Lindybeige

Look he's fun to watch and that's all I know.

Would be cool if he gave sources instead of speculations.

You know what would also be cool? If his speculations made sense.

Dummy who let's his nationalism get in the way of his objectivity.

>England won the Hundred Years War
>Market Garden was a victory
>Brodie helm better than Stahlhelm
>Bren better than the MG42
>Longbows were unstoppable

...

>Brodie helm better than Stahlhelm
The brodie was actually a better design for the era it got introduced. The stahlhelm had serious flaws which are also found in contemporary stahlhelm-based helmet designs (i.e. 90° angles, limited field of view and hearing, blocking your view while prone).

Fuck off and stop posting every day, Lindy. You're a cunt.

But he's correct.

>England won the Hundred Years War
We may have lost our lands in France but that lead us to have the greatest and most powerful navy of the world and consequently become a great power.

>Market Garden was a victory
The operation Market Garden was 90% successful and we re-captured what we've lost soon afterwords not to mention we were outnumbered.

>Brodie helm better than Stahlhelm
The Stahlhelm may have offered slightly more protection in WWI but the Brodie was very easy to mass produce (you just needed a sheet of metal) and offered adequate protection. That added little bit of protection the Stahlhelm had didn't matter in trench warfare so I would say it was worse than the Brodie.

>Bren better than the MG42
It was better and he made two long videos explaining why.

>Longbows were unstoppable
I don't think he said that but they were indeed very powerful weapons when used en masse.

try to make it less obvious next time

>The operation Market Garden was 90% successful
>goal is to capture bridges to cross the Rhine
>completely fail to do exactly that
>successful in any percentage
Yeah, nah.

>t. lindybeige

Nah.

I think this man has presented a compelling defense of Lloyd's stances.

You'd all do well to consider this perspective.

>trying this hard

Eurocucks BTFO

contrarian assburger

>late-antiquity throwing weapons were meant to bounce on the ground unpredictably to scare people, rather than actually hit them and injure/kill them

he's mental

non-rebuttal

This triggers me.

>goal is to capture bridges to cross the Rhine
>completely fail to do exactly that

The goal was to capture the bridges across the Meuse, the Waal and the Lower Rhine, they accomplished 2 of the 3 still making it a failure, just not a complete failure

He makes some good points, but he also says a lot of trash.

Sounds like he is a total moron - or uneducated, or miseducated, or he is totally delusional.

Maybe all four or any other combination of those.

But it leads to one thing being sure: Stop posting threads about him.
A thread literally got bumped off for this crap.

SAGE.

he's just an inveterate contrarian

Because having 9 threads about John Green is much better...

I like his videos, especially the stuff that isn't necessary history related, his video on sterling engines was really interesting
Although he's a Geordie and for that reason he can go rot in a hole

He is retarded and dare i say, /ourguy/

The only thing his stirling engine video showed was his complete lack of knowledge about thermodynamics

>Although he's a Geordie and for that reason he can go rot in a hole

sounds southern

I think he went to uni in London hence why he doesn't sound it but I'm 99% certain he's from Newcastle, he's living there at the moment at any rate

...

brodie a shit
youtube.com/watch?v=oYsbDAWRC5g

Praise Lindy for that glorious get

reminder that Lindybeige 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
>operation market garden was a success
>Napoleon was literally Hitler
>The Churchill was the best tank in WWII
>The English won the Hundreds Years' War

Is this true? Does he really claim all that?

>>no one used horses
You missed the point of the video, he was saying that the first people trying cavalry might have been nuts
>>no one used throwing knives
>>no one used scythes
True though
>>Vikings weren't real
>>berserkers weren't real
Again you've missed the point of the video, he was explaining the common mistakes people make when thinking about them
>>climate change isn't real
You've wildly misunderstood what he was saying, he was pointing out that the Earth goes through periods of warming and heating which is true
>>The Churchill was the best tank in WWII
At least give him a chance to explain himself, I think he's going to point out that the Churchill had hundred of variants based on it and to date is one of the longest serving tanks which is also true

If we're going by postwar use and number of variants Sherman would probably still be a better choice.

yes

Was he joking or did he really forget England used to own a lot very rich of land in France?

considering he actually believes the British are God's chosen people probably not

You forgot that Napoleon was literally Hitler

>or he is totally delusional.

Well, he's a Brit, so...

He went to Newcastle Uni, and as far as I know has lived there for most of his life. He got his accent because his parents were rich and he went to public school.

Ah right, I just knew he got his accent from his education and assumed it was from uni

How long until he makes a video claiming Gallipoli as a Britshit victory?

I can here it now.
>But hold on a minute...
>Ottomans used up vital resources and...
>also it was psychological and...
>so was it RALLY a defeat?

>Aussies died
>Anything other than a British victory

It's an obvious fake. Zoom in and you'll see that nothing aligns consistently.

Well actually it drained Ottoman's power so much that their state failed.

>European
>Uses Imperial instead of metric

That's it, he's an edgelord.

t. lindy

Like 65% of the Allied dead were UKucks.

The Ottomans lost way more in Sinai-Palestine-Syria than Gallipoli.
Then there is the centuries of losing wars with Russia (including the Caucasus campaign in WWI).

WAT?

>The Ottomans lost way more in Sinai-Palestine-Syria than Gallipoli

Mesopotamia too for that matter. Some 325,000 casualties there vs 241,000 at Gallipoli. They also lost several major cities.

>Then there is the centuries of losing wars with Russia (including the Caucasus campaign in WWI).

Eh, that campaign didn't come close to a conclusion before the Russian Empire collapsed (after which the understaffed but well-equipped Russian forces in disarray were swept aside by an Ottoman counteroffensive). Plus the Ottoman-Russian fighting wasn't limited to the Caucasus. In addition to Persia, the Ottomans sent two Corps to the Eastern Front which did rather well, inflicting several times the casualties they took on the Russians.

At least he he doesn't post videos like Skallagrim's recent "My Problems with Archaeology" video, where he spent ten minutes acting superior while basically saying "I tried studying archaeology, and it was too hard for me, so I gave it up; the field should really just be about looking at cool stuff in museums."

Metric is French so it sux while imperial is british and therefore superior

now now lloyd get back in your box

He didn't say that.

He said that on top of hitting and injuring/killing enemies they (throwing axes) can also bounce unpredictably meaning very careful aiming and direct hits might not be necessary, especially when used en masse.

And it wasn't him saying that's how it was done, it was him throwing ideas around to try and figure out why anyone would use something as apparently impractical as a throwing axe on the battlefield, since there are sources saying various Germanics did just that.

All five of those polls are wrong though.

The British one is still the wrongest

In terms of the comparative contribution of the Soviets vs the United States it's the closest to correctness.

The US one is the wrongest.

Looking at the European theater(s) only (as the poll explicitly does), it should go 1. Soviets, 2. UK, 3. US.

Do Britbongs actually believe this?

Veeky Forums hates him because he is Veeky Forums personified, and lays bare the autism for all to see

I can't see how anyone who gets his WW2 history from sources other than Hollywood movies can believe otherwise.

It's the truth.

t. dutch man

Yes I remember in one episode of doctor who where the doctor basically said that.
British still think that Britannia rules the waves, you just need to watch post-brexit interview, when a journalist asked them how they will do without the EU help a lot of them just said "We are Great Britain" like it was actually an argument.

By comparing even the most basic numbers about the war in Europe. The Brits did little.

He jerks off to and is very biased for Britain
And most of his ideas about antiquity and old weapons are really out there

He isn't the worst out there, though.

Guess that they're still in denial over the fact that nowadays UK is just US' western airstrip.

Nog steeds incorrect

Hitler and Napoleon did nothing wrong

the funny thing about Hitler that you can find similarities with almost any popular warmongering leader
especially when
>campaign in Russia ended up identically for the invaders
>only navy saved Britain from otherwise inevitably successful conquest
>allies did all the heavy lifting for Brits

a britbong who likes to make videos about his hobby
which is reading historical books

>We won the war because we lost the war and that loss eventually lead to us becoming a great power

But we're number one.

England dindu nuffin. France a shit.

The goal was to cross the Rhine so they could get into Germany. They failed at that. Thus Operation Market Garden was a complete failure. This isn't a debate, this is common historiography.

t. every dumb nationalist ever

>tfw you think you are landed gentry but actually you are just a coal dusted plebe subhuman

Doing god's work.Can't wait for his ''Why the Enfield was the best rifle of WW2'' video.

I'm legit excited for his Churchill video

Did he do one on the Sten yet? I'd like to see him try to make it out to be anything other than a finicky piece of shit that happened to be quiet.

Is this the "hey atheists" thread of Veeky Forums?

enable trip lindy

>>>no one used scythes

For fucks sake how many times do we have to say it. He meant agricultural scythes not war scythes.

Kek

>gee I wonder where those "war"scythes came from

Maybe they came from agricultural scythes but that doesn't prove they were used in combat. Honestly how can the scythe in the image be useful. If a farmer had to fight for whatever reason he would use a sword or at the very least an axe. Perhaps at some point in history a peasant defended himself from a wolf or whatever with scythe because there was nothing else you could use. But no one ever looked at the agricultural scythe and said "that would be a great weapon to use'.

>how can the scythe in the image be useful
Trust me m8, they a very useful. Chopping man in half kind of useful.

Scythe conversion was very popular eastern-euro weapon.