Lindy beige

Yes actually.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZtsqYGBK6XA

Lindybeige isn't as far up his quote "OWN ARSE" end quote as Dan, nor does he charge for the privilege of his pontificating.

He sometimes say blatantly wrong shit like in his berserkers video when he completly ignored sagas that DO in fact descrtibe 'serkers as pissed off not to mention Varangian Guard was said to go batshit as well. He is the kind of guy who picks some instances and then think they represent of the whole thing it's like if I said Roman Legion was dog shit because they got rekt in a forest by a bunch of forest niggers.

They got rekt by bunch of forest niggers and sandniggers though.

Lindybeige has an entire snarky video where he video tapes someone and then edits in "THIS STATEMENT IS ENTIRELY BY THE SPEAKER" or some shit. He also spelled the sword wrong.

youtube.com/watch?v=YOgTWpC4UZA&index=43&list=PLCA860ECD7F894424

Lindybeige is incredibly up his own ass, no idea where you are getting that from.

Wow an army loses sometimes call the fucking press.

>You see here, Hoplite cuirasses were definetly not made of Linen!
>I have done many hours of research...wait no I haven't
>I've made my own, out of leather!
>I wore it to a dinner party, so it must be true
>also I do swing dancing

I had forgotten about that one and the one in Malta where he's clearly goading the guy in costume into saying something silly.

That said quote "HE'S STILL NOT AS MUCH OF A POMPOUS" end quote arse as Dan "not a historian" Carlin.

Carlin is better for memes, Lindybeige for being a borderline autist at times

>CAN YOU IMAGINE?
>I'm not a historian, folks....
>le quote voice

All said and done I enjoy Dan's podcasts, I wish he did audiobook readings. But then again I'm moderately certain that's because I'm an American, it seems like a lot of Euros/britbongs hate listening to American narration in general.

I agree about his videos on construction and making stuff, and those are by-far my favorite videos of his, though I find his videos on movies to be the most entertaining, they aren't as informative or thought-provoking as some of his others.

On weapons though, Scholagladiatoria all the way, even though some of the questions people ask him that he has to answer are really kekworthy.

Those comments actually got him kicked out the university. He was a volunteer I believe in evolutionary psychology, which is kind of a wank field but whatever.

Yeah, but him saying it and never recanting it was perfect in my eyes.

Guy is very entertaining to watch, but often thinks he knows much more than he really does

well you can't win with this crowd. He does everything so damn well and captivates the audience really well. Of course has his own quirks like the QUOTE and all that, but that's part of the fun. Also the I'm not a historian thing is something where you would complain if he said he was a historian as well I guarantee it.

>They came down from a higher league
>They just couldn't keep up...
>I'm reminded of the time when
>I think it's a little difficult for Americans to understand (this applies more to Common Sense)

I think Dans got more real knowledge when it comes to Common Sense, but HardcoreHistories is just fun to listen to, and seems like a good, broad introduction to whatever Dan thinks is cool this season.

The low fidelity of his videos make them very comfy.

top kek, based Lindy

*Lindybased

Although it was most likely was leather in the early days of hoplites since it was much more common in mainland greece rather than linen.

>or when he picks apart a Hollywood movie
Literally the dumbest shit and most debasing thing a youtube "historian" can do.

I feel like we're all repeating the same point here, but I'll say it again anyway because it's true.
He's the most entertaining to watch or listen to out of any of them, undoubtedly.
But he does occasional say something about history, completely accidentally, that just isn't true.

What has he said that's bullshit?

His machine-gun video is one that I can think of just off the top of my head.

What did he say?

Dan isnt batshit insane

That heavy machine guns, by having a mount, have more impact to their fired rounds than a non-mounted machine guns.

I hate the YouTube vlogger community. Its not up for debate.

I think he is great, he is an outgoing autist who accepts criticism and tries to maintain standards.

Skallagrim doesn't claim to be a historian though

He openly states that his knowledge in history is limited and that he is just reviewing weapons from a practical point of view.

I really like beige, but yeah, always be skeptical of his assertions

He said that heavy machine guns were fixed and therefore most of the times of a higher caliber (aka more powerful) than machine guns that are not mounted.

I wish that he'd make more ridiculously wrong videos so that we could talk about them.

I'm pretty sure that user is right and he literally asserted that a fixed mount makes the bullets stronger.

It's just for entertainment. Most people (I hope) don't actually expect Hollywood to be 100% accurate.

So you aren't annoyed when they use "fire" instead of "loose" when commanding arrows, misinforming people on history? Weird, I thought I was on Veeky Forums.

>arrows
I'm annoyed with myself. That's suppose to be archers.

He never said that. Check 6:50.
youtube.com/watch?v=ivYlHU0Zi-I

>noticed none of the arms and armor folks on youtube were accredited historians, by their own admission
>figured I could fill a niche
>made a bunch of videos
>they got at most 300 views each
>got so embarrassed I shut down my channel after three months

either you're really not interesting, or more likely you just didn't advertise well enough.

You should keep trying

Most of these guys spent years in relative obscurity, and are still pretty obscure.

didn't he once claim that black powder weapons were louder than modern ones and based that pretty much on that some reenactment group's (blank) volley shot indoors made his ears ring more than when he once heard some robber shoot into the air with .22 or something in some balkan shithole?

I see no point in watching this guy and Skallagrim. Angry, opinionated, slightly childish and doesn't cite sources, just wants to rant and have opinions, bordering on autism. There are many better history channels such as Metatron.

no, pretty sure he was just talking about how fucking loud firearms are.

Can't defend legs with strap shields.

Pikes never engaged each other.

Nobody knows the techniques behind greatswords.

Greatswords ran into pikes swinging in a big figure out and knocked them all aside.

>Schola Gladitoria not the highest tier
What is this madness?

Neither Skallagrim nor Lindy claim they are historians or even clam that they are history channels. Don't get your autism tits jingling

>Greatswords ran into pikes swinging in a big figure out and knocked them all aside.

This is actually a thing though.

Could you also point out the videos where he says those things? I've got a feeling that you're strawmanning hard here.

Do you understand what they mean when they say "fire"? Yes.
Does everyone else understand what they mean when they say "fire"? Yes.
Does everyone else understand what they mean when they say "loose"? No.

Is them saying fire such a serious error that someone would get a completely wrong impression based on that alone?
Do we even have records of ancient and medieval people saying "loose"?

do you have bigger pic of this article?

No, he claimed that firearms were really really loud and used an example of reenactors firing half a charge of black powder bring really loud and a real shot even louder. You pulled the balkan robber directly your anus.

i bet you say 'clip' when you mean magazine too

He actually cites his sources, shows examples of real artefacts on screen, goes into much more detail and has higher production values.

Nope, but even if I did, no one but autists give a shit about the difference.

He said that tripods compensate the recoil better than bipods+arm so the same gun(or at least using the same round) has better stopping power when fired from tripod.

Even if it was the case(I doubt it) the difference wouldn't be visible.

The real reason was that bipod made it more mobile and tripod made it more accurate(increasing its effective range).

It isn't too much to ask that minor things like this be close to accurate. Of course, some creative liberties have to be taken to make a more exciting drama but getting even small details right is a nice touch towards making a movie more believable, which you always want. You don't ever want the audience reminded that they're watching a movie.

So no it's not a huge deal and we don't know exactly what they said back then. But 'loose' or 'shoot' is a hell of a lot better of a guess than 'fire', which they definitely didn't say, and any historical advisor should have been able to point that out.

His major flaw is that when doing videos on topics he doesn't know very well, he appears to do his research by just staring at a wall for a week, trying to get to his own conclusions instead of reading actual research.
See: his linguistics videos

Pike formations didn't fight each other

Medieval forests were more regulated than modern ones

Patricians spoke exclusively Greek

His whole linguistics video is just conjectures and masturbation over English

Quite often he doesn't know what he's talking about.

scholagladiatoria is better.

Schola Gladitoria does all of those though.

There's also the issue where he questioned the authenticity of "De Arte Athletica" on basis of the people depicted being dressed in fancy clothes.

...

This wouldn't nearly be as funny without the three American flags in the shot. What's with these gun shows and flags?

youtube.com/watch?v=3GpWBsGjcIo
This guy is the best.

He's sometime's interesting, usually when recounting other people's stories, like in the recent Cromwell tank video.

Unfortunately he's an absolute dipshit. The one where he compared global warming scientists to nazis was really cringeworthy.

Would that be unreasonable? Wouldn't modern firearms be more efficient at turning chemical potential energy into muzzle velocity, rather than losing it as noise?

Americans are obsessed with flags in general.
The fuckers have flags INSIDE of their house hanging in their room.

I can understand outside display at least thats public, but the need to hang a flag to your room. ..

Brainwashed by jingoism I should say.

Are you from Glendale?

I'll watch your videos, senpai.

i fucking hate him

My friends kept arguing with me that Pikes didn't fight each other in the thirty years war based on his videos. Got any sources that say otherwise?

>Medieval forests were more regulated than modern ones
His point was more that there were relatively few forests that were "natural," except those left untouched for nobles and royals to go a hunting

I'm sorry you don't live in the greatest fucking country in the world. No need to be salty about it.

I remember one of my neighbors was a brit who owned a home in our expensive resort town and hung a union jack in his window. Someone threw a rock in it while his wife was watching TV. Limeys STILL aren't welcome.

>pikes
>thirty years war
Pretty sure there were no pure pike blocks in the thirty years war. Pikes engage pikes as mixed pike-and-shot units seems quite likely. The Spanish Tercio at Rocroi defeated a french infantry group in the early phase of the battle, only to fall to artillery and cavalry charges.

Alatriste shows a really dirty pike engagement for that battle.

youtu.be/dMEnBHef96c

I appreciate the fact that he uses personal experience in a way where he typically doesnt exert something, but rather uses
>It occurs to me
or
>I believe
instead of
>This is the way it is

>that video at a con where he's awkwardly flirting with the cosplaying girls
funnily enough I live in the same city as him

While we're talking about Veeky Forums youtube people.

What do you guys think of RealCrusadeHistory?

I'll be upfront and say the guy has a massive bias that he doesn't try to hide, however he also provides sources for his arguments and covers points that popular history brushes over. Like the fact that the 4th Crusade started as one Byzantine trying to usurp the throne from the current Emperor and not "Hurr let's sack Constantinople for the lulz"

He has biases, but he is top tier when it comes to using actual sources and proving his point.

>haw haw some guy threw a rock in his window for displaying allegiance to an ally

both the rock thrower and you are colossal cunts.

>Patricians spoke exclusively Greek

Didn't say that.

>Patricians spoke exclusively Greek

Surely not

This. He's the Dan Carlin of youtube.

no.

Man that video is incredibly condescending. He doesn't have the balls to call the guy on it, even in a calm and respectable manner by posing an opposing view, just lets the guy talk all the while arrogantly thinking to himself the guy is wrong in his claims and later on edits in a disclaimer. What a fucking dick.

I mean thats just kinda stupid. You're allies, and have been for years.

Except not. While there were forests used by peasant for gathering stuff, there simply weren't enough people in 1100 AD Europe to look after every forest. By that time in my region a lot of land wasn't even inhabited for fuck's sake.

He did say in his video on Rome (HBO) that patricians would speak Greek in private and slaves wouldn't be able to understand them.
Baring the fact Greek slaves were sought after by wealthy families, this isn't true at all.
Look at Cicero's PRIVATE correspondence for example.
While he does use greek expressions/sayings often and sometimes just randomly writes a sentence or two in Greek, the bulk of it is Latin.
Later on you also have Seneca's and Pliny's letters, but those were meant for publication and are therefor written in absolutely spotless Latin.
Cicero's Epistulae are really unique because they're private and give us a good insight into how the great men of that time would have spoken. It's full of legal jargon, slang, references, inside jokes and greekisms, but it certainly isn't Greek.
Source: my latin class where I had to translate that shit.

he's enjoyable although not everything he does is perfect

Since when has popular history brushed over that?
Literally fact number one if you want to learn about the fourth crusade.

>Does everyone else understand what they mean when they say "loose"? No.

You'd have to be a giant retard to miss the point when someone shouts "loose" and everybody shoots their fucking arrows.
It's not like it's a huge deal but it's just a silly anachronism that's not necessary. People will understand just fine. Assuming your audience is so stupid that they'll be confused and angry because somebody didn't say fire is a surefire way to dumb down your movie needlessly.

Me to

>Like the fact that the 4th Crusade started as one Byzantine trying to usurp the throne from the current Emperor and not "Hurr let's sack Constantinople for the lulz"
Or, you know, it started as a crusade. For the Levant. Only Crusaders didn't have the money for Venetians because not everyone showed up. The Venetians then schemed their way into making up the difference and then some by way of Zara and Byzantium... then Byzantium again.