>"Why would anyone use a spear, it's a totally useless weapon. If somebody with a sword comes close to you and attacks, you won't be able to defend yourself with your spear because it's so long and unwieldy, you would have to ditch it and draw your sword. Also remember that scabbards for spears don't exist so you would have to constantly hold your spear with your hands even when you're not fighting, which is pretty inconvenient."
Is he correct Veeky Forums?
...
every weapon has its fair share of strengths and weaknesses, and are more like different tools for different occasions, rather than being tiered like in SSB
Nah, sword takes practice, skill, discipline. A spear though is literally a knife on a long stick. Get about a thousand peasants with long pointy sticks and tell them to poke whatev's in front of them and said thing will have a bad time getting near them.
Putting a blade on the end of a stick is so effective they stuck blades on the ends of rifles to do basically the same thing when armies ran out of ammo.
more importantly, spears can easily be placed in formation, a long slashing sword needs a lot of room and so can fit less men in a formation. a tight formation means maximum stabbing density
the gladius, a sword designed for use in a formation, behaved more like a short spear, and was not very good at slashing, only thrusting, it was also made of wrought iron, and so would have bent of you tried to do stereotypical sword things with it
Except bayonets were pretty shitty, you couldn't use it properly in trenches due to limited space, they got stuck the first time you stabbed someone and a rifle isn't exactly the most nimble weapon to stab around with. Soldiers ended up using shovels as makeshift swords or axes instead, they work particularly well at cracking skulls and severing limbs.
He has terrible problems to clearly differentiate his personal believes and fantasy theories from actual historical accurate facts.
And if he gets called out on it he completely shuts down in autism rage.
Spears aren't 2 handed weapons, unless you are doing Kung Fu they are one handed you hold a shield in the other so No he is incorrect.
Spears
>attack enemies far away
>use fewer resources as they don't need as much metal
>can be placed behind shields
>can be used as a throwing weapon by skilled warriors
>require little skill to use
>can easily be adapted to mounted combat
among other things. Spears are objectively a better weapon in massive combat engagements, history has shown us that,
idk, ask this guy
he seemed to do pretty well with spears
>Caring about muh practicality
>Not picking your player character's weapon based on what's cool
>what is spear shortening?
>shitposting with an inverted bait to get a spear thread going
Why though?
This, Lindybeige is an autist who can't admit he's very often wrong.
>Why though?
Not OP, but I'd say anything that gets a Lindy hate thread going is acceptable, including utter lies.
Not getting enough (You)s on Veeky Forums anymore?
>"Why would anyone use a bow, it's a totally useless weapon. If somebody with a sword comes close to you and attacks, you won't be able to defend yourself with your bow because it's so slow and unwieldy, you would have to ditch it and draw your sword. Also remember that scabbards for bows don't exist so you would have to constantly hold your bow with your hands even when you're not fighting, which is pretty inconvenient."
Bayonets were never intended for use in trenches, some of the bayonets produced in WW1 were made for the purpose of opening canned food.
That quote seems totally not made up.
>if
Spears work fine at close range, as long as you aren't caught in a tight space.
And if you are then you're either behind a shield wall, equipped with a side arm, or a dumbass.
Maybe for trench warfare, but Pre-napoleonic armies often used massed charges really effectively with bayonets. As for the sticking problem see Louis XIV for why plug bayonets and testicles of steel are best strategy.
>Also remember that scabbards for bows don't exist
But user...
But scabbards for your horse don't exist so you'd have to carry it everywhere you need a bow. Pretty unwieldy honestly.
But...
I don't believe for a second that this is an actual lindybeige quote and that this entire thread was created for no reason other than people to express how much they disagree with him
doesn't look like he's doing all that well in this picture
>If somebody with a sword comes close to you and attacks, you won't be able to defend yourself with your spear because it's so long and unwieldy, you would have to ditch it and draw your sword.
>Who is Shaka Zulu?
>What is an iklwa?
I have never once watched a Lindy video, and everything I know about him is from his anti-vegan activism.
...
Is he actively anti vegan? I thought it was just the one quote (which got him fired).
...
I don't know if he is or not, but vegans are a load of arse munching faggots, so if he is that's a point in his favour in my book.
I don't know anything else about him, other than that he (used to be, I guess) a dance teacher, and decided he knows everything about historical combat.
yes, but a scabbard for your horse scabbard doesn't exist, so you'll have to manually haul it everywhere you go
slings we used for spears unless they were the really fuck huge ones, and even those had slings because they were usually built to be broken down into separate parts and stored that way.
I think I've discovered the best weapon, Veeky Forums.
It's the one that kills your enemies and doesn't result in its wielder's death. In other words, the best weapon is, actually, anything that fits those parameters; rusty spoon to ak47, if you live to see another day and the other poor bastards don't, you had the best weapon.
You can use bows (or spears) fine from close range too.
Just mirroring the OP.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
First I've heard of him,
but every vegan I've known of was malnourished, so...
>Lindy thread
>Reported and hid
I am now convinced that Lindybeige is a hardcore troll and most of the things he's gotten wrong on his youtube channel he's done so on purpose.
The Persians also did pretty crap with spears
World War I is almost never an acceptable argument. It is such a cluster fuck of tactics with pre 20th century and contemporary warfare smashed together in the worst way. God willing we will never see such a confusing mix of warfare again.
And besides we have had a bayonet charge in almost every major modern conflict including Iraq/Afghanistan.
>The French army demonstrates the superiority of matching colors over just throwing bright shit together
>I have no idea what I'm talking about the post
That is not how a gladius works at all. The gladius is great at slashing and stabbing. No it isn't made of wrought iron.
...
Every weapon has its niche. Spears are cheap, easy to use, good in formation, and are good against cavalry. Also I have no idea who that guy is
>Leaf-bladed sword is not good for slashing
I'll grant you it's relatively short, but your entire post is just patently retarded.
Reminder to spearfags that we outlived you.
It might not be, honestly. That said, it also wouldn't be the first time Lindy said something purposefully outrageous just for the sake of a thought exercise.
He did a video about how 'cavalry was a stupid idea.' Of course, his point was never that cavalry was ineffective but rather that it sounds fucking crazy when you outline the idea on paper.
What a terrible waste of good railway.
Bayonets are basically just modern day spears though