Fire arrows weren't used

No one wore pants in history.

kek

ah lindy posting
I've missed it

let's go through the classics
>torches, fire arrows, chainmail, wristbands and throwing knives are Hollywood memes
>horses were never used for cavalry
>3 men could defend a medieval castle
>Napoleon was Satan incarnate
>England won the 100 year war
>the Boer concentration camps were justified
>global warming isn't real

>horses were never used for cavalry
what did he mean by this?

What would a hill use horses for?

Pictoral, written, extant artifact.... Incendiary bolts/arrows are pretty staple for seige warfare.

Pic is fromAltbüronburg, 1309.

...

Don't forget
>le spandau meme
>the mg-42 is inherently inaccurate and it's literally impossible to hit targets with it, the bren gun is clearly superior

There are a couple of 17th century recipes for making fire arrows on bowvsmusket.com

He's objectively correct about torches though. Hollywood fucks them up so bad

>pikemen always ran away from each other and never actually fought because if they did then a lot of them would have died

Explain.

when I first saw that image, it scared the hell out of me. Just look at that chaos. Imagine being in that. Those pikes scare the hell out of me.

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
>british naval guns on Malta could lanuch projectiles into space

The pikes aren't even really dangerous. At that close of a range there isn't even enough room for anyone to be stabbed by one. The real dangers are secondary close-range weapons, and people standing around the mass stabbing into it from the outside. (which is why flanking maneuvers were always OP when spear-based warfare was involved)

just drop your pike, take out your knife and start stabbing

Yeah, people keep missing the real historical facts to talk about arrows

Torches are terrible for giving light and pump out toxic fumes, Hollywood uses them all the time for indoor lighting, something that would have resulted in death by asphixiation for anyone stupid enough to try it. Also, a torch will only burn for ~30 minutes, yet again Hollywood shows masses of the things being used as the primary source of illumination, so some poor basted would have had a full-time job endlessly replacing the burnt out torches.

It is for these reasons that people historically used oil lamps and candles.

What were they used for then? Carrying flames to light places/things up?

>The first post falls for the bait

I expected better from you

wow youre really triggered huh?
thats not what he said at all

Name one sourced point where lindybeige has been wrong

Oh boi this copy-pasta

>sleeping in different beds is weird

>don't worry, the rains won't come for 2 weeks, the fire arrows will definitely wor-

Probably for the outdoors and to set shit on fire when you're raiding and raping a French village.

Outdoor short term uses. i.e. a guard patrolling

Possibly
Really if you just wanted to walk around your castle with some light, you'd take one of those nifty candle holders... but I guess that light is to weak for filming.

Personally I always found it fine to let my eyes attune to the darkness for a bit, then walk around by memory in my house.

Don't forget that he was also spot on about the extent of the usefulness of the french during the second world war.

Thats because most people aren't acquainted with true darkness. Living in a city or a suburb distorts your perception of night. When I went camping as a chils for the first time, I was terrified by the utter blackness of the night in the boonies.

am I misremembering? I though his whole argument was that the MG42 is inaccurate and so the bren gun is superior. And he insists on calling it the spandau even though that's not its name at all and he's repeating the same mistake the brits made during the war, leading to people who actually know about WW2 making fun of him

this
if you take a big whopping fire like a movie torch and hold it in front of your god damn face there goes your night vision, now you cant see fuck all besides a bit of wood in your hand.
you ever try to look passed a fire into the woods on the other side? its fucking dark as fuck because your pupil constricted because you were looking at the fire.

he did say that but not to the degree that poster (you?) was implying. he said it was an equally good gun, just that it had a different philosophy of use than the bren, which he thought performed better at its designated role than the mg42 would have done.

If flanking was OP then commanders would have probably preferred to deploy in a line instead of huge blocks.

Yeah but if you deploy in a line then your line can easily be broken, especially if a guy in a cloud throws lightning bolts at your men.

>Doesn't he say in that video that "oh actually they did but I don't think it was effective!"?
No. He says they were never used in open battle -- as often depicted in Hollywood movies -- because they were less efficient than regular arrows for that purpose no matter which way you slice it. They were, however, used during sieges and in sea battles as a way to distract the enemy, because while only 2% of the ones that hit anyhing would actually start a fire, enemy soldiers that could otherwise defend against you would be forced to find those arrows to make sure a fire didn't start.

That and the fire arrows that were used in real life didn't look anywhere near as flashy as the ones depicted in media.

>Is lindybeige for once correct Veeky Forums?

dunno, was he correct when he insisted the francisca wasn't thrown at enemies with the intent to hit them, but rather "bounced" on the ground to startle them, an argument he based entirely on a single incident during a LARP outing he attended?

>Really if you just wanted to walk around your castle with some light, you'd take one of those nifty candle holders... but I guess that light is to weak for filming.

tell that to stanley kubrick

he was the only guy crazy enough to film a scene lit entirely by candlelight (pic related), and to get the proper exposure he needed zeiss to custom-fit lenses designed for satellite imaging so they would be compatible with his cameras. the depth of field was so shallow the actors would be out-of-focus if they moved of their marks more than a few inches

torch scenes in film are always lit artificially (cf. catacombs in indiana jones and the last crusade, the investigation of the scriptorium/library at night in the name of the rose, etc.)

He never claimed it was anything other than a theory.

>people educating themselves via youtube instead of reading book

The Swiss and the Landsknecht didn't, but undisciplined troops would often flee before melee contact was made even during Napoleonic times.

>then your line can easily be broken
So what ?

lmao

>Is lindybeige for once correct Veeky Forums?

Kinda. What was the actual quote?

See

Oh. Yeah that's pretty much correct.

>the spandau was inaccurate and couldn't hit anything
>while the bren gun was british made and the brits won the war so it was better
never mind the fact that the german army still uses it today
never mind the fact that the us military still uses a light machine fun based off of it today
never mind the fact that the british military stopped use the bren gun
also why did he insist on calling it the spandau? it was two guns, the mg-38 and the mg-42 and whenever anyone is talking about german world war ii machine guns they are almost certainly talking about the latter.
but the bren gun is british so its better haha

>an argument he based entirely on a single incident during a LARP outing he attended?

Thats the argument for most of his claims. He buys cheap reproductions, plays around with them and comes up with the "correct" use of the item in question, nevermind what the academia and the primary sources say.

Lindy isn't the only one who has brought up the bounciness of throwing axes. No one believes that they were designed specifically to be thrown in front of the enemies feet, but the idea is that when thrown in battle axes that missed their intended target would still prove worrisome for the enemy.

>if the "spandau" was so good how did the British gain ground every day post D-Day

>No one believes that they were designed specifically to be thrown in front of the enemies feet,
In fact not even Lindybeige claims they were. In that video he said that he *at first* doubted that they were used as throwing weapons because of how much clumsier they would have been than javelines, but after seeing them bounce around after they missed their target he realized why the Franks would have stuck with them as they would have potentially caused a whole lot of chaos even when not working as intended.

thanks based lindy destoryer

Then you get flanked even more than with blocks, and there is a hole in the middle now as well

>claim your long time rivals (the french) are arrogant
>be the most arrogant people on earth
what is it with brits and cognitive dissonance?

If the video contains the same information as the book, why does it matter?

They never do.

>Napoleon was Satan incarnate
>the Boer concentration camps were justified
>global warming isn't real
All true

just because they're hypocrites doesn't make them wrong, per se

I'm categorically assuming that he's never said any of these things and that the people who did have never watched the videos in which he supposedly did so, and I'm not even gonna bother looking it up, because that assumption hasn't even ever come close to being challenged when I have in the past.

He was very clear to say that the modifications required to make an arrow carry a flame to it's target made them much worse for killing people. He concluded that they were likely used for setting fire to buildings during a siege and little else. I won't blame you for not watching the video because OP's title is misleading.

All wrong actually