urban myth started in the 1980s but also interestingly stated that a longbow archer would have used three fingers to draw his bow.

There happened to be a documentary about Edward III the other night and, sure enough, one of the re-enactors drawing his bow used three fingers.

What do our archers think? :confused:

[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;1722952]

Missed that episode.
Where did the 2 fingered salute come from then?

Originaly I believe, from Agincourt. did I read somewhere you had a degree?. not in History, I bet.;):D
Linc .7

Not neccessarily Agincourt but from that era when the French would chop of the string fingers of captured British archers. Therefor if an archer wanted to be insulting to the French he gave them the time honoured salute to say up yours Pierre I’ve still got mine. I’m amazed at just how powerful the long bow is. Having seen its power demonstrated I can easily understand why the French were so afraid of British archers.

PeeDee, I used to do a lot of Archery, and the Knock, is at the “Blunt” end of the arrow, a slot, where the bow string, as it was then called fitted.
The bow string would also have what is known as a “Kisser” a small piece of string, wrapped around the bow string it’self, and when the bow was drawn, the archer would draw the bow until the kisser, touched his lips, telling him he was at the maximum draw for, his arm length and arrow length. rather difficult to explain, but if you would, stand just there with this apple on your head, I would be more than willing to demonstrate what I mean.;):D

Lincoln .7

Bit higher Linc:D

True, but when you rely on many facts, or some facts, you can paint an entirely different picture and still be telling the truth.

In am not disputing what you say – I am not sure I understand your point. Can you explain with an example?

True, but when you rely on many facts, or some facts, you can paint an entirely different picture and still be telling the truth.

Same woman – and whatever her character, which is of course a matter of opinion, her death is a fact.;)

A fact is a fact, isn’t it? How can you adulterate a proven piece of information? Elizabeth Taylor died on March 23rd 2011. Fact.

Which one, the screen goddess or the drug and alcohol addicted serial adulteress whose best friend was a suspected paedophile? :rolleyes:

A await the documentary with bated breath! :diablo:

Thanks, CD – and well deserved it was!

Horrible Histories won ‘Best Sketch Show’ (not best children’s sketch show) at the 2011 British Comedy Awards!

Like, apparently, most of the country, I bow before him!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Horrible Histories is brilliant. Watched by our whole fsamily – grandson to grandparents it has found the perfect formula in dispensing historical information in an amusing but informative way. I think it won an award of some sort a month or so ago for its originality. And a stack of books has been published in association with the programmes.

Yes I entirely get that CD, and that’s what makes it so interesting and populor.
Unfortunately though some take it as a given that it is always right.

SH, I didn’t realise you were on intimate terms with Mr Fry!:eek::D

Talking of history lessons and TV has anyone here ever watched Horrible Histories on CBBCs?! It is a really well made kids programme obviously, but if you fail to learn or laugh at something from it I would be surprised.

A fact is a fact, isn’t it? How can you adulterate a proven piece of information? Elizabeth Taylor died on March 23rd 2011. Fact.

Unfortunately QI isn’t always right.

But then what programme is? At lease the raison d’être for QI is the ‘facts’ and it manages to make it entertaining too; something that other programme makers could learn a lot from. I’ve watched no-end of documentaries where the facts have been shamelessly adulterated to suit the programme maker.

You are surely not suggesting that the Great God Fry could possibly be wrong, are you……..??;);)He’s a pain in the a***e.:(