Why is he so insufferable...

Why is he so insufferable? Is it because of his condescending British voice or his absolute lack of historical knowledge?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-393381/Lecturer-rebuked-essay-force-feeding-vegetarians-lard.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Lack of knowledge
>pikes phalanxes never engaged each other
>cloth is better than chainmail
>more land was cultivated in the Stone Age than in industrial Britain
Honestly he's just a raving madman

He has the problem where he has a large fan base and is generally correct when he's talking about something from pop history, but occasionally veers way off track when he tries to go into details. BUT his fanbase believe him anyway because he was right about the other stuff, and rabidly defend him.

He's also an obnoxious prick when interacting with other people, occasionally on video and all the time in comments.

>why is he so insufferable

Because he's an anglo.

>but occasionally veers way off track when he tries to go into details
Examples?

>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
>british naval guns on Malta could lanuch projectiles into space

It's autism.

>no one used swords, axes

correct they were useless sidearms

A sidearm in the past isn't equivalent of a sidearm today. No soldier I know has ever used their handgun in combat but a 13th century knight would definitely use his sword at some point.

My problem with him is his creepy obsessive fanbase.

I've seen hundreds of comments on his videos that say something to the effect of "I don't trust history books or historians, I only watch Lindy's videos".

Having talked to the man himself about it he gets swarmed with dozens of messages every day asking him about historical topics he knows nothing about, and because of the pressure he often gives an uninformed answer or an answer he later learns is outright wrong rather than nude saying "I don't know".

If he really said those things he is either a troll or an autist. Maybe both.

Why is Veeky Forums so passionate about nationality?

>climate change
>stagnant social mobility
You need to go back now, trump won.

...

>no one spoke French during the French revolution

This one's true, though, and it's well documented in French sources. The government commissioned a report in 1791 which concluded out of roughly 28 million, 12 couldn't hold a conversation in French

another one done in 1860ish showed that 40% of people couldn't speak french in 18 out of france's 96 departments

I'm sure in context 3/4ths of those make sense.

>This one's true, though

No it's not
Pic related is the map for the 11th century, all those in blue spoke standard French
Now for the French revolution (8 centuries later), I'm pretty sure an even larger portion of France spoke French as most of the southern part (except Provence) had adopted standard French as main language
What is true is that sizable parts of France (Brittany, Provence, Alsace...) didnt natively speak French as late as the French Revolution, but "no one spoke French" is dumb

I didn't say "no one spoke French", I was saying 42% of the population couldn't in 1791 which fell to around 8% in 1867ish

Lange d'oil and Modern French are not the same thing.

>no one could speak french
>but 16 millions could

okay, nice logic

>>more land was cultivated in the Stone Age than in industrial Britain

Bronze Age.

And it's the truth, or at least what some scholars consider the likely truth.

Source: Darvill's Prehistoric Britain.

>buying the exaggeration
I doubt he said "no one spoke French" and if he did it was clearly sarcastic to the fact that few people spoke french.

In context he didn't say the overwhelming majority of those things.

I wouldn't say he absolutely lacks historical knowledge.

>few people spoke french.
>18 million people
>more than half the french population

He's not sarcastic, he's just full of shit. Realize that already and stop sucking your favorite e-celeb's dick

I would be interested in seeing the actual clip as I bet this entire conversation is a massive strawman.

Feel free to go through dozens of bullshit videos

>soft sciences

So you're saying you're having a pop at him and you've not seen it either.

I'm saying that anyone who takes seriously some random people on the internet with no academic background or actual knowledge is foolish.
Want some real insight? Read fucking books

I totally agree with that, I never watch Lindybeige or any other podcast. I've only even heard of him because of Veeky Forums.

That doesn't change the fact you appear to be having a massive go at the dude when you have no idea what he actually said.

why Anglocuck are so ugly and disgusting?

I've watched a few videos from him since I was curious. That was enough to make my own opinion on the guy. And yes, I despise people who pretend to know and feed their personal biased uneducated opinions to the masses who take it as holy word. Lindybeige in particular, compared to other youtubers who do some similar stuff, is dogmatic and lacks humility.

>Read fucking books
books can be just as poor. Read GOOD books.

>books can be just as poor

I can hardly think of a book that is as poor as a 15min video on youtube

>I despise people who pretend to know and feed their personal biased uneducated opinions to the masses who take it as holy word. Lindybeige in particular, compared to other youtubers who do some similar stuff, is dogmatic and lacks humility

I don't know why you would say that.

According to this he is a former professional dance teacher so he should know what he's talking about.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-393381/Lecturer-rebuked-essay-force-feeding-vegetarians-lard.html

Quality british journalism talking about quality british youtubers, that's perfect

Why do you guys hate him so much? He never claimed to be a historical expert on anything and in fact in his latest videos he makes it perfectly clear that these are his opinions and they might be wrong.

His earlier videos on swords. He was talking about how VIKING swords were made but used them as the model for all swords everywhere.

His constant sperging over candles. He is correct that wax candles were expensive. He fails to realise that making them was literally an industry and in most of the contexts he's seeing them involves people with money literally to burn.

He reminds us of ourselves, and we hate ourselves.

t. Jáquès lâ Fróg

see
Some impressionable people are taking everything he says as fact and ignoring actual historians.

Professional dance teacher? What a raging faggot

This

The fact that Donald Trump won an election can't erase scientific facts, my friend.

> implying the president of the fucking United States can't have scientific information suppressed

If he loves britain so much why doesn't he speak out about all the non-white immigrants? Or is it just ironic bullshit. he might lose his comfy parasitic academic job if he did that...
lindybeige is just more autistic asmr to listen to while you play csgo

all lange d'oil signified was to underline the linguistic difference between it and langued 'oc (i.e. occitan). occ and oil were different ways of pronouncing the same words (i forgot in which context). On the whole there were tons of variations from these two distinctions.