The castle is being lit by torches

For real, was he on fucking drugs when he made that video?

this girl is sex

to be fair if that's all he has it's the closest thing to a halberd, they have enough similarities

He said the effectifness per man.
That means the musket guys got more hits with fewer bullets.
He doesn't mean that the tactics would work today or are better.

which video is it?

this one (its fucking long):

sorry it was already posted

>He said the effectifness per man.
Which doesn't make any sense at all, because each man can fire a lot more bullets with modern technology, so why would it matter if they used to score more hits with fewer bullets?
If he said effectiveness per shot, I could forgive him, sort of. But he completely disregards the fact that the reason soldiers shoot so much more in modern warfare with infiltration tactics is not to kill the enemy or break up formations, but to fix them in place so that heavy weapons can kill them, and suppress them so that they cannot assault your position.
I wouldn't have had a problem if he had called the video "do assault rifles make soldiers less accurate?"
But even then, the answer would likely be "depends on the army." If you go to a rifle range, you'll see that tons of American and British riflemen are extremely accurate with modern weapons when they're actually shooting at a target.
There's also the fact that modern professional soldiers will actually shoot at people on reflex (which Lindy talks about in a much better video of his), unlike soldiers of earlier eras.
Sorry for the fucking essay, lol.

Lindy is a retarded pseud.

kek

>Sure everyone goes half deaf, half blind, and is merely seen as an expendable human shield, but it was more organized and easier to tell if someone has been killed.

His spandau rant was the ultimate brainlet reveal

They only ever use them at night and this is (and was) done so you can actually see where you are shooting, like tracer rounds.

No, they didn't. It's a movie meme

my favorite is the one where he sets out to prove that spears are teh best and swords are completely useless. yeah in the hands of a bunch of untrained millennials of course they are

>the South African concentration camps were created to protect the Boer POWs and civilians

Attached: 4373F82B-4270-4539-B68D-07F84AE4FE7B.jpg (621x458, 47K)

He made a climate change video

>6 pm
>every torch in the castle lights itself up

Attached: 1527965158285.png (395x429, 126K)

One of the biggest things that annoy me is battle scenes. Nobody does them properly. It's always a wild melee where nobody has any regard for their lives, and apparently nobody ever needs a rest. This shit is made by people who don't know the history and have never played a combat sport in their lives and it takes me out of the movies every time,

I mean, it all depends on the era really.

Lloyd is a massive idiot though when it comes to keeping his own biases out of history and he jumps to conclusions and states wild conjecture as fact based on his feelings and what HE THINKS is what could have happened.

He's literally Pop history/sociology.

>the french

Attached: 1i646637.jpg (1065x859, 84K)

It was less they weren't trained and more they were playing by HEMA's fencing inspired rules where any hit is counted as a point as opposed to using some approximation of armor. Sure a spear looks great when you can tap someone in the chest once and they're "dead" but that's not remotely how it would function on the battlefield since even lowly peasant conscripts were likely to have at minimum a helmet and some kind of armor on their torso, much less sword wielding knights or men at arms with their almost impenetrable metal armors.

give one (1) example(s) of sword > spear that doesn't involve the romans

if anything, HEMA rules are biased in favour of the sword. chops, slashes, whatever are easily endured but get stabbed just an inch or so anywhere in the torso and pre-modern medicine you're lucky if you're not dead

there's a reason the only sword that wasn't just about chopping up peasants of flexing on a dude was the gladius; a stabbing sword

>peasant conscripts were likely to have at minimum a helmet and some kind of armor on their torso, much less sword wielding knights or men at arms with their almost impenetrable metal armors.
based brainlet poster

Swords were best used as personal defense and urban bodyguards.
Spears dominated the battlefield because of course they did.
A blank statement like spears > swords is clickbait and pointless.

>HEMA rules are biased in favour of the sword
The point isn't that they're biased, it's that they're not remotely appropriate for judging the quality of a battlefield weapon designed specifically with the needs of a specific class of soldier on the battlefield in mind.

Go ahead and point out the part that was wrong.

he's right if he's talking about the context in which HEMA gets its sources from as it's mostly 14th/15th centuries
a lot of infantry fighting is a mix of "spearmen" and "swordsmen" anyway

Spears are the majority of every ancient battle you fucking mong.

Attached: no one must know.png (455x340, 19K)

the flame would immediately extinguish

>IT WOULD COST ONE MILLION DOLLARS A WEEK IN OIL JUST TO KEEP THESE TORCHES LIT YOU FUCKING NEGGARS

Attached: British Officers' Kit 13-19 screenshot.png (1280x720, 950K)

he has french ancestry too

Where did I argue that they weren't?

Move along, citizen.

Attached: Imperial_Guard_Morrowind.png (600x1000, 1.26M)

The reason people used shield/spear/wore armor more often is very simple. Being away from your opponent and not getting hurt by an opponents attack is more important than killing power because it’s real life and not a video game and dying blows .

>there's a reason the only sword that wasn't just about chopping up peasants of flexing on a dude was the gladius; a stabbing sword
I forgot to address this part, but for starters there were plenty of medieval swords that were designed around maximizing the stab like the longsword and you see this culminate in the estoc which is designed exclusively for the stab. That said the falchion, messer were also battlefield mainstays at various points in later medieval Europe and they're primarily slashing weapons.

but that's not why they did it, the individuals had no choice in the matter, they were mostly conscripted or needed decent paying work. The armies of the time used whatever their commanders and those who wrote their combat doctrine told them to use, and in some cases being away from your opponent, i.e. using a longer ranged weapon, was pointless and actually served to hinder an army's fighting ability.

You need only look at the fall of the phalanx and the following 500 years of maneuver based combat in the west to see an example of reach going out of favor.

I just recently found out about this dude and his channel seemed alright. I didn't know he said so much inaccurate stuff though, should I just ignore him?

Attached: 1548535554479.jpg (1280x1707, 968K)

watch for entertainment, not for history. He's overly opinionated and makes large leaps in logic but he also covers some interesting events in history that get ignored. If you watch something by him just assume it's not entirely accurate.

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about

>no argument

Attached: 1412535986759.jpg (620x490, 50K)

He's good reaction image material

You're clearly trying hard to sound smarter than you are here, so do you really want me to bring a bunch of historical facts that any first semester History student would know that would destroy your "points" and make you look like a fool in front of everyone? Because you're obviously insecure, and I don't think your ego would survive something like that. I'd rather just call you an opinionated simpleton and preserve some of your self-esteem but hopefully push you towards developing some self-awareness. I'm doing this for you.

A Spandau illuminates a much bigger area than a Bren, because the Bren is too accurate to be a good light machine gun.

>still no argument

That's because I don't have on, I just hate the way you sound and don't want to see your cunty tone go unchallenged

not him, but you're literally doing exactly what you state he's doing and then acting like anyone has any shame on anonymous message board and being smug about it. Prove him wrong, do it quickly, or ignore him.

I'm not doing that so fuck off

Jst watch it for the bants. If he shits on a show you like, then what can men do against such reckless hate.

Attached: the last kingdom finan and sihtric battle.webm (640x800, 2.81M)

>I can't so just accept what I'm saying without me making any points
Seriously dude?

yes faggot

I appreciate your candidness, you almost most be really bored.

Attached: martius.png (211x214, 122K)

You have a lot of gall to come in here and be a huge fag like that.

he's ok. biggest problem is bias, he tackles "why did X change to/get beaten by Y" and states one thing as if the objective, complete truth when in actuality there's a lot of factors and debate over anything.

if he's just reciting history about a battle or whatever you're fine, but the second it hits conjecture tune out the eternal anglos infernal biases

t. Useless fat fucks and armchair "experts"

His travel and archaeology stuff is god tier
It's not like you're being fed misinformation about the combat stuff, but don't assume he has an official source when he starts trying to get into the heads of ancient tacticians

Cope