Why do you hate Lindybeige? I'm not a fan, I'm just curious

He basically implies that the Allies won the Western Front because the Bren was a better machine gun.

I'm not surprised, he is quite Anglo

As many faults as he has I still like the guy myself, he seems to have a genuine love for history

Lindy is pretty much the quintessential Brit.

Pic related.

Hi Mr. Lloyd

Dance teacher who thinks he knows better than actual academics. Hes behaves like a first year history student, except hes old and not gonna change his attitude in a couple of years. To me hes an entertainer and I do enjoy watching him play with toy swords and crafting wild theories based on his LARPing experiences, but a lot of people take him seriously. To be fair im not even sure if he actually believes in what he says or if he created a character to entertain and, as youtube got bigger and bigger, make lots of money.

He has a degree in archaeology supposedly, but teaches dance classes instead.
Instead of doing actual research he seems to just put together these strings of ideas that sound like they make sense, at least if you go into his videos with no real knowledge on the subject.

Personification of anglo revisionism

Too much mistakes...

The video on cavalry he made was pure garbage, he said that cavalry was useless in real combat, and armies used them just for the lulz

He is retard, as history has proven that several combats were decided by their horseman

t. Horace Chamberlain III

>he said that cavalry was useless in real combat
No he didn't. He was explaining that cavalry was totally non-obvious, and that there are reasons that chariots were used exclusively for a long time before cavalry. He never said it was always useless.

I think the problem a lot of people have with Lindybeige stems from the way historical information is presented. Usually, people get their information about history from documentaries that feature proper-sounding, confident English people, and we're taught to accept what those confident Englishmen are saying as fact. The problem with Lindy is that he sounds like a TV documentary professor, but is essentially bullshitting and talking about LARPing and joking about nationalism while doing so. So people that don't know to not take him seriously think he's an authoritative source.

He's not. And to his credit, he never really makes himself out to be one. As an actual archaeologist, I can enjoy his videos for what they are: entertaining bullshit. But it's also a lot easier for me to not take him seriously because I'm used to popular media getting things wrong, and knowing how to see it. It seems like a lot of the butthurt around Lindy is the result of people reacting negatively to suddenly realizing that someone they thought was a historian is really nothing but a LARPing bullshitter.

I've watched a good few of his videos, and there's nothing in them that strikes me as aggregiously wrong. People on this board point out the usual stuff:
>he said cavalry is bad
>he said people never used two weapons at once
>he said fire arrows didnt exist
>etc

He didnt actually say any of that. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you watch the videos you'll see for yourself.

It's just my opinion and lord knows I'm gonna catch flak for it, but I haven't seen any substantial or accurate accusations made about him that would invalidate his opinions. He seems to be an intelligent and thoughtful guy. To add to this, he's extremely careful in all of his videos and regularly says, "I may be wrong", "its just a theory", etc.

A lot of people who use this board are arrogant as fuck and see the history of the world as linear and simple. When someone or something doesnt fit neatly into their preconcieved notions about reality and history, they make a board and rage about it. Also people make lindy boards as b8 and its fucking annoying.

He didn't even fire a gun before like a month ago

He's british you dumbass

90% of people hate him based on memes and that shitty pasta. He is what he is and has only ever claimed to be, a guy giving his opinion on YouTube. Sometimes he's wrong and due to the hyper critical nature of the Internet, you can be 90% right, but everyone will scream about the other 10% forever.

Veeky Forums, like the rest of the internet, is quite adept at overreacting and taking things said completely out of context.

Yeah I noticed

In his last video he pretty much says he knows better than archaeologists.

Autists on Veeky Forums have a hard time differentiating between facts and speculations. Lindy's got a lot of both mixed together, making the autists confused and scared.

...

Bump

does he REALLY have that degree?

it's only the bosch and the frog having a go at him

How the fuck do you pronounce 'Lindybeige'?

lind ee bay sh

ty user

He is the personification of the eternal anglo

regards,

bosh/ frog

Lel

Lindy must be an autist then.

Your average anglo and thats why hes hated on Veeky Forums

again, it's only some vocal continental minority that unceasingly rants about him

Whose the worst English "historian"?
David Irving or Lindybeige

...

We don't. Nazis and Marxists are terrified of him because he fearlessly speaks the truth like any good AngloAmerican.

eh he can be a bit of a tit

t. youtube.com/watch?v=G8GCdWqFVos

youtube.com/watch?v=eQj4Vw7Y_1s

youtube.com/watch?v=DMi-N5exqD4

This board is full of snail eating autists

I don't like how he's started shamelessly shilling recently.
Other youtubers have done it far more naturally than he has.

That's the joke. He's showing off that he can do it. For more please check out audiable. Audiable.com/lindybeige

Fuck that's the exact moment that made me make that post.
The fuck is he thinking? Actually now that I think about it the americans who make up his main audience are probably unaware that it's an advert since that's what their television is like normally, in case you didn't know that already. Fucking sheeple.

Fuck off Nikolas. Go back to LARPing on camera and making manlet jokes about Skallagrim.

Lindybiege deliberately says things to stir shit up, he doesn't care that he's taking the piss and makes an absolute mockery of the entire discipline of historical thought. David Irving is dead serious and has been for the past 40 years.

I am an "American" friendo. Or rather a Southerner. Love lindy and want to export his stuff here, if only to piss off the Yankees.

I am become Lindybeige, annoyer of foreigners.

That's the other thing most autistics who REEEE about him don't get. Half the time he's joking or exaggerating for comic effect.

Except where the French are concerned.

>It's just my opinion and lord knows I'm gonna catch flak for it, but I haven't seen any substantial or accurate accusations made about him that would invalidate his opinions
Then you haven't watched his videos carefully.

Let's go to the first one, about the "riding cavalry into battle would be non-intuitive" for the first people to domesticate horses. His objections to the idea are retarded. He says things like

>You wouldn't be able to control your horse and would ride in ahead of your own buddies on foot
Support for this idea? Zero.

>You would fall off your horse trying to swing a melee weapon without a saddle
Ignoring the fact that the earliest forms of cavalry were horse archers.

>There would be nothing for such a horseman to do.
Other than things like reconnaissance, chasing down fleeing people, carrying messages, or providing a platform for your leader to be visible to your own forces, none of which apparently count as "riding into battle". Instead, he solely focuses on 15th century style shock cavalry of running headlong into the enemy on top of your horse, as if that's the only reason someone would "ride into battle on a horse".

He is egregiously wrong, and fucking retarded.

The guy only recently shot a firearm for the first time, cut him some slack. I assume you're just being autistic and not understanding that he was literally talking about cavalry charges. Need to go watch the video at lunch.

He specifically says they can indeed be used for scouting, messengers etc and is referring specifically to riding a horse into actual combat.

Only frogs hate him

At the dawn of horse domestication, when people had literally no idea that riding horses into battle was feasible, you wouldnt really be able to control it. No saddle, probably no reigns. And if you were going to keep pace with the people on foot, whats the point in even riding the horse in the first place? Horses are useful because they are big and fast. If you slowly ride into the enemy formation with the footsoldiers, you'll die very quickly. If you charge ahead, you die even quicker. He was talking about the first men to have ever experimented with cavalry, that was a time when no one had realized the value of horses in war. Nothing that he said was illogical.

It took time for human beings to learn how to effectively use a bow on horseback. Its not as though people intuitively figured this shit out.

Again, he's talking about the first days of cavalry, when people living at the time probably would have been skeptical of its use in battle. He never said cavalry was ineffective, nor did he say it's development was a bad idea.

I don't really hate him. I just pity him, bald, delusional and alone.

This. I actually don't mind it because he doesn't try to hide what he's doing. I can respect that way more than other yourtubers who try to shill through product placement or shitty attempts at being subtle. Lindy is in your face and deadpan enough about it that it's actually pretty funny, and easy to skip over. His mattress review video basically just him trolling a company that sent him free shit.

>I talk as much shit as the guy I'm complaining about: the post

What could you possibly base the first cavalry being horse archers on?

Anglo-Saxons rode their horses to battle but dismounted for combat, the Romans did similar in one or two battles. It's not a totally outlandish train of thought.

>At the dawn of horse domestication, when people had literally no idea that riding horses into battle was feasible, you wouldnt really be able to control it. No saddle, probably no reigns.
Which would hold just as true for chariotry, which does appear right around the same time as cavalry.

>And if you were going to keep pace with the people on foot, whats the point in even riding the horse in the first place?
Are you retarded? Like, the literal sort where you need to have someone dress you? Just because you want the ability to go fast, doesn't mean you want to go at max speed 100% of the time? That's like asking why do armor formations keep pace with their infantry support. TANKS CAN GO FAST! IF YOU'RE NOT GOING FAST, WHY USE A TANK!?

Maybe you want to be able to shuttle around the battlefield from place to place. Maybe you want pursuit capability.

>Horses are useful because they are big and fast. If you slowly ride into the enemy formation with the footsoldiers, you'll die very quickly. If you charge ahead, you die even quicker.
Maybe, just maybe, you won't be an absolute blithering idiot and will do something crazy like ride around to the side of the enemy formation, getting there around the same time your infantry does because while you're moving faster, you'll aslo be going further. Maybe you'll use a BOW and use that horse's speed to keep the enemy at arm's length. Maybe you'll want to be able to ride down enemy who are in flight, after they break, or be able to try to interfere with the enemy's pursuit if you guys break first.

>He was talking about the first men to have ever experimented with cavalry, that was a time when no one had realized the value of horses in war
And he does so extremely stupidly, positing one and only one value of horses in war, deciding that doesn't fit, and then saying "YEP! I WAS RIGHT! EARLY HORSES IN WAR WAS AN UNINTUITIVE IDEA!"

>Nothing that he said was illogical.
Yes, it was, I would even go so far as to say it was retarded.

>It took time for human beings to learn how to effectively use a bow on horseback. Its not as though people intuitively figured this shit out.
Depictions/descriptions of horse archers well predate that of shock cavalry. It took them practically no time at all to figure it out, probably because bows and arrows had been around for a very long time prior to the domestication of the horse, and figuring out that you want to keep your distance is pretty straightforward.

>Again, he's talking about the first days of cavalry, when people living at the time probably would have been skeptical of its use in battle. He never said cavalry was ineffective, nor did he say it's development was a bad idea.
And again, he does so by citing the ineffectiveness of first strike shock cavalry role exclusively, and deciding that therefore cavalry would have had no other use. That's completely fucking retarded.

>What could you possibly base the first cavalry being horse archers on?
Depictions of Ashurnasirpal's horsemen from Neo-Assyrian reliefs, which as far as I know are the first depiction of "true" cavalry.

he doesn't know what he's talking about, says some completely false shit several times in every video.

Haven't even seen that one yet, will watch it in the morning. Surely that makes the point well enough! I'll give him a view I wouldn't have orherwise.

Lindybeige

I love him because he triggers Veeky Forums so easily. It's great fun watching you autists get up in arms over every video he releases.

Cause he's a piece of shit meat eater activist.

He also triggers Veeky Forums

Sunlight triggers Veeky Forums.

this

Horse archery isn't that hard dude, even bareback, now I'd hazard a guess it's more difficult in combat and on a virtual pony but there is nothing hard about riding a horse bareback and loosing a few arrows in a general direction, which is all they do, they aren't no scoping noobs in COD