>tromp on over to youtube to listen to some music >notice

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

Here's your (you)

>>49111021
Then maybe he should title the video that instead of being a clickbaiting twat

>>49111030
>youtuber
>not clickbaiting

Anon, 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.

>>49111030

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.

>>49111030
Watch the video first before spazzing out about it.
>>49111063
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.

>>49111063
You are impressively retarded.

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

File: BetterNot.jpg (247KB, 1224x1445px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1224x1445px

>>49111009

>tromp on over to /tg/ to read some tabletop threads
>notice a post by someone named OP in the great gaggle of shit 4chan vomits at your face these days
>have heard /tg/ 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 /tg/ 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!?

>>49111117
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.

>>49111117
>(You)
We aren't watching your video Lin.

File: 5e2[2].jpg (106KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 554x439px

>>49111009
The title is clickbait.

>>49111030
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.

>>49111063
Scholagladiatoria somehow manages to be a Brit who is objective, doesn't constantly ramble and actually likes the French. Checkmate.

>>49111063
>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.

>>49111009
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.

>>49111030
>the moron does not realize that the clickbait worked on him
anyway, lindybeige is crap. watch schola gladiatoria/matt easton instead.

>>49112182
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.

>>49112182
>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?

>>49112269
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.

File: smug anime girl.png (36KB, 268x237px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 268x237px

>>49112262
>tfw I follow Skallagrim

>>49112182
>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.

>>49111981
>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

File: Ostrich Cavalry to the rescue.jpg (29KB, 500x344px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x344px

>>49111009
>HORSE CAVALRY WAS A BAD IDEA? HORSE CAVALRY!?
Well, yeah.
Ostriches are easier to farm, breed quicker and taste better.

>>49112411
The Persians were into cavalry/heavy cavalry a long time before Rome every was.

>>49112293

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

>>49112262
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.

File: Lindy_a_shit.png (42KB, 732x441px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 732x441px

>>49111009
Lindy is such a moronic shitter.

>>49112531
Okay, now I'm triggered.

>>49112500

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.

>>49112262
>>49112295


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.

>>49112531
I'm 80% sure that's sarcasm anon.

>>49112295
I can't take him seriously, he's just too... Swedish
t. Norwegian

>>49112531

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.

>>49112534

I agree.

>>49112484
>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.

>>49112460
Wait! Wait! WAIT!!! ostriches really can be ridden? Like, IRL ride like a horse? I always thought that was just a myth.

>>49112540
Matt Easton has plenty charisma aokay?

>>49112531
>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.

>>49112460
Are they just laying on their stomachs? Looks uncomfortable as fuck.

>>49112599
>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, anon. 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.

>>49112535
"Calvary" and "Cavalry" are different things, so unless you were going for a lame pun it's an utterly garbage title

>>49112575
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.

>>49112540
Who cares about watchability if the content is shit?

>>49112665
Its a stupid point, in daily use a kilogram is no more 'abstract' than a pound is.

>>49112599
>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.

>>49112540
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.

>>49111981
>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

>>49112540
>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.

>>49112546
I know, still a moronic shitter. Do I have to fetch the pikemen video?

>>49112758
Yes, please do.

File: 1414557519_podborka.jpg (61KB, 700x463px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 700x463px

>>49112460
>taste better.

You clearly haven't eaten horse

File: serge2.jpg (30KB, 380x462px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 380x462px

>>49112782
u fukin wot m8

>>49112656
>Europeans didn't do that very much, anon
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...

>>49112782
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.

>>49112744
Everybody in England who has actually learned about the subject knows the Spanish army would have won if it landed in force.

>>49112663

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

Fuck, I can't spell.

File: bad-war.jpg (359KB, 933x539px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 933x539px

>>49112778
>I strongly suspect pikes never actually fought pikes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbhANeJL_T4

>>49111030
post address I need to punch your head. DONKEY PUNCH. See here
>>49111039
>>49112262

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

>>49112881
Yeah, it is.
Don't beat yourself up over it, it's a really common mistake

>>49112894
I remember that one. Unbelievable.

>>49112848
>Hastings

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

>>49112782
If i ever feel like it I'll just get myself an Arby's sandwich

>>49112969
but they were used in a similar manner to later couched lances so I'm including it.

>>49112848
>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.

>>49112952
What's wrong with that video? I see no flaw in his reasoning.

>>49112999
No they weren't.

>>49112667
People who, all said and done, don't really give a shit about the subject at hand.

>>49112999
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.

>>49113045
>I see no flaw in his reasoning.

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

>>49113045
>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.

>>49113094
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

>>49112758
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,

>>49113138
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.

>>49112969
>>49113030
>>49113049
Oh for, I'm not going to argue this one point, the whole point of the origional post ( >>49112848
) 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.

>>49113030
>The French dismounted half way because the mud was too much for their steeds and proceeded on foot.
but it was still attempted.

File: 1407460983221.jpg (7KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 223x226px

>>49112557
He's a damn swede?

>>49111009
Lindybeige has always been considered shit, anon. I don't think anyone who knows their stuff actually watches him.
>>49112460
This desu. All other options are outlander af.
>>49112540
Easton's good enough. Not an entertainer, sure, but able to say what you're there to hear.
>>49113045
>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.

>>49112894
>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

>>49113157
At least I'm aware enough to post the stupid shit I say anonymously

>>49113216
Yes

?

>>49113157
>E-entitled!
You're damn right. Entitled to better content, and entitled to shitpost about him on relevant boards.

>>49113157
>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!!

File: 1470079253250.jpg (97KB, 972x972px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 972x972px

>>49113193
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.

>>49113247
he what?

>>49113255
he doesn't know about thermal expansion and thinks that Antarctica is floating

>>49113247
https://www.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.

>>49113157
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.

>>49113295
>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!!!

>>49113319
he talks only about the North pole, which is the pole that's melting. It is a very common argument.

>>49113215
>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.

>>49113329
Missing a minor detail like all of fucking Greenland is so typically lindy.

>>49113319
sees >>49113301 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.

>>49113378
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.

>>49113212
Norwegian living in Canada.

>>49113401
>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.

>>49113301
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!

>>49112758
This. This thread is full of plebs who are not fascinated by valuable content delivered in a clear and concise manner.

>>49113200
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.

>>49113459
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".

>>49112894
jesus christ
>what is taking and holding ground, lindybeige?

>>49113458
no one is worried about us adapting were worried about the other shit that lives here adapting as they have proven to be less good at it. Being as ecological systems are like games of Jenga, you can only remove so many blocks before it collapses, also the change appears to be happening insanely fast (for a geological time scale)

>>49113523
>he was saying that just running cavalry head first into prepared infantry is retarded.
but 90% of the examples I presented were just that. In Medieval Europe, cavalry charges were lance charges, and yes they would rush at enemy formations, Ideally you would stage your charges so when one impacts another would then hit the same formation allowing the previous charge to disengage and ready for another charge. This actually does work and was used to great regularity.

and frankly, most Infantry formations were rarely properly trained or equipped, most of the time they were peasant levies that had to bring their own weapons and armor and receive little-to-no training so they would typically just bolt at seeing a bunch of knights charging them. sometimes Scotland did train their infantry and did get more use out of them, but when your enemy's budget exceeds your own by several factors, a well-trained army isn't going to amount to much, but even Scotland still made use of the lance charge.

>>49113555
This is the kind of people you could sell Lehman certificates to in 2016. Just make your pitch "entertaining".

>>49113625
>no one is worried about us adapting were worried about the other shit that lives here adapting as they have proven to be less good at it.
My point exactly.

>>49113648
>most of the time they were peasant levies
Man you were doing so well why do have to go and fuck it up like that?

>>49111981
>and actually likes the French
I guess nobody is perfect

>>49113671
while that's a meme, even in early modern warfare the armies were mostly untrained enough so that charges against pike walls were sometimes succesfully attempted, banking on the shock factor, breaking the formation before impaling yourself on the pikewall.

>>49113648
>bring their own weapons

So? Places that called up freemen for military service tended to have specific requirements for equipment that would be checked by officials.

Everyone in a feudal army 'brings their own weapons' unless they were household troops armed by their lord.

>>49113671
>Man you were doing so well why do have to go and fuck it up like that?
well it's true, most medieval commanders put more stock into cavalry and missile-throwers (archers, crossbowmen, Arquebusiers, etc...) Infantry, were more often than not kinda glossed over as something they should have, but it would be those other elements that would actually win them battles. In reality the infantry were one of those things where what you get out of it was proportional to what you put into it. Bannockburn (1314) is testimony to that fact. you take the time to train, equip, and properly deploy your infantry and they will not disappoint.

>>49113700
If the pike wall isn't suitably trained and disciplined it may simply decide to run off before you make contact. If it tries to move without a LOT of drilling beforehand the formation will also go to shit and require a good bit of shuffling around afterwards to get back into shape, providing a substantial window of opportunity to go play cavalry bowling. Which is in many ways the biggest reason to keep cavalry around, infantry and offensive usually go together like a rasp and your prostate.

>>49113766
That's great man not sure what it has to do with
>peasant levies

>>49113775
>If it tries to move without a LOT of drilling beforehand
unfortunately, many medieval commanders didn't see the point in doing that with their infantry. They fully expected them to either turn and run, or crumple-up and die once battle was joined, so why bother wasting time training them? I'm not saying this is true, just that this was the attitude of many military leaders of the time.

>>49113790
>peasant levies
that was a thing though. Who specifically told you otherwise?

The problem is that 'peasant' is an utterly useless word.

Serfs and feeemen are not the same thing but peasant shoves them together. And even though all freemen are theoretically liable for service many of them were never called up because they lacked the gear/skills. Or only used as labour/reserves if they were.

Towton was one of the bloodiest battles in English history because people actually called up everybody they could including those unable to afford proper gear.

>>49113850
Who specifically told you it was a thing.
Aside from peasant revolts it didn't happen.

>>49113880
>liable for service many of them were never called up because they lacked the gear/skills
actually that never stopped most commanders. the only thing was they could only call up levies once a year and only for a few months at a time. Yeah if you had good equipment, like a bow, you were put into an archer regiment, if all you brought was a pitchfork and a cloth jerkin, well, "to the infantry with you! meat-shield!" unless, you were one of those commanders who appreciated the value of infantry then you shove a Pike into their hands, spend some time going over drills and formations, then march off to war.

>>49112460
>Ostriches are easier to farm, breed quicker and taste better.
They're also bullet-proof up to heavy machine gun caliber.

>>49113942
Umm no actually, shockingly people who could be called to war were largely aware of a prepared for that possibility. Professional soldiery was actually quite common among these people because they weren't really huge fans of dying.

Many levies were paid in resources, breeching the social contract with farmer to the front didn't actually happen.

>>49113942
>all you brought was a pitchfork and a cloth jerkin
Literally never happened. All free men would have had at the very least a spear and a gambeson, and were required to bring sword, helmet and shield too, plus whatever form of armour was the standard at the time. Later on munition grade arms and armour would be provided together with the colours of the lord hiring.
Archers and crossbowmen came from a different stock and were pretty much professionals requiring constant training to be of any reliability. A fucking peasant who's got a bow is not going to make it into the army you nitwit, in fact he's going to get in trouble because hunting was reserved for the higher classes and he's obviously not a yeoman either.

>>49113890
>Aside from peasant revolts it didn't happen.
source please.

>>49113890
>Who specifically told you it was a thing.
let's see...
"Weapons & Fighting Techniques of the Medieval Warrior" by Martin J. Dougherty
that's the one I've been referencing the most so far...
Many of the other medieval books I have ten to either focus on the knights, or give broader overviews of the times, only glossing over the military tactics and formations. However I'll still go ahead and look over them as well.

>>49114120
>Literally never happened. All free men would have had at the very least a spear and a gambeson,
I was exaggerating for effect. Point was Levies were a thing, you show up with whatever weapons and armor you had and were assigned accordingly. you may or may not actually be trained.

yes of course there were professional soldiers, but when you are playing the numbers game, why not call-up levies if you have access to them?

>>49114186
Because they're worse than useless.

>>49114140
So, to be clear, that source specifically says large numbers of untrained and unequipped "peasants" would be called up to fight and uses as "meat shields"?

>>49114186
Because they didn't help in battle, meant your crop-yield decreases, the cost of feeding, equipping and transporting your men increases and you gain literally nothing in combat by having them.

Levies were of amatuer, but trained and equipped freedmen who would fight somewhat effectively.

As Machiavelli discovered, a militia of untrained peasants is shit and useless.

>>49114140
>"Weapons & Fighting Techniques of the Medieval Warrior"

That's not exactly a respected historical book.

File: FB_IMG_1472751116128.jpg (3KB, 140x140px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 140x140px

>>49111009
This person angers me.

>>49114028
This. If you look at perhaps the closest thing to a peasant levy, the Anglo-Saxon fyrd, you find several farms contributing resources to send off one properly equipped man to go and fight.

>>49114314
It even specifically says "Written in an accessible style for the non-expert" which basically means dumbed down and wrong.

>>49112540
I don't understand this at all. Matt Easton is plenty interesting to watch. The only thing I could think of that would turn people off is if they get bored by a lot of information and want something that's sparser with facts and thicker with "entertainment" (sort of like celebrity tabloid shit vs. actual news). But, you know, fuck those people.

>>49114186
Because medieval armies were very small and accounted for an infinitesimal portion of the population, the few who were selected were relatively well equipped and trained.
Having an untrained and ill equipped man in an infantry formation is worse than having one man less.
Let alone the fact that most medieval warfare was a bout harassing the enemy peasants and protecting your own serfs from being harassed, if the peasant were doing the fighting all along there wouldn't have been a knightly class and feudal system.

And you make the distinction between lords who are just cartoon villains and send people to war strictly prohibiting training and those who bother doing spear drills, ignoring the fact that all of the freemen would have been familiar with spear drills and hey would have plenty of down time to further train over the course of the campaign or siege.
The idea of masses of untrained peasants being sent to the meat grinder stems from ww1 and later was integrated into propaganda. Sadly many historians don't give a shit about the more practical aspects of history and keep copy pasting the same idiocy from victorian times.
You should look up better sources, although I hope that not even Dougherty talks about "pitchforks and cloth jerkins".

>>49111009
>tromp on over to tg to talk wargames
>notice a thread by someone named Anonymous in the great gaggle of shit /tg vomits at your face these days
>have heard musical scholars speak of this "Anomymous", apparently he wrote about the mangus liber or something
>Thread is someone being mad about someone elses opinions
>what.
>Click on link
>"Someone on youtube has opinions outside the norm of what I think!"
>manage to successfully close thread 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 why would you post about this on /tg/? SOMEONE ON YOUTUBE HAS SHITTY OPINIONS!?!? SHITTY OPINIONS!?!

Seriously though OP, next time keep it /tg/ related

>>49114428
Seriously.

>>49112540
>with his SJW girlfriend.
Explain please. Is it the tattoos?

>>49114306
>and uses as "meat shields"?
My own dramatic flare.

>>49114306
>that source specifically says large numbers of untrained and unequipped "peasants" would be called up to fight

"...The common folk also owed a duty of service and could be called out to fight. Various terms were used for this arrangement at different times. The Anglo-Saxons referred to it as the Fyrd. In France it was the ban. The system is usually given the generic term of levy..."

"... As a general rule, Levies were not considered worth expending much effort on, and tended to fulfill their commanders' low expectations. Ill equipped and untrained, peasants tended to either scatter and flee or be massacred by better trained and equipped troops, which reinforced the generally unfortunate reputation they had as a fighting force"

most of what you are describing, I.E. professional soldiers and mercenaries who were below the rank of knight were typically referred to as Sergant-at-arms or Men-at-arms.

>>49114526
Your own dramatic flair that is completely and utterly baseless, yes.

And if you're going to use a source, please use a respectable and reputable one.

It is completely and utterly wrong, for example, about the Fyrd, claiming that it is a type of generic levy or some such thing. In fact, the Fyrd was specifically and lawfully ONLY for freedmen who could afford training, weaponry and armour. And all of said men who could afford it, had to attain such things and serve their lord.

You can tell he's full of shit because he uses such terms as "peasant" and talks generally.

>>49111009
Eh, Lindy and Skal are two sides of the same coin.
Lindy knows a ton about modern tactics, but just can't seem to grasp pre-industrialized warfare.
Skal is obsessed with historical fighting manuals, but can't seem to grasp common sense and historical satire.
I prefer skal because I really enjoy his weapon showcases, but that's more from a buyer's perspective.

>>49114604
>It is completely and utterly wrong, for example, about the Fyrd, claiming that it is a type of generic levy or some such thing. In fact, the Fyrd was specifically and lawfully ONLY for freedmen who could afford training, weaponry and armour. And all of said men who could afford it, had to attain such things and serve their lord.
and YOUR sources?

>>49114651
Hollister, C. Warren. Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions

>>49114620
Skal is an /R9K/ that became a normie.
Lindy is a pre-internet nonracist /pol/ user with great humor.

>>49114695
Neither of them are great sources for medieval or renaissance warfare.

>>49114695
The fact that you had to reach so hard for the 4chan comparisons really shows how retarded you are.
Just say that Skal is an annoying normie and that Lindy is an old right-winger you fuck.

>>49112460
Technically, that's avialry.

>>49114695
>>49114729
>Skallagrim, a proud furry and gun rights activist, who unironically dresses like a viking steampunk pirate
>normie

>>49114729
right-winger?
waz ist das?
Don't you mean racist?

File: nTde5tU.jpg (83KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x768px

>>49114804
You mean to say you don't?

>>49114682
Who in turn uses Anglo-Saxon law codes and observations from the period in question to establish this.

File: 1459619281667.jpg (19KB, 277x296px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 277x296px

Matt Easton is trash.

>Today on /tg/, people shit-talked a youtuber, calling him out for things that they then went on to do themselves and failed to realize that not everything is 100% serious at all times and that not everyone claiming their words to be absolute fact rather than speculation

>>49111981
>doesn't constantly ramble
but he does. His videos are usually a lot more grounded in fact than Lloyds, but holy shit is he a boring, waffley speaker.

>>49111009
Maybe you should watch the fucking video you troglodyte. He's referring to the impracticalities of developing cavalry early after the domestication of horses. And he's 100% right, it took centuries and centuries before they started actually fighting from horseback instead of using them to pull chariots.

>B-but the title
You're a retard with the attention span of a goldfish, or more likely you're lying for attention on the internet.

>>49112531
Fucking savage. You have to admire this sort of commitment to pissing off Euros.

>>49114931
>hating Matt Easton

wew

>>49114978
Just because you lack interest in the subject or cannot understand what he is talking about does not make him 'boring'.

File: STOP.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

So /his/ gets tired of your shit and you decide to post it in /tg/ instead?
Fuck off kindly.

>>49114931
t. Lindy

>>49115051
B-but Britain is Europe too!

>>49112535
>He could talk Chariots, Horse scouting, and other uses of Neigh-Sayers.
He did, actually. What a fucking shocker.

>>49111009
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks Lindybeige is full of shit. Fucker doesn't even know how pike and shot formations work and has the gall to call himself a historian.

>>49118689
Well, you can not know that specifically, still know a shit-load about history and call yourself a historian and not be wrong... as long as you admit you don't know and don't do what lindybeige does and run with a half-baked idea and little to no supporting evidence and a shit-ton of logical flaws.

That guy is actively harming people's understanding of things through his wrongness.

>>49113766
I thought that medieval forces, in many cases, were formed out of "Lances" made up of a knight and squire, possibly some other horsemen, a few archers, and some infantrymen, depending on the region and the knight's wealth.

So it would be more an issue of whether you could convince or legally compel your lances to include well equipped infantry, get their companies to train them properly, and manage to get the companies to work together well.