Why do we hate him?

Joseph was best Bonaparte

He's correct in this instance. The terror napoleon inspared in the elites of Europe was finally dwarfed by the pathological obsession/loathing we now have for Hitler.

Because Veeky Forums for some reason feels the need to have strong opinions about literally who? youtubers

I'm not a frog and I have watched his videos, and I still hate him. I regret having given him ad money through my clicks.

Because there's this endless pattern of

>Lindy says stupid shit in videos
>People call him out for said stupid shit
>Fans come along and say that you haven't watched the videos
>Demonstrate that you have
>Why did you watch the video for something you think is dumb? Do you have no life?

It's torn out of the marxist handbook.

You can use adblock. Also care to elaborate why you hate him?

Don't forget clickbait titles.

He really is just a complete fucking moron through and through.

t. Brit

Also reasons people hate him:

He claims
>no one used swords, axes
>no one used horses
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used double strap arm shields
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
>no one used torches
>Pikemen didn't fight each other
>no one spoke French during the French revolution
>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
>battle of Zama didn't happen
>Romans carried one pilum
>Vikings weren't real
>berserkers weren't real
>climate change isn't real
>stagnant social mobility isn't real
>castles were defended by three soldiers
>butted mail is better than riveted mail

Just watched his video about Malta

>claims the Normans werent French
>claims the Angevins werent French
>claims the Knights Hospitaller (those who fought the Ottomans) werent French
>claims the French first set a foot on Malta in 1798 under evil Napoleon until glorious Brits liberated the island from them

What a joke

Debate him faggot

>>battle of Zama didn't happen
He didn't claim this. He pointed to someone who does claim it, and then points out his problems with the idea.

This article to be exact

thehistoryherald.com/Articles/Ancient-History-Civilisation/Hannibal-and-the-Punic-Wars/the-trouble-with-zama-paradox-smoke-and-mirrors-in-an-ancient-battlefield

Yes he does make a LOT of stupid statements, but this was not one of them.

You forgot to post it to one more thread

we dont, hes /our guy/

He's smarter then us

You're right
I'll make a thread about it

Those last two are bollocks if you're the same guy as last time, who only watched the video hours after sperging about it

No, only the british hate him because he was BTFOing them.

Here in America hes seen as "oh cool, Napoleon" Theres a bunch of shit named after him in Louisiana to

Yes, by about 3.5 centiGoshDarnCunnings (15.8 kiloSmarts, but we don't like to use French units now, do we)

>No, only the british hate him because he was BTFOing them.
He was BTFOing everyone else out senpai. The Portuguese royal family was so worried they went as far as fleeing Europe before he got to them.

>BTFOing them

Lack of objectivity. Way too biased towards his country, way too butthurt about the French.

>>no one used horses
He said horses didn't instantly change warfare, like games such as Civilization depict. It wasn't 1.domesticate horses 2. Invent saddle 3. ?????? 4. Cavalry is king

he madean ultra clickbaity video to get controvery and clicks, he's at the intellectual level of FOX and the Daily Mail as it stands

No, he said that "Cavalry didn't exist" for about a thousand years after the domestication in the horse, (which is more or less right), because it would be 'foolish to ride a horse into battle', defending the point with utter nonsense about horses shying away from corpses and bodies (which didn't stop people from using chariots almost immediately after horse domestication, which he does go into), or about the difficulties in staying asaddle after hitting someone from horseback (which would be meaningless, as the first recorded instance of cavalry we have are horse archers). He also admits that there are older mentions of mounted messengers, which for some reason don't count as cavalry to him despite him never explaining why.

He equates cavalry with heavy shock cavalry, and that's just dumb.

... because a messenger isn't cavalry? Is the local polo team a cavalry unit too?

Honestly I'm convinced that Lindybeige spams these threads with deliberately provocative titles so he can get more views, more money and possibly some new subscribers.

What a huge faggot
Beige, if you're here, be aware that "beige" is a French word and therefore your ancestors were baguette-eating Frenchmen from Normandy

They take an active military role from horseback. That's the core of the usual definition of cavalry, in which case a military messenger operating on horseback is part of the cavalry force. Unfortunately, Lindy doesn't ever make an explicit definition of what he considers cavalry, other than that it's distinct from chariotry (which is itself something that not everyone would necessarily agree upon), and given his focus on hand to hand difficulties from the saddle (let alone before you have saddles), you could reasonably make the argument from his video that he doesn't consider horse archers or mounted scouts to be cavalry, which is clearly absurd.

Cavalry translates to mounted soldiers.
Messenger is soldier
Soldier is on horse
One can assume the soldier will ride the horse again
Ergo, messenger is cavalry.

>people who deliver messages are soldiers

So Hitler wasnt a soldier during WW1?

No, he was an infantry soldier, who in addition delivered messages. Not a fuck postman.

Yes user, not everything is like your video games, not every soldier fights on the front lines.

Yes, military messengers are soldiers. This isn't hard for most non-autistic people.

So the local pony club and polo team ARE cavalry units then?

>they don't fight
>they're still a soldier though

I've only seen his video going after how dumb he thinks D&D is

Going through all these instances and hypothetical situations of how D&D is silly and not historically accurate or something like that

D&D is a fantasy game it's not historical IRL fuck off m80

Hitler's sole role was to deliver messages

>Military courriers arent soldiers except if it's my precious Hitler

Kys

No, because they're not in the military.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Army

Take a peek at the composition of the type B infantry division.

Are you really going to say that the HQ staff, the transport regiment, the divisional signals, the medical units, the field hospitals, the vets, etc, aren't soldiers? If not, what the fuck are they doing in an infantry division's orgchart?

>delivering messages as an infantry soldier
>quick the French are coming! Everyone to your positions! Not you Adolph, you sit there, you're a messenger, so do litterally nothing else.

>precious Hitler
>implying it's was the one so obsessed with him that mention him completely out of the blye

Except Hitler wasn't there when the enemy attacked
He only stayed on the frontline while delivering his messages (aka few minutes for each visit)

>thread about bronze age cavalry
>brings up a modern military organisation

>the enemy always timed their attacks around Hitlers schedule
>he wounded and awarded himself that medal

And when you come up with a reason why modern military personnel who perform non-combat tasks are soldiers but ancient ones aren't, that objection would mean something. Until then, pic related.

Military messengers are soldiers. If they operate from horseback, they're cavalry.

He'd have to be very unlucky to be there during an assault given how little time he spent on the front
And his wounds were by artillery (which was constantly raining and could fall away from the frontline trench)

>imply I've said modern drivers, radio operators and medics are soldiers

>le constant artillery maymay

>BTFOing them

I wish I could btfo of my enemies by dying alone on an island that they dumped me on

And yet every single military in the world considers them soldiers. Funny how they're all wrong and you're right.

>modern people who don't fight still call themselves soldiers to get in on the muh honor, muh glory, muh service train

Still doesn't make them soldiers, just drivers, cooks, radio operators and mechanics in a special suit

Veeky Forums is french

Well, at least you're consistent in your retardation. You do realize that your definition quite literally disqualifies every single officer from being a soldier, since they do not themselves fight, correct?

I don't mind him, though he can say some dumb shit.
A lot of people like to twist what he says, like with the castle garrison video.

Because Veeky Forums is where Frogs come to cry about losing the cultural victory to the Anglos.

That's literally all this board is for, French people wanking over Napoleon and talking about which butter spreads the easiest on baguettes.

>French are the only ones to hate Anglos and love France

New to Veeky Forums I see, my buttdesvasted British friend
Try visiting /int/ once, you'll see that the whole world despise you

>He was an infantryman in the 1st Company during the First Battle of Ypres (October 1914), which is remembered in Germany as the Kindermord bei Ypern (Massacre of the Innocents) because approximately 40,000 men (between a third and a half) of nine newly enlisted infantry divisions were killed in 20 days. Hitler's regiment entered the battle with 3,600 men and at its end mustered 611.The regimental commander was killed and thereafter they were known as the Regiment List in his honor. By December Hitler's own company of 250 was reduced to
>Messengers' duties changed as the army on the Western Front settled into the defense. Fewer messages went by foot or bicycle and more so done by telephone. However, whenever a circuit went out of action two messengers were sent to repair the break; this usually occurred during a bombardment
>According to Thomas Weber of the University of Aberdeen, earlier historians of the period had not distinguished between regimental runners, who were based away from the front "in relative comfort", and company, or battalion runners, who moved among the trenches and were more often under fire
>The List regiment fought in many battles, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele

Ah yes, that famous layabout Hitler

How is that any different than this butthurt Nigel spamming Lindy threads.

Literally everyone but bongs jerk off to Napoleon. Who do the bongs jerk off to? Churchill? kek

>Who do the bongs jerk off to? Churchill? kek

They jerk off to Henry V de Plantagenet

It's almost like officers and soldiers are specifically differentiated from each other or something

>imply officers never fight

>It's almost like officers and soldiers are specifically differentiated from each other or something

You mean, it's almost like officers and enlisted personnel are differentiated from each other, both being in the larger category of "soldiers".

>imply officers never fight

In a modern military, they organize the violence, they don't inflict it directly, (unless you're in a plane, I guess), and when they do, it's a matter of circumstance. Those cooks and medical orderlies and truck drivers and whatnot can also pick up a gun and shoot if things get really desperate.

Man up, user. You created an absolutely retarded definition, and one that bears little resemblance to reality, and certainly no resemblance to the way actual militaries organize and designate things. Admit it, you'll be happier.

The response to that one was particularly moronic. I have to keep in mind that the average Americlap has probably never visited a castle in person and doesn't know how small they actually arm, instead imagining them all as this huge, Minas Tirith style construction that requires thousands of men to garrison and thousands more to storm.

He does not claim most of this. For example, in the video about the Battle of Zama, he argues emphatically for like 10 minutes about why it DID happen. You're just talking out of your ass, and this copy-pasta needs to die.

Like I said, a complete lack of understanding of what a question is. "Did the battle of Zama happen?" is not saying that the battle of Zama didn't happen.

I like him. I actually enjoy his videos.

cause hes so similar to us

I don't think he actually said most of that.

Reminder that Operation Market Garden was actually a succes

This dude is the very definition of a deluded Britbong

This stuff is Sargon level revisionism.

It's always like that with these threads. Endless arguing about what Lindy said or didn't say.

I mean sometimes you have people defending Lindy about something he didn't even say, and it all started because someone on Veeky Forums misquoted him.

And then someone will go on and say that no it wasn't actually a misquote, this is what Lindy claimed.

And so on and so on...

Sargon actually did a livestream with Lindybeige.

Most autistic thing I've ever seen.

What's your opinion on this ?

Lol

What of it? Even if he is wrong (he probably is) I never claimed (and neither did he) that he is the absolute authority on everything.

I like him.
Literally all the arguments I've seen against him basically boiled down to them not understanding what the content is intended for.

>Heh, the French never won a fight in their life!

I'd say it's a good example of his British bias and revisionism

What about these?

>t.frog

to me they are pretty silly posts but
1. depending on perspective there's some validity to that. in the current day context his enemies probably really really hated napoleon and he obviously did some attrocious stuff and was the main agency in starting the equivalent of a world war.
2. I'm not talking about his youtube comments, which are clearly a lot more reactive and less thought out. I feel like it's hard to judge when he probably has a more elaborate reason to say that but it's not an elaborate format.

>point out the obvious
>WAAAH WAAAH you must be a frog!!
Ik ben trouwens een Vlaming voor alle duidelijkheid

Most of his videos are opinions, but most people take them as fact and him as an authority.

I don't hate him because of that, but I do hate his audience. He stays some stupid stuff and they take it as gospel.

Sorry, I don't speak french

>an *nglo can't recognise a real germanic language
no suprise here

hollandaise sounds retarded to other germanic countries as well.

English language is actually closer from French than from German
Pic related, the only German words that somewhat ressemble English ones are those of Romance origin

At least it's not bastardized French

>inb4 >m-muh 100 most used words

>tfw Harold Hardrada didn't win
>tfw we could have been cool and Scandinavian by now.
>Instead we get to be the odd man out of Europe.