Tromp on over to youtube to listen to some music

>tromp on over to youtube to listen to some music
>notice a video by someone named LINDYBEIGE in the great gaggle of shit youtube vomits at your face these days
>have heard Veeky Forums speak of this lindybeige, apparently he is an opinionated cunt on HEMA or something
>video is titled "Horse Cavalry was a stupid idea"
>what.
>Click on link
>"Riding on horses into battle was a STUPID idea and today we're going to talk about that"
>manage to successfully close window before my brain anyeurism makes me black out

I've never taken so much stupid full on in the face like that before. I'm lucky to be alive.

Seriously though who is this cunt and why is he still breathing our air? HORSE CAVALRY WAS A BAD IDEA? HORSE CAVALRY!?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4
youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Watch the fucking video next time you sperg, he's talking about the challenges to developing calvary.

Here's your (you)

Then maybe he should title the video that instead of being a clickbaiting twat

>youtuber
>not clickbaiting

user, plz.

he is a brit, he looks at everything from a brits perspective, and there is nothing bad about it.
His idea of combat and war is getting from one side of a country to another within a week long forced march. He has 0 idea how hard it would be to walk from place like mongolia to somehwere in middle europe. Or how those small hourse archer dudes, were fucking up those heavy armored knight dudes, because their horses were faster, more resilient and eat, and unlike in the case of the armored knight a hit on the horse from an arrow did not automaticly kill the radier, like it was the case of an armored dude.

The title is an accurate description of the contents.

Horse cavalry was a stupid idea right up until it actually worked really well, and that too ka very long time.

Watch the video first before spazzing out about it.
Watch the video first before sharing your unrelated opinions.

>Im going to rant about a video I haven't watched
I don't even like the guy but it was pretty obvious what the intent of the video was.

You are impressively retarded.

Fuck me, has anyone in this thread watched the video?

...

>tromp on over to Veeky Forums to read some tabletop threads
>notice a post by someone named OP in the great gaggle of shit Veeky Forums vomits at your face these days
>have heard Veeky Forums speak of this OP, apparently he is a raging faggot on /b/ or something
>post is titled "This video about Horse Cavalry was a stupid idea"
>what.
>Click on post
>"Posting about some faggot on Veeky Forums because it's vaguely related to the board is GOOD IDEA"
>manage to successfully close window before my brain anyeurism makes me black out
I've never taken so much stupid full on in the face like that before. I'm lucky to be alive.
Seriously though who is this cunt and why is he still breathing our air? POSTING GARBAGE WAS A GOOD IDEA? POSTING GARBAGE!?

The video his basically him going
>Cavalry, when you get down to how it sounds on paper, is really dumb.

He then goes on to ponder what the steps must have been to get from the original domesticated horse to the massive and capable warhorse.

>(You)
We aren't watching your video Lin.

The title is clickbait.

Pretty much this. But then he'd get less views. In our age of shortening attention spans you need to do something spectacular to get attention, even as spectacular as a boldfaced lie.

Scholagladiatoria somehow manages to be a Brit who is objective, doesn't constantly ramble and actually likes the French. Checkmate.

>small hourse archer dudes, were fucking up those heavy armored knight dudes
Never happened
All armies fielding horse archers also employed large numbers of heavy lancers for a fucking reason.

Basically his whole theory is that some caveman saw a wild horse and went OH SHIT I GOTTA RIDE THAT SHIT INTO BATTLE. And then he goes on about how that would be a really fucking bad idea.

Which isn't wrong per se, but the premise is fucking retarded to begin with so it's a completely pointless argument.

>the moron does not realize that the clickbait worked on him
anyway, lindybeige is crap. watch schola gladiatoria/matt easton instead.

The fact that he wastes breath saying "one horseman riding headlong into a crowd of enemies is a bad idea" and that a necessary step in the development of cavalry is training more than one rider/horse should illustrate just how inane the video is.

>Basically his whole theory is that some caveman saw a wild horse and went OH SHIT I GOTTA RIDE THAT SHIT INTO BATTLE.
because... riders never got ambushed by foot soldiers? it must have been some elaborate plan?

Well, the entire video can be summarized as "cavalry was a stupid idea until changes in breeding and technology made it a really smart idea".

That's on par with saying gunpowder is useless because a caveman can't use it to hunt a mammoth.

>tfw I follow Skallagrim

>Basically his whole theory is that some caveman saw a wild horse and went OH SHIT I GOTTA RIDE THAT SHIT INTO BATTLE. And then he goes on about how that would be a really fucking bad idea.
> OH SHIT I GOTTA RIDE THAT SHIT INTO BATTLE.
really? not the more logical idea of some Egyptian or Mesopotamian warrior thinking "My enemy can't hurt me if they can't catch me" Realizing that he alone cannot hope to move fast enough to achieve this looks around sees a horse pulling a cart (because back then you couldn't ride most domestic horse breeds without hurting the horse) and has an Epiphany.

Later on (like generations later) someone in rome, and later still in europe, realizes that horses go really goddamn fast and with a rudimentary concept of the conservation of energy realizes that a big, heavy horse going ridiculously fast is going to do a lot of damage to a formation of foot soldiers and decided to run with that, no pun intended.

>In our age of shortening attention spans
>he thinks clickbait titles and lying to get people to pay attention to you is a modern invention

>HORSE CAVALRY WAS A BAD IDEA? HORSE CAVALRY!?
Well, yeah.
Ostriches are easier to farm, breed quicker and taste better.

The Persians were into cavalry/heavy cavalry a long time before Rome every was.

Not him, but it isn't.

Because Lindy's use of the term "cavalry" encompasses a single, extremely narrow use for horsemen in battle (which is itself a smaller subset of horsemen in war), for a use that wasn't particularly prevalent even when the requisite technology DID exist.

It's more like saying firearms were useless until the bayonet was developed because what if someone catches your guys in hand to hand

I dunno, I find it somewhat relaxing to watch him blather on about whatever the video's topic is.
He gives off the feeling of an uncle who you know isn't completely sane, but is still fun to listen to.

Lindy is such a moronic shitter.

Okay, now I'm triggered.

At which point "the long and painful road to Calvary" would have been a better title.

He could talk Chariots, Horse scouting, and other uses of Neigh-Sayers.

Lindy is, however, waaaaay more watchable than Matt Easton, who has all the charisma of a damp rag with stabbing implements, or Skallagrim, who is an autistic Vikingboo furry living in Canada with his SJW girlfriend.

I'm 80% sure that's sarcasm user.

I can't take him seriously, he's just too... Swedish
t. Norwegian

Kilograms are a unit of mass.

FFFFFFFFF

He could just say "produced for Americans" and that would make sense.

Or, I like my language archaic.

Both of this things work for GW.

I agree.

>The Persians were into cavalry/heavy cavalry a long time before Rome every was.
yes, for flanking maneuvers and raids to harrow the enemy.

the idea of using cavalry as a battering ram to smash headlong through enemy formations is an almost uniquely European thing. Hell even rome only used Cavalry the same way Persians did, in that respect you are correct in saying that Persia did it first.

Wait! Wait! WAIT!!! ostriches really can be ridden? Like, IRL ride like a horse? I always thought that was just a myth.

Matt Easton has plenty charisma aokay?

>Lindy is such a moronic shitter.
You know he could've just said "I grew up learning Imperial and that's what I'm comfortable with" and no one would've given him crap for it. I mean it's not like he's writing a scientific paper or doing formal research, so no harm in using a measurement system you would naturally think in.

Are they just laying on their stomachs? Looks uncomfortable as fuck.

>e idea of using cavalry as a battering ram to smash headlong through enemy formations is an almost uniquely European thing
Europeans didn't do that very much, user. Cavalry has almost always been deployed in hammer+anvil fashion or used for chevauchee raids. Every time cavalry is shown being used in the fashion you described they get fucked.

"Calvary" and "Cavalry" are different things, so unless you were going for a lame pun it's an utterly garbage title

That's the point. There's a difference between a measurement to measure mass and the practical units developed to specifically measure weight, temperature, time, and distance.

Who cares about watchability if the content is shit?

Its a stupid point, in daily use a kilogram is no more 'abstract' than a pound is.

>ostriches really can be ridden?
You need to be light and these birdies have been bred larger and stronger over many generations. Like horses.
But yes, you can ride them.

I strongly disagree. Lindybeige has the charisma of a dead fish in addition to being a dumb cunt.

Easton is a boring shit but at least he knows his stuff better, and Skallagrim is a videogame playing fanboy but at least he's cute.

>actually likes the French
Next you'll tell me is that he thinks the spanish would have curbstompted them if they got to land safely

>more watchable than Matt Easton
Wut?

Lidiny is a useless stutter machine, Easton is a smooth operator who delivers the content and gets out. Just because he's not got any weird gimmick or tic does make him boring.

I know, still a moronic shitter. Do I have to fetch the pikemen video?

Yes, please do.

>taste better.

You clearly haven't eaten horse

u fukin wot m8

>Europeans didn't do that very much, user
What are you talking about? Lance charges were typical In European strategy. Often whether or not the commander actually ordered it.

Examples include (but are not limited to)
Hastings (1066)
La Forbie (1244)
Grunwald (1410)
Bouvines (1214)
Varna (1444)
Harran (1104)
Lake Peipus (1242)
and yes, Agincourt (1415)

Before you say it, yes a lot of the aforementioned examples have the cavalry lose, but I included them to demonstrate that lance charges in European warfare were the norm, rather than the exception. And I will point out that a well-supported lance charge can prove to be a sound military tactic, you just NEED TO SUPPORT THE CHARGE! of course that would require maintaining some level of discipline and coordination among your knights, and controlling knights is like herding cats...

I did once. I didn't really like it.
I'm yet to eat a bird I don't like however.

I really dislike this man.

Everybody in England who has actually learned about the subject knows the Spanish army would have won if it landed in force.

One's the hill that has something to do with Jesus, right?

Fuck, I can't spell.

>I strongly suspect pikes never actually fought pikes
youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4

post address I need to punch your head. DONKEY PUNCH. See here
Its all about the clickbait baba. Attention spans are getting shorter so you gotta grab the masses by the balls hence why every trailer on tv is SPLOSIONS WITTY REMARK DUBSTEP thanks america

Yeah, it is.
Don't beat yourself up over it, it's a really common mistake

I remember that one. Unbelievable.

>Hastings

Early Norman knights used javelins or stabbed down with spears, they did not have the couched lance.

If i ever feel like it I'll just get myself an Arby's sandwich

but they were used in a similar manner to later couched lances so I'm including it.

>Hastings
Didn't include a lance charge, and if the Saxons hadn't pursued the fleeing cavalry the Normans would have lost. The Norman victory relied on Harald's army breaking formation.

Agincourt actually didn't involve as many horses as you think. The French dismounted half way because the mud was too much for their steeds and proceeded on foot.

What's wrong with that video? I see no flaw in his reasoning.

No they weren't.

People who, all said and done, don't really give a shit about the subject at hand.

No, they weren't. Because they did not do a mass charge, they threw javelins then whirled away. Or closed and stabbed downward onto the heads of the Saxons without the momentum of a charge.

>I see no flaw in his reasoning.

The flaw would be the recorded battles in antiquity and the early modern era.

>I see no flaw in his reasoning.
This is one of the major problems with his vids: he is trying to reconstruct what happens in history using a sort of 'well it makes sense if this would have happened, so it did', which is all well and good, until you actually look at history, and how it played out.
he is an armchair historian.

His sort of "reasoning" is the same sort of shit the Victorians did. Make up something that sounds good in your head but has no relation to reality.

>Knights were wearing a suit of metal so they must have been slow and lumbering
>stupid misconception lasts 150 years

Well, Lindy's channel is basically just a jumble of assorted interests/works/ponderings of his.

He has no obligation to you, nor to deliver content that appeases you.

Also, youtube is free to view, you entitled cunt.

If you think he's trash, maybe try and jump that wall yourself if you're so great,

The problem is he's wrong. In his fire arrows video he talks about how movies use them wrong, if fire arrows were used at all, then brings out a replica of a historical fire arrow and lists examples of them being used.

He's more invested in theorycrafting than a wizard.

Oh for, I'm not going to argue this one point, the whole point of the origional post ( ) was to show that cavalry charges were a common and typical tactic employed by medieval European commanders, and I believe that I have still shown that. Arguing the nuance of just one example doesn't diminish that.

>The French dismounted half way because the mud was too much for their steeds and proceeded on foot.
but it was still attempted.

He's a damn swede?

Lindybeige has always been considered shit, user. I don't think anyone who knows their stuff actually watches him.
This desu. All other options are outlander af.
Easton's good enough. Not an entertainer, sure, but able to say what you're there to hear.
>Look, I've seen the reenactments, and all the people charging the machineguns just died. And that's why no one ever charged across no man's land in the First World War.
The wars of the early modern period he describes are specifically famous for being so bloody -- for the reason he describes. Yes, pike vs. pike is a shitshow. That's war.

>artillery being a problem for infantry in any substantial fashion during pike and shot
>no mention of line breakers (which weren't used anymore in the second half of the period he mentioned, admittedly)
>thinking the raising of the pikes is actually what they did.
That's just what reenactors do to not hurt each other.
>mass carnage on both sides is something that deters soldiers in pike formations, but no problem for WWI soldiers charging into machinegunfire, or cannon fodder in any of its uses throughout the ages.
>Thinking Doppelsöldner are just pikemen at the front
>No mention of the term "Verlorener Haufen", "Lost host" which denotes exactly those doomed people he thinks didn't exist
>acting like it's his unique suspicion to think that Swiss pikemen were feared for their reputation
>the conclussion is: Pike warfare was a game of chicken. There were no instances of the thing happening that people feared. Pikes as the nuclear weapon of the Renaissance-
>Also, they nulified cavalry, because while a pike formation walking towards you means retreat, the well documented common occurance of pike formations breaking due to fear of charging cavalry is actually not a thing.


whew

At least I'm aware enough to post the stupid shit I say anonymously

Yes

?

>E-entitled!
You're damn right. Entitled to better content, and entitled to shitpost about him on relevant boards.

>Umm I'm sorry, have you ever made an album? No? Then you don't get to to criticise my music!!!
>God you attitude is so PROBLEMATIC!!

Well this is also true. so the 2 major flaws with his videos are
A) he makes it up and
B) he is wrong
Makes him pretty shit when you think about it.

He also made a video about how ice melting will never cause rising water levels because earth is like a cup of icy water and there is no such things as Antarctica and ice caps.

he what?

he doesn't know about thermal expansion and thinks that Antarctica is floating

youtube.com/watch?v=0MkTISjmJXM
Back then he was pretty much the only youtube channel about ancient arms so we had no choice but to take it and like it.

Yeah, he's free to post his videos as long as Google thinks he is, just we're also free to point out that those videos of his videos are utter rubbish. Not producing videos ourselves is irrelevant, you don't need a pilot's license to tell that the Lockerbie incident wasn't a good landing.

>he doesn't know about thermal expansion and thinks that Antarctica is floating
I can't believe this, my mind refuses to believe this uncorroborated, SHOW ME THE LINK!!!

he talks only about the North pole, which is the pole that's melting. It is a very common argument.

>That's just what reenactors do to not hurt each other.
I thought it was also to represent how during bad war, pikes can end up being forced upwards and tangled together. So while it isn't reenacting actual drill, it visually resembles some kinds of pike combat.

Missing a minor detail like all of fucking Greenland is so typically lindy.

sees only after posting.
Ah never mind I posted too late.

He does realize that during the ice age, the earth's coastline's were radically different because so much water was locked-up in glaciers, most famously THE FUCKING LAND BRIDGE THAT BROUGHT HUMANS TO THE AMERICAS!!!?

Also, I cringed a little at how he just sorta glosses over the ecological destruction rising temperatures would have in just the most snarky tone he could muster.

If it is that, it's lucky that that's the version where you aren't stabbing wildely at other guys with pikes so long that your fine control over it is not enough to ensure not stabbing an eye or two.

Norwegian living in Canada.

>in just the most snarky tone he could muster.
That's most YouTubers in a nutshell.
>Holy shit! Someone else's argument! Let's just repeat it in a sarcastic voice.

Follow up to previous rant. Yes the Earth didn't always have an ice cap, the Earth's climates, geography, and temperatures were also radically different.

Lastly, no one said that global warming was going to kill us all, but it will have untold ecological devastation and alterations and while we will likely survive as a species, after all adapting to rapidly changing environments is something we Hominids are good at, it's going to suck and suck hard!

This. This thread is full of plebs who are not fascinated by valuable content delivered in a clear and concise manner.

Nobody is saying cavalry charges were not used, he was saying that just running cavalry head first into prepared infantry is retarded.

There is a reason cavalry are usually deployed at the flanks of your infantry. So they can A. protect your flanks from cavalry and B. hit their infantry in the flanks.

Well, Easton's are educational, which is boring to people with low IQs. Better to watch some snarky brit spout off misinformation and half truths because its "entertaining".

jesus christ
>what is taking and holding ground, lindybeige?