>>1276286
Because Youtube allows anyone.
He is generally correct in what he says but he needs to plan his points better.

>>1276289
>he is generally correct
>claims fire arrows were never used in history

>>1276294
He said in battles not history

>>1276294
Watch his video, he says they were used for sieges, not in open battle.

>>1276286
He actually uses a lot of first hand accounts to justify his views and statements. The Bren gun vs spandau video being one such example where he used the account of a British soldier and said that the German MG34 was inaccurate.

>>1276301
>>1276307
They were used in battles by atleast the Carthaginians. Hannibal himself used them to set a blaze an entire Roman cohort stationed in a shieldwall position. Shields are made from wood: flammable.

>>1276286
He uses more logic than sources, he might get some historical events wrong at points but he usually uses logic to figure out what really happened in periods

>>1276319
Was it not a siege?

>>1276323
A siege battle

>>1276327
He was only talking in the context of open battle

>>1276319
shields have leather coverings. Even so wood isn't some instantly combustible material, it doesn't light easily.

>>1276319
Sounds like bullshit.

>>1276318

The same British soldier also claimed he had never seen a German fire his rifle, so either he's outright lying or was stationed with the rear elements.

>>1276319
>Shields are made from wood: flammable.
explain how that could possibly work

>>1276355
Didnt you know that wood is like a firelighter, one small flame and poof, all goes up alight