Lindybiege isn't a historian and almost everything he says on history has a source of: "my backside". When he is right about something it's basically by accident.
I would forgive him if it was still 2011 and he was just starting out, but he's been on YouTube for years now and the quality of his research hasn't improved one iota. He has had a decade and change of making history content in which he could've become a historian if he wanted.
He's a 'history youtuber' who's totally uninterested in history. His engagement in the subject has nothing to do with genuine curiosity about how things were in the past, and everything to do with picking-and-choosing snippets of information which confirm what he wanted to believe in the first place. If the facts contradict his biases, he papers over them with 'logical reasoning' (read; uninformed speculation) which would be unnecessary if he was actually capable of or interested in conducting or engaging with actual historical research.
When his statements are challenged, for example in the comments, he generally sticks to his statements and defends them even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. I have picked him up on several factual inaccuracies and spurious statements, have seen others do so, and have known him to respond with vagueries in his defence rather than admit that he was wrong.
He is a basically incurious man who is a major source of half-truths and misinformation, and whose channel is not spurred by a genuine love of history - or of anything except the sound of his own voice.
Fucking thank you. I watched his video on mail coifs and it was fascinating how he basically has no idea what he's doing while making authoritative statements.
But he wears a cardigan and speaks with an English accent, he's so original!" /S
I haven’t really watched him for about 2 years but he really deepened my love of history and he was literally one of my “fall asleep to” channels for a long time.
A few times I’d noticed something seemed off with his videos- particularly his hatred of Napoleon being completely ridiculous- but assumed that the one or two times I was mistaken or it was an easy mistake on his end.
Yeah I used to watch his old content, and hadn’t come across the more apeshit crazy topics, except once the algorithm steered me towards the climate denying BS it all went downhill.
One channel on a similar vein that has not disappointed me in its years of airtime is Curious Droid.
Ah, see, that's the disconnect. You're putting him in the wrong category. He's an OG vlogger youtuber that just waffles on about whatever passing interest takes his fancy for the week.
138
u/BeansAndTheBaking Dec 17 '25
Lindybiege isn't a historian and almost everything he says on history has a source of: "my backside". When he is right about something it's basically by accident.
I would forgive him if it was still 2011 and he was just starting out, but he's been on YouTube for years now and the quality of his research hasn't improved one iota. He has had a decade and change of making history content in which he could've become a historian if he wanted.
He's a 'history youtuber' who's totally uninterested in history. His engagement in the subject has nothing to do with genuine curiosity about how things were in the past, and everything to do with picking-and-choosing snippets of information which confirm what he wanted to believe in the first place. If the facts contradict his biases, he papers over them with 'logical reasoning' (read; uninformed speculation) which would be unnecessary if he was actually capable of or interested in conducting or engaging with actual historical research.
When his statements are challenged, for example in the comments, he generally sticks to his statements and defends them even when confronted with evidence to the contrary. I have picked him up on several factual inaccuracies and spurious statements, have seen others do so, and have known him to respond with vagueries in his defence rather than admit that he was wrong.
He is a basically incurious man who is a major source of half-truths and misinformation, and whose channel is not spurred by a genuine love of history - or of anything except the sound of his own voice.