The impression I've gotten from the past few decades is that a big chunk of the Iranian people hate being a theocracy (or being close to one,) as well, so there probably isn't much of an actual difference in perception.

The movie's good, the historical accuracy, not so much.

[removed]

Can anyone explain why the Iranian regime is so against monarchies?

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was the leader of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, called monarchies a “sinister” and “evil” form of government. “Islam proclaims monarchy and hereditary succession wrong and invalid,” he said in 1970.

Can anybody explain what it is about monarchies that the Iranian regime is so opposed to? I find this confusing because it seems to me that the present-day Iranian theocracy is very similar to a monarchy itself. A monarchy is ruled by some type of supreme ruler, and the Iranian theocracy is also ruled by a supreme leader. So what is the difference between the two that the Iranian regime so vehemently opposes?

[removed]

They probably didn’t have the knowledge or understanding of pollution to consciously portray it.

However since the whole schtick is to paint outside, while touching grass, and paint as you see. If what you see is pollution you paint pollution. Its also less of a ‘wanting to paint things as foggy’ and more of a ‘wow this fog sure is aesthetically pleasing lemme paint it.’

Whether or not that inspiring fog was caused by pollution is what is being looked at.

[removed]

What is tartan if nothing other than cloth with a woven pattern ? What I have read about it is that during the Jacobite rebellions, chiefs liked to look as unworldly as possible with the patterns they wore - and the usually wore multiple different patterns too. These same chiefs were often European educated and perhaps had to work on their street cred with their warrior clansmen.

Weaving a complex pattern is time consuming and expensive, so why would they take such time before the invention of proper looms or without a chief with the money to pay for it ?

Clans had emblems and heraldic arms anyway, so they would have sufficed for identification purposes.

The file, The Outlaw King, goes some way to repairing the damage with not a kilt or tartan in sight. Not very good otherwise unfortunately.

What would be some good books about the Congress of Vienna? With the roles/POV of Metternich, Talleyrand, etc.

[removed]

All the major gang syndicates are connected, especially when it comes to international borders, as they can help each other smuggle things in and out. So drugs are one of the major places that you see cooperation between the Irish and Italians still in Europe today. The more they can sell, the more money they make, so everyone's happy to help each other out.

In America, the Irish and Italian originated American gangs were often at ends with each other for control of territory, but since these groups were rarely united themselves they could easily convince one of the families to help them take out a rival so both sides benefited.

There's a thousand 23 and me Karen's about to claim that it's a family heirloom

What is the most under-the-radar/obscure titbit of information you know about The East India Company?

Thank you for taking the time to be technically correct ;)

Hooray for the Industrial Revolution! You're reading this because of it!

Its really common when it comes to movie & entertainment costuming to more or less “adapt” period clothing using more contemporary cuts/textiles/colors etc. as both a tool to relate better to modern audiences and so they don’t look “too weird”.

Every time a period piece comes out historical costuming spaces implode with debate about historical accuracy with people coming from both “it should be as historically accurate as possible otherwise the movie is a sloppy terrible mess” and “historical accuracy is important, but costume designers often pair accuracy with deliberate anachronistic choices to accentuate the story and a character’s personality”.

Good times.

Mafia history question.

Has there ever been a time when the Italian and Irish mob have been aligned or done favors for the other? Like, I don't know, the Irish mob performed a hit for the Italians or something similar?

tartan was popularised by celtaboos

I need to watch that. I hear it's good.

It's probably from the Germanic bronze age and not the vikings

found this too:

​

https://youtube.com/shorts/dwtN7tWkiyo?feature=share

[removed]

Not really. We are ON the ground, so mapping it out isn't that hard. We knew for hundreds of years about putting an iron pin in water gave us a compass, so mapping using that alone is relatively easy.

I could point to the fact that France was in a civil war and that he was very close to the future Henry IV who was a very powerful war leader, or the fact that he was 16 when his uncle died...

But there would still be a problem. That would be entertaining the idea that he could inherit the throne. Despite what is often said the Kings of France did not have unlimited power. There is a set of "fundamental laws" that even they had to respect. Those included the fact that only males could inherit and transfer right to the throne, that the king could not choose his successor (it was always his closest male relative, often his eldest child)... but also the fact that the King had to have a legitimate claim.

He is not a legitimate son (even if he is recognized and was given land) and so he cannot get the throne. Ever.

Despite what Game of Thrones and Hollywood may say (although the Last Duel shows this quite well) the Middle Ages/Modern Era was very legalist. Laws were essential. Charles d'Angoulême (later Duke of Angoulême) has no claim. He cannot be the King of France no more than he can be the Pope or the Emperor of China.

If we imagine an alternate universe were Angouleme was the most powerful and popular noble around (which... he was not), who somehow raised an army and took the throne.. he wouldn't be legitimate. He would have to act as a conqueror who took it by force and the whole of Europe would probably gang up on him to install whatever distant relative to the throne they had as a "legitimate" puppet king. Even William the Conqueror who took over England had to pretend that he had a claim (the previous king "apparently" promised it to him).

​

Of course in real life if that had happened, he would have found a justification. But the truth is that as a bastard he was forever a B tier noble without a claim.