Is he one of us Veeky Forums?

You forgot the most important thing

>He's one of the perfidious Albions

When will this meme end? This shit is so fucking exaggerated.

Not really. He's consistently just wrong.
Not "minor misconception that we could have a good discourse about after correcting" wrong but
>what? No.
Wrong. The sort of shit you just dismiss out of hand and move on from without citations to argue over.
He never has sources.

He's the equivalent of someone pretending to be knowledgeable about aerospace engineering who claims the sky is made of badger cock.
That's wrong, there's nothing to discuss about it.

>t.frog

I'm no Lindybeige fan but not everything he says is bullshit.

Occasionally he makes some good videos like this one:

youtube.com/watch?v=1OsLESoAGg0

Even Matt Easton praised that video.

Consistent doesn't mean always. A signle video where he's not either wrong or posting clickbait doesn't change the general trend of pulling shit out of his ass.

What is it like to be wrong?

>no one used swords, axes
Absolute bullshit. in one of his videos he specifically describes the significance of the sword used as a weapon. youtube.com/watch?v=DiD3cI3RqJU
>no one used horses
bullshit. He said that "Cavalry didn't exist" for about a thousand years after the domestication in the horse, (which is more or less right)
>no one used throwing knives
>no one used double strap arm shields
>no one used scythes
>no one used mail coifs
Is any of this wrong? Educate me
>no one used torches
No, he says that people preferred to cary candles over using tortures.
>Pikemen didn't fight each other
vast oversimplification. he says they did fight each other, and in formation, just not with their pikes while in formation (they would switch to other weapons)

>no one spoke Latin during the Roman Republic
Absolute bullshit. He said that the commoners all spoke Latin. However, he said that the aristocrats spoke Greek.
>battle of Zama didn't happen
Absolute bullshit. This is the exact opposite of his view. He spends like 10 minutes arguing emphatically against this point. If you think he believes this, it proves that you’re full of BS.
>Vikings weren't real
Absolute bullshit. He says the term “viking” is counterproductive. I believe he said he simply preferred the term “Nords” or something.
>climate change isn't real
No he said he hasn’t personally seen the evidence of it. in fact, he admitted he believes the climate is changing (or at least getting warmer)
>stagnant social mobility isn't real
no, he says that social mobility is slow but real. (it’s true, if you live in the developed world, you don’t know true social stagnation)
>castles were defended by three soldiers
bullshit. he said that it was the norm to have as few as 25 soldiers, but more were summoned during siege. to prove his point, he points to the extraordinary case wherein apparently 3 solders were able to fend off an entire army for a while
>claims the Normans werent French
>claims the Angevins werent French
>claims the Knights Hospitaller (those who fought the Ottomans) werent French
well i guess it depends on your definition of “french”
>claims the French first set a foot on Malta in 1798 under evil Napoleon until glorious Brits liberated the island from them
well this kind of exaggerates his view. there is a whole lot more information in the video, and it’s much more nuanced (despite being very condensed)

>>no one used mail coifs
>no one used double strap arm shields
>Is any of this wrong? Educate me
Are you fucking kidding me?
No wonder you watch his shit videos.

>vast oversimplification. he says they did fight each other, and in formation, just not with their pikes while in formation (they would switch to other weapons)
WHICH CONTRADICTS EVERY FUCKING PERIOD SOURCE YOU CUNT.
HE FUCKING WATCHED A BUNCH OF REENACTORS DOING SOMETHING FOR SAFETY, TOOK IT AS CORRECT, AND FUCKING MADE A VIDEO WITH NO RESEARCH.

THIS IS WHY PEOPLE HATE THAT FUCKING CUNT.

i wan't calling lindy correct. i was correcting the comment i was responding to. all lindy did was make a false hypothesis. misrepresenting someone's view is much worse.

You're also willfully ignoring the part of the video where he "hypothesizes" that pikes tended to run away from each other before contact rather than fight.

This.

What he said was that castles require a lot less people to defend than to attack. The 3 people thing was from some extreme fringe example that he named as such.

There's plenty enough wrong in Lindys videos to talk about, there's no need to make shit up.

i made a joke in regards to these points originally. but here are their corrections.

>no one used throwing knives
he backs down from this position a bit in a more recent vid. lindy was originally trying to make fun of film portrayals, and he used a bit of hyperbole.
>no one used double strap arm shields
nope. he said MOST shields were center grip. not all shields
>no one used scythes
he said they were not a good weapon. he said very little on whether they were used. but i guess this is a valid point. yippee for you.
>no one used mail coifs
BS. direct quote: “the coif doesn’t work unless you put patting underneath it”. does that sound like “no one used mail coifs”? only if you’re a moron.

>responds to a post about pikes
>says nothing about pikes

Lindyfans.

>You're also willfully ignoring the part of the video where he "hypothesizes" that pikes tended to run away from each other before contact rather than fight.

did you read the comment you were responding to, or are you illiterate?
lindy isn't correct all of the time, but that's not an excuse to strawman him. it's not too hard to refute his ACTUAL positions.

He is exactly one of us. He is just a guy with a youtube channel that likes History and combat. He is relatively well read and shares his opinions and theories on it. He does it so we get entertainment and discussion out of it. He never claimed to be a professor. Not every video he puts out is a researched thesis. He just talks about shit we like, which is why we all clearly watch his videos.
Im just tired of seeing him torn apart for things he didnt say and for being things he never claimed to be. He is just a guy and given what we all have in common he would probably be your friend if you knew him in person.
Bunch of jelly faggots in this thread cuz he found a way to make money doing what you do anyway and now hes buying himself a full suit of armor, while you're stuck with a shitty plastic halloween costume your mom bought you.

>He is relatively well read
No he isn't.

>he would probably be your friend if you knew him in person.
I do no befriend blustering morons suffering from dunning-kruger.

You seem upset

This is my first post in this thread. I want to thank you for being so dellusioned and obsessive about insulting him. Your mindless hatred definitely gave me the sincere desire to watch Lindy Beige videos unironically, which I didn't do until now.

>ignore the fact that he thinks operation market garden was a success, an opinion which should automatically disqualify any of his claims in regards to military history

fuck off lindy

>Im not sure how this weapon was used
>I played with it for a few minutes and I think it was used like this
>So yeah, it was used like this
>Now Im gonna play with that helmet I bought from ebay and make *factual* statements about how useful it was

>no one spoke French during the 1700s
Before the revolution introduced standardized education France spoke different dialects region by region.

>France spoke different dialects region by region
Yeah, different dialects of French. The same was true of literally every country BTW

It's still true to an extent.

In France it changed dramatically at the end of the XIXth century when Jules Ferry reformed the education system and declared war to dialects. Most of them are now dead.

Holy shit is this true? How the hell did this guy manage to get 300k subscribers spewing this bullshit?

people tend not to independently verify things they hear

*Teleports behind you*
>Psst, nothing personnel, kid

Not really.

Certainly Breton and Basque were entirely unrelated language, and Occitan and Catalan was not mutually intelligible with what was spoken up north.

where to cop that sweater?

Joke's on you, I have a history degree, and ergo credentials.

>Joke's on me, I have a history degree.
Preempted that one.

How did he become so popular?

No, it's not true. Read the answers in this thread. Most claims against Lindy Beige were shown as highly exaggerated, out of context, or even calomnious.

He's a historical Youtuber with actual charisma and a sense of humor that's fun to listen to. This alone puts him above basically everyone else. All others speak with a dull monotone which makes you realise what inane shit you're actually watching.

The katana video

Weebs on Veeky Forums hate him because he doesn't love 'muh glorious katana'

Wow, I didn't know Veeky Forums had that much fedora :^)

He actually worked at a university.

It's the meme answer when they're just video titles or opening questions he uses and then debunks.

Posting this faggot should be a bannable offense at this point. Fuck this advertisement.

Not as a lecturer and scientist.

You know who else worked at a university? The janitor.

>Yeah, different dialects of French.
not even close to true. The different members langues d'oil are sometimes considered languages in their own right, and occitan is definitely a separate language (or languages) from the langues d'oil. I suppose if you're one of the people who thinks that italian, spanish and french are different dialects of latin then you could try to justify calling those different dialects of French. But then you've got flemish in the north east, breton in the north west, German dialects in the east, Italian in the south-east, and basque and catalan in the south-west. And of course Corsican in Corsica.

I'm not him, but I really don't see your point. He said that there were several languages in France. You say the same thing. Whether the word "dialect" is exact or not doesn't change anything, as you both defend the same thesis.

said that all the dialects were dialects of French. You could maybe say that the langues d'oil are dialects of French, but you can't say that about any of the others. And a dialect and a language are different things anyway.

It doesn't matter. His point is that it's true that not everyone was speaking French in France at the time of the revolution.

>a dialect and a language are different things anyway
But the borders between them are very murky. There is no universally agreed standard for what makes something a different language versus just a different dialect. It's all political mostly.

The people who keep posting that stale pasta in every thread don't seem to understand what a question is, so of course they're morons.