Is Lindybeige worth watching Veeky Forums?

It's garbage. Read books you faggot kid

t. froggie

t. Muh longbow britshit
Keep worshiping that gay dance teacher like his opinions are worth shit

Brits won the 100 years war.

The Boer camps weren't concentration camp

He's trash
t. Anglo

>Handsome face
>well groomed beard
>tasteful sweaters over a white shirt

Is he the handsomest historian alive?

He makes good vids. But there are many other history youtubers that are just more factual, informative and well researched. However those might be too boring to listlen to for some

...

Yes

he's an interesting persona, more of an entertainer than historian, cause he has great great ideas for videos but usually he does fuckall research

also in topics of arms and armor i recommend Skallagrim or Shad (this guy he also talks about castles and fantasy) and for more informative and less fun scholagladiatoria (Matt Easton, loves sabres, sword fighing instructor) or Metatron (he knows a lot bout roman and japanese arms and armor), also there is London Longsword, another sword fighting instructor, mainly talks about weapons, training sequences and workout

Im not sure if he doesn't research i just don't think he cites his research. But he might not

fuck off knight's squire

well, i said that wrong, true he never cites so there is no way to know BUT he is often disproven, using historical sources, Matt Easton did it few times, Skall i think also.
And he often says that his idea is logical, which usually means someone figured something out and looks at that idea subjectively and doesn't do research

also forgot disclaimer: maybe he's different now, haven't watched him in like 3-4 months

thou shall fuck thyself off, pig farmer

Well he is not unknowledgeable but you have a point.

Same person but to elaborate i would trust his stuff on archaeology more than others seeing as he is an archaeologist

Are there any of the YouTube history crew who are actually professional historians apart from Matt Easton and Ian LaSpina?

>white

he is? didn't even know that :D well he certainly is knoledgeable, his theories and ideas don't come from nothing, i think he too entusiastic when it comes to filming his ideas, meaning as stated before he seems to do no research sometimes. I also feel that militaristic history and archeology is his hobby, now job or field of study, because when he did a few movies about dance he didn't say anything really controversial in dancing community as far as i'm aware whereas historicians often point out his innaccuaricity. or maybe dancers just dont care :D
anyway, i like his energy and wacked ideas and his whole persona BUT i would cross-check an historical info from him

Let's talk about why Bren gun is the best.

>Implying there are non-white historians

>market garden was a success

SPANDAU
P
A
N
D
A
U

>historian

Really activates one's almonds

He's genuinely entertaining to listen to. You won't be a scholar by the end of his videos, but the most time he's "wrong" has been because he didn't elaborate for autists.

One example would be that he said peopel didn't really dual wield in battle. Matt responded to this by saying "hey dual wield is a legitimate tactic in fencing" when Lindy's main point was that "just because you have two swords doesn't mean you attack twice as fast".

Why do the british hate Napoleon so much?

They beat him, they should smug not spiteful

no

>Was white
>Controlled a bunch of Europe for a while
>Was taken down by a coalition of other nations
omg he right

it's beige senpai

STUPIDLY ACCURATE

if you like crossbows
youtube.com/user/todsstuff1

>comparing HMGs and GPMGs to a LMG

Shad is by far the worst out of all of those sword and armor youtubers. He's always incredibly smug, despite having no real experience with HEMA, archaeology, or anything related. I lost all respect for him after he made that series of videos arguing with first generation HEMA instructors that completely qualified to talk about the effectiveness of HEMA techniques (and martial arts in general) because he had a yellow belt in Tae Kwon Do once and read The Tao of Jeet Kune Do. The guy bases all of his information of wooden models he builds and shit he obviously read on Wikipedia; the only worthwhile videos he's ever made involved him reciting other people's work. He has a completely unwarranted sense of authority, and that's seriously annoying.

>white
He was yellow

Pop history for dummies at its finest
He is tbqh a master in popularization and simplification of history

read a book about what you'are interested in rather than watching a youtuber's video about a complex topic that needs more than a 15 min video, you ask me

I watch most of his videos. He is quite amazing in that a majority of his videos are done in one take. For that reason if nothing else his accuracy should be lauded. That said, he does obviously have several videos in which he injects his own view of history. I feel like these tend to be glaringly obvious, however, and he tends to offer them as a point of debate anyways.

That said his newest fucking video with the revolvers was cringe-inducing. It's bizarre seeing people that don't know the basics of gun-handling. It's like watching someone hackey sack with a grenade.

Bren gun sales man

Not even ironically.

He's an interesting person. His rants are interesting to listen to.

But if you're looking for accuracy, there are better places to look

ain't he an archaeologist?

So long as he inspires you to do your own research and you don't use him as a source you will be ok. He's entertaining and has made some pretty cool vids.

Not just the British. He was the Hitler of his days

Really, the number of parallels is remarkable

I hope you anons do not take him seriously.
I haven't heard of him until this thread and as i'm currently watching one of his episode, this guy is a hazard for History. His mouth needs to be shut otherwise he is going to mislead his audience

which video?

hes the epitome of britain

>huge mouth for nothing
>dumb, trying to appear educated
>gigantic jew, does everything for money
>lonely virgin, can only fuck porthookers
>eternally butthurt over frogs and krauts and generally the continent

in his reality hes a great person, but hes just a badly dressed lunatic

He's a pedo and takes advantage of underaged girls in his dance class.

No, he's boring as shit. There's a half hour video where he rambles on about how a cyclops eye would work as if a mythological figure would even adhere to physics.

What? Link?

>hurr durr everyone who conquers other countries and makes empire is da Hitler111
If anything Napoleon was pretty lenient with people he conquered. The British concentration camps the Boers were forced into is pretty questionable though...

What the heck

>The British concentration camps
lmao
Go back to /pol/ you fucking retard

They were literally fucking called "concentration camps."

Also if I were from /pol/ why would I compare the nation I dislike to Adolf Hitler?

T-they were just refugee camps, frenchie

>its not a real concentration camp
>its just a camp where theres no food because they burned it haha well deserved

brainlet watching this mong and eating shit up like hes a fly

first:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milice

>pick a video about the french resistance because i'm a froggy and he's british
>french Resistance
>17 minutes
"should be long enough for anyone" that's what is written in his commentary. And no sauce provided at all.
>well, good luck buddy, because this topic is not easy to sum up in 17 min

>0-4 min
>a master plan to remass soldiers in Britain and come back and liberate Europe! hahahahohoho
He doesn't know the difference between 'literally' and 'metaphorically'? The objective of the resistance was obviously not as pretentious as in the way he claims it.
The main objective of the Resistance in the long-term was to not lose France's independance firstly to the Germans and secondly to the Allies. The main motivation was to actively fight against the occupant and its ideology. In fact they were even german willing to fight nazism in the French Resistance.
The French Resistance and De Gaulle in particular didn't want to see the country becoming a puppet state with the USA taking over France in order to put someone as a political ruler who fits american objectives and to see in the near future military bases all over the country like they did afterwards in the UK, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, Japan and even Portugal and Spain.

>french parade with shermans tanks
What an unbiased idiot. I am not really sure of the point of his story when he was a kid with his dad. What did he expect? French tanks manufactured by frenchmen in a german occupied country? Of course they were american-made with french markings because the crew was french. Around 1.300.000 regular soldiers fought in the AFL which was equipped with US gear and vehicules.

>mocks the De Gaulle's discourse, picking just one sentence and showing a book in a manner that says "don't read that 300 pages book on the topic, this is bollocks"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_of_Paris
Yes Paris did liberated herself by its own with the help of french troops. The 4th US div., which participated in minor respects, is however not mentionned in his speech i give you that. De Gaulle "muh France" speech sounds overplayed if you ask me but first this is a part of his personnality to be grandiloquent and all his speeches sounded pompous for the sake of positioning himself immediatly on the political plan as France could be at stake of collapsing politically speaking. Not to mention that Roosvelt did not want him to be the future ruler of France and preferred to put Giraud instead. Churchill and De Gaulle, in spite of quarrels and hatred, basically got along in some sort.

>De Gaulle did not organise the french Resistance. The british did it secretly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Moulin
He is now definetly an ignorant cunt. Has he ever read a book about the topic he's talking about?
Of course De Gaulle did participated in it, not on his own of course. I mean, how could the british have done it without involving him? In fact, the unification of the Resistance in France had NO equivalent in Europe. Even in Greece and Yougoslvia the british did not succeed in organising a unified movement such as they did together with the french. Gaullists were the main force until the invasion of Russia and then the communists took the lead with the gaullists in second.

we just hate the french in general

What was hidden from De Gaulle was the military operations of the 1944 landings in Normandy and the use of french resistants on huge scale. And this was a betrayal from Churchill at that particular time however with hindsight it was not really a total cunt move from Churchill you ask me. Too many things and people were at stake and De Gaulle was literally hoping with impatience and he could have disclosed the information and at worst ordered the french resistance to break loose and wreak havoc on germans.

>4-8 min
He is not wrong at all and quite objective. At last he's talking about french resistance, however and again only during D-Day and again over-simplifying on the amount of teens and papies when the germans applied the STO, which led numerous people to join the resistance.
He does not mention that the resistance mostly was about GATHERING INTELLIGENCE. And they gathered a lot throughout the war. But, you know, a small map indicating where a unit is and where it goes is less impressive to his audience than they blew trains and saw down wired posts and sabotaged machineries. Sabotage comes second and, true, it was bound to reprisals and that's why they tried to put an halt to it. But what about the help they provided to hide and exfiltrate downed allied pilots or escaped Pows?

>8-11 min
>Resistance is not an unique entity but instead different groups with different political views and different objectives
True. There was indeed a lot of groups. Since communist resistants cannot go along well on the long-term with center and right wings resistants. Resistants were basically "terrorists", brought together in several small entities with different motivations, like the terrorism works nowadays. You cannot fully unified the whole lot under one unique banner.

Neither of them are professional historians. Easton is a martial arts instructor and antiques dealer, LaSpina was/is in the military and flat out says he has no formal historical research training.

Is a prop maker, not a historian.

De Gaulle tried and quite succeded but it was not a complete achievement, exactly as terrorists groups are nowadays: one banner (get rid of the West) different groups (alquaeda in afghanistan , alquaeda in yemen, isis, and so on)
>Maquis
they drew a lot of germans troops that were not on the frontline fighting the allies. Most of the maquis unfortunatly got wiped though because of a lack of supplies and weapons. In fact, the british would rather focus their air forces on Germany bombing factories than taking the risk of losing aircrafts over France ressuplying them
>dropping a load of weapons in a specific area for one group will draw the attention of the opposite group next to them and they will fight with other fellows over a load
Simplification not to say total bullshit. Maybe doing this will draw the attention of germans first and put at stake a lot of people for a bunch of sten guns uh? that drop area also was usually known by very few members of one group and not the other because, i mean, were the british dumb enough to drop weapons to a group and tell an other group where they dropped it? Come on

>11-13min
>advertisment
...

>13-17 min
>Jedburghs
And again it is about Normandy landings. Also Jedburghs in France were usually a team of 1 american, 1 british and 1 french. They did pretty well but again in minor respects
>frenchman denouncing a fellow to the Gestapo over a quarrel
True. It did happened
>Retaliation in freshly liberated cities
most of people who did that were as we say in france 'resistants of the last hour', which means that when they sensed a change in the wind (and not because they were collaborators or nazism advocates, they were generally just people who minded their own business) they put an armband and claimed themselves as Resistants. This matter is far more complex.

True, some of those men join the real Resistance and some took advantage of the situation to resolve a quarrel using a rope or a razor. It was basically an expression of their anger towards collaborators thus shadowing their own cowardness and shame to not have joined the resistance.
>alphabetical resistance
I unironically kek'd because he depicts the french groups as Gauls tribes during the Bronze Age of which they basically were between 1941 and 1943.
But here he mixes up everything he has found for the sake of humour, like the CNR which was the top comity with small groups that got unified in 1943. And he kind of lists the SAME group although with a different name. It is basically like saying the USA has the FBI, CIA, BIF, AIC, IAC and BFI.
After Jean Moulin's unification of the Resistance, the other groups were so small and irrelevant military wise regarding the scale of the main groups that there is no need to mention it.
>"could you stop holding up tobaconists"
that one was unironically funny
>the french couldn't have organised that, the people who did were THE BRITISH
They BOTH did it and it couldn't have been done without the british and later in the war without the US. The british did not literally pull the strings of each frenchmen in the shadows and spoke for them in their own language.

A pretty and well handled piece of a show though.
I cannot wait to watch his work on Napoleon or Dunkirk

/ourguy/ confirmed

Complete pseud who sees all soldiers who shoot someone as psychopaths and doesn't bother questioning what other motives a man could have to fight and kill in war. He just rambles on about what he thinks is correct without thinking critically

>resistants of the last hour

Calling those who joined the resistance after D-day cowards is stupid imo. They took part in resistance activity during the most dangerous time to be a resistance member as they were fighting German troops conventionally in some areas despite a lack of equipment

>its just a camp
It was. The Boers were sustaining a guerilla campaign and so civilians had to be herded into one place to prevent their radicalization and to protect them from the fighting.

>no food
The British distributed rations when they could, and the only time food was not available for the interned was when the Boers attacked camp supply lines

>because they burned it
They only burned guerilla farms, not any of the food intended for the interned.

The term "resistants oh the last hour" is pejorative here in france and it refers to the false resistants who executed collaborators recklessly in freshly liberated territories and those who shaved the hair of women accused of "horizontal collaboration". It does not include needless to say the true resistants who joined even after the normandy landings

>horizontal collaboration

lewd

And wait until you hear of the horizontal alliance between British women and Amerucan troops

No, he's a dance teacher and youtuber. He has a bachelors in archaeology, but has never worked as an archaeologist or done anything in the field of archaeology.

>Posting literal Nazi propaganda

The absolute state of you.

I thought cuck propaganda was more of a jap thing...

He has mentioned being on an archaeological dig before in his vids. And hobbyists aren't allowed on digs

Hes more of a theorist than a historian.
Usually he phrases things as "It occurs to me" or something similar rather than a statement of fact. Which, of course, means that people are free to talk about his ideas (hence why he also has tons of weird philosophy videos).
Its a bit of a shame that he doesnt really do pre modern history videos much anymore though.
So yeh, hes a good watch, and he puts forth a bunch of cool ideas and thoughts, but you shouldnt be using him as a source in an essay.

And you your proof is?

explain them pics

American troops used to have sex with British and Australian housewives, which kinda pissed off the men from said countries

Ever heard of the Battle of Brisbane?
Australian troops were fed up with US troops fucking their wives so they started a big riot

t. Lindybeige

...

Lindy has great cute videos, but on CERTAIN TOPICS *cough cough* France *cough* he's "slightly" biased.

>that episode in Malta during which he goes on a long butthurt rant on how Normans arent French and then proceed to praise the Knights of Malta for the Great Siege against the Ottomans, conveniently omitting to point out the overwhelming majority of Hospitallers in that era were French

kek

>hobbyists aren't allowed on digs
Yes they are. It's usually encouraged. Every dig I've been a part of has included volunteers, including a pretty clandestine salvage dig ordered by a government agency. There aren't very many archaeologists out there, and involving hobbyists is the easiest, cheapest way to make an excavation happen. There are a lot of drawbacks, depending on a person's experience, but it's usually a necessity.

And being at a dig doesn't necessarily mean much. He did his degree in archaeology, so he probably had to complete at least one field school to get the degree. Even with no dig experience after that, he can still talk about being on a dig. Or he could be referring to visiting an ongoing excavation, and maybe helping with screening for a few hours. When he mentions going to sites, it always sounds like he's just a visitor. I've seen plenty of his videos, and I've never gotten the impression that he's had any substantive archaeological experience since leaving college.

>Normans arent French
They were not.

Initial Normans (those that settled in France in 911) were Danish vikings

But those that invaded England seven generations of interbreeding with frogs later were basically 80% French genetically speaking, and completly French culturally speaking

did not know that

Lindybeige believes that the way zweihanders were used was by swinging them in a figure of eight and walking towards the enemy pike block, knocking all the pikes out of the way. Just try to picture such idiocy happening in real life.

He's an obnoxious, dismissive twat who needs to stay away from anything that isn't light general history. In no way is he to be trusted on anything specific, especially weapons and combat of any kind. I'm glad I stopped watching his shit once I realized he was full of it.

>Shoots a revolver for the first time
>Is suddenly an expert on their use in the world wars
How big is this cunts head?