The Shah that emerges from these pages would be almost a tragic figure, if they gave us a better feel for him as a person, that is to say as a living being rather than a mere policy-maker. He was by nature a vacillator, thrust by inheritance and a destiny beyond his control into a position in which vacillation would eventually prove fatal. In addition to self-doubt, however, he was also inclined to vainglory, oscillating between the two, retreating from crises and ostentatiously parading himself, and boasting, when things seemed to be going well. He thought that he had both the right and the duty, genuinely for the sake of his country, to rule rather than reign, but while he had the ideas of an autocrat, he also had those of an ordinary decent person who baulked at the shedding of much blood, the only way, in the end, that he could have preserved his throne (and possibly not even then).
He was intelligent and wily, and his achievements were not negligible. He managed to wrest control of Iran’s oil first from the British and then from the international oil consortium that succeeded them. He played the oil market with great skill. He instituted an important land reform that genuinely benefitted the peasantry, expanded education, and had a full understanding of the importance of technology in the modernization of Iran necessary if it were to be anything other than a dependent state. His foreign policy was flexible, pragmatic, and shrewd. He needed the Americans but did not trust them (or anybody else, for that matter), realising that in politics there were no friendships, only common interests. This was to be borne out in the most terrible and tragic way during his last few years of exile, with which this book does not deal. Where there is no friendship, there is no gratitude for services rendered.
His failures were at least as great as his successes, and in the end more important from the point of view of his personal destiny. He so hollowed out political life in Iran, in order to exercise power as a true autocrat, that it came to have two poles: sycophancy and plotting against him. Sycophancy is a terribly addictive drug, no doubt a permanent temptation of the powerful (and therefore a good reason to restrict political terms of office); you can never have enough of it, nor can it ever be outrageous enough.
Unfortunately for the Shah, no one is sycophantic from principle, indeed sycophants tend (rightly) to despise themselves, fully aware that they are acting from the most naked of self-interest. There is no rat that leaves a sinking ship faster than a sycophant deserting a lost cause. A sycophant will take a risk to preserve his skin, but not to preserve his master.
Theodore Dalrymple, “Downfall of the House of Pahlavi”, The Iconoclast, 2021-03-03.
June 16, 2021
QotD: The Shah of Iran
June 14, 2021
The Welsh Flag: History and Meaning of The Red Dragon Flag
History With Hilbert
Published 16 May 2018You may think it’s a bit odd that I’m making a video in the Union Flag Series about the Welsh flag, given that it’s the only part of the United Kingdom not represented on the country’s flag. However Wales is great, and its flag has some interesting history and symbolism so you’re just going to have to deal with it. In this one I’ll be look at the Welsh Dragon Flag, at the figures of Cadwalladr ap Cadwallon (and his dad), Owain Glyndŵr, Henry VII and many more.
Music Used:
“Sneaky Snitch” – Kevin MacLeod
“Teller of the Tales” – Kevin MacLeod
“Up and Away” – Holfix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmM_…
“Celtic Impulse” – Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 LicenseAll images are from the Public Domain of Wikimedia Commons and Pixabay with the following exception:
Owain Glyndŵr’s Flag – Hogyncymru:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/…
June 8, 2021
History Summarized: Ancient Egypt
Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 3 Feb 2017This video was commissioned by our loyal Patron Karl Erik L. Hoftaniska! To become our Patron and get access to sweet rewards, hop on over to PATREON.COM/OSP
I must say, I was pleasantly surprised about the things I learned about Egypt in the process of making this video. The feeling of learning cool new things never gets old.
Coming soon in Blue’s History Summarized line-up will be the next part of his Abrahamic Religion series: Judaism!
In the meantime, WOO EGYPT!Have a question about anything mentioned or not mentioned? Leave a comment! Blue will do his best to answer.
PATREON: www.patreon.com/user?u=4664797
MERCH LINKS:
Shirts – https://overlysarcasticproducts.threa…
All the other stuff – http://www.cafepress.com/OverlySarcas…Find us on Twitter @OSPYouTube!
QotD: Magna Carta
- That no one was to be put to death, save for some reason (except the Common People).
- That everyone should be free (except the Common People).
- That everything should be of the same weight and measure throughout the Realm (except the Common People).
- That the Courts should be stationary, instead of following a very tiresome medieval official known as the King’s Person all over the country.
- That “no person should be fined to his utter ruin” (except the King’s Person).
- That the Barons should not be tried except by a special jury of other Barons who would understand.
Magna Charter was therefore the chief cause of Democracy in England, and thus a Good Thing for everyone (except the Common People).
After this King John hadn’t a leg to stand on and was therefore known as `John Lackshanks’.
W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That, 1930.
June 7, 2021
The History of the Scottish Flag
History With Hilbert
Published 4 May 2018One of the most prominent parts of the Union Flag is the Scottish Flag or Saltire, which is a bonny flag in its own right as well. In this video, as part 2 of my series on the Union Flag and the flags that make it up, I’m going to look at why this flag became the Scottish flag, what’s the symbolism behind it and which ones came before it. Lots of vexiology, historiography and etymology to come, strap in because this, is History with Hilbert!
Music Used:
“Sneaky Snitch” – Kevin MacLeod
“Up and Away” – Holfix
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YmM_…
“Heroes – CO.AG”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9yVZ…
“Eastern Thought” – Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 LicenseAll images are from the Public Domain of Wikimedia Commons and Pixabay.
June 3, 2021
QotD: Simon de Montfort
Simon de Montfort’s Good Idea
Simon de Montfort’s Idea was to make the Parliament more Representative by inviting one or two vergers, or vergesses, to come from every parish, thus causing the only Good Parliament in History. Simon de Montfort, though only a Frenchman, was thus a Good Thing, and is very notable as being the only good Baron in history. The other Barons were, of course, all wicked Barons. They had, however, many important duties under the Banorial system. These were:
- To be armed to the teeth.
- To extract from the Villein(*) Saccage and Soccage, tollage and tallage, pillage and ullage, and, in extreme cases, all other banorial amenities such as umbrage and porrage. (These may be collectively defined as the banorial rites of carnage and wreckage).
- To hasten the King’s death, deposition, insanity, etc., and make quite sure that there were always at least three false claimants to the throne.
- To resent the Attitude of the Church. (The Barons were secretly jealous of the Church, which they accused of encroaching on their rites — see p. 30, Age of Piety.)
- To keep up the Middle Ages.
(*) Villein: medieval term for agricultural labourer, usually suffering from scurvy, Black Death, etc.
W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That, 1930.
May 30, 2021
The History of the English Flag
History With Hilbert
Published 13 Apr 2018Most people know that the Union Flag (sometimes incorrectly called the Union Jack by normies) is made up of the various flags of the United Kingdom combining things like the Scottish Saltire and the English Saint George’s Cross. But what is the history behind these symbols and why were they adopted by these nations, and what is more, why these flags, and what about the competitors who if history had been different might have come to symbolise these nations. In today’s episode, I’m going to explore the history and symbolism behind England’s flag, the Saint George’s Cross, as well as the other banners that were once seen as being representative of the English people.
Music Used:
“Sneaky Snitch” – Kevin MacLeod
“Pippin the Hunchback” – Kevin MacLeod
“Angevin” – Kevin MacLeod
“Gregorian Chant” – Kevin MacLeod
“Ever Mindful” – Kevin MacLeod
“Ever Mindful” – Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 LicenseAll images are from the Public Domain of Wikimedia Commons and Pixabay.
May 27, 2021
History Summarized: Ancient China
Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 28 Dec 2018Check out our website at www.OverlySarcasticProductions.com
And after that we’ll defeat the Huns! Join Blue on a trek through the early centuries of Chinese History, from legendary foundations to the Shang and Zhou dynasties, past the Warring States Period, and into the Han dynasty — if you get to the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, you’ve gone too far.
Further reading: China: A History by John Keay
Kings and Generals’ fantastic videos on this subject:
Bactrians: https://youtu.be/IQATsepKoLE
War of the Heavenly Horses: https://youtu.be/g6Rphg_lwwMPATREON: www.patreon.com/OSP
MERCH LINKS:
Shirts – https://overlysarcasticproducts.threa…
All the other stuff – http://www.cafepress.com/OverlySarcas…Find us on Twitter @OSPYouTube!
May 22, 2021
QotD: King Edward I
Edward I was thus a strong King, and one of the first things he did was to make a strong arrangement about the Law Courts. Hitherto there had been a number of Benches there, on all of which a confused official called the Justinian had tried to sit. Edward had them all amalgamated into one large Bench called the King’s Bench, and sat on it himself.
Edward I, who had already (in his Saladin days) piously decimated several thousand Turks at Nazareth, now felt so strong that he decided to Hammer the Scots, who accordingly now come right into History.
The childless Scotch King Alexander the Great had trotted over a cliff and was thus dead; so the Scots asked Edward to tell them who was King of Scotland, and Edward said that a Balliol man ought to be. Delighted with this decision the Scots crossed the Border and ravaged Cumberland with savage ferocity; in reply to which Edward also crossed the Border and, carrying off the Sacred Scone of Scotland on which the Scottish Kings had been crowned for centuries, buried it with great solemnity in Westminster Abbey.
This was, of course, a Good Thing for the Scots because it was the cause of William the Wallace (not to be confused with Robert Bruce), who immediately defeated the English at Cambuskenneth (Scotch for Stirling) and invaded England with ferocious savagery. In answer to this Edward captured the Bruce and had him horribly executed with savage ferocity. Soon after, Edward died of suffocation at a place called Burrowin-the-Sands and was succeeded by his worthless son Edward II.
W.C. Sellar & R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That, 1930.
May 19, 2021
The ginger Windsor loose cannon on “bonkers” free speech protection in the United States
James Delingpole on the latest unfortunate burble from one of the much lesser members of the House of Windsor:
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Titanic Belfast in March 2018.
Photo from the Northern Ireland Office via Wikimedia Commons.
Prince Harry’s epic stupidity is probably inherited from his presumed father, the Prince of Wales. Prince Charles, too, only got two A levels — a B in History and a C in French — yet somehow strings were pulled to land him a place at Cambridge University (normally it would have required something like three A grades at A Level, plus a decent performance in the entrance exam), where he scraped a lowly 2:2 in History.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with being epically, fabulously, unbelievably stupid. Many upper-class men successfully make their brainlessness part of their comical charm. Where stupidity becomes unattractive and culpable, though, is when it’s deployed to comment on issues far, far above its pay grade, and when it’s afforded undeserved prestige.
No one as thick as Harry, it’s surely a given, ought ever be allowed on to a public platform to pronounce on issues as vital as the protection of free speech. Yet this is exactly what happened when Harry was given space to expound his half-baked views on a podcast. Sure, Harry had the good grace to admit that he hadn’t a clue what he was talking about:
I don’t want to start going down the First Amendment route because that’s a huge subject and one which I don’t understand because I’ve only been here a short time.
Unfortunately, that didn’t stop him declaring that he thought the First Amendment was “bonkers”.
His explanation as to why he thought so was a bit incoherent, but it seemed to involve his belief that it could be used for something bad called “ideology” and could be used as an excuse to “spread hate”. He added: “Laws were created to protect people.” What I’m guessing Harry was struggling to do was to try to wheel out the woke cliche that while free speech is fine, “hate speech” isn’t fine and should not enjoy constitutional protection. This threadbare argument can be demolished in a second by anyone with more than two A Levels. Essentially if “free speech” laws don’t protect “hate speech” then they are not really free speech protection laws at all.
Like Prince Harry, I wouldn’t consider myself to be an expert on U.S. history. But I do dimly recall that round about the second half of the 18th century America’s colonists successfully freed themselves from rule by one of Prince Harry’s ancestors. The U.S. Constitution — and that pesky First Amendment — was one of the consequences.
May 3, 2021
QotD: Marcus Aurelius and the “Mandate of Heaven”
Marcus faced no rebellion; no one sought to usurp him. For one thing, Marcus won his wars — no mean feat, considering the plague etc. But for another, it’s hard to blame Marcus for the plague, the weakness of the army staffing system, the structural weakness of the currency. And that’s where it gets interesting, because even though you can’t consciously blame Marcus for this, all those things create excessive anxiety among the people, and that anxiety has to go somewhere …
… so they persecuted Christians.
“The extent to which Marcus Aurelius himself directed, encouraged, or was aware of these persecutions is unclear and much debated by historians,” Wiki informs us, but it doesn’t matter if he had a hand in them or not. The important thing is that the Christians were the perfect target for free-floating anxiety, since plagues etc. were supernatural events and the Christians were ostentatiously opposed to the official belief system. Perhaps Marcus didn’t lose the Mandate of Heaven; perhaps it was stripped from him. Burn the unbelievers, and maybe the world gets back into focus.
This is the pattern whenever the Powers That Be find themselves trying to ride out a massive, structural sea-change — one where it’s obvious to the stressed-out public that something HAS to change, but a mere change in leadership won’t cut it. You’ll have to trust me on this, I guess, unless you’re up on your Chinese history, but almost all their “rebellions” had this mystical character — widespread banditry was assumed, in itself, to be a sign that the Emperor had lost the Mandate of Heaven, and the bandit groups usually ended up looking like the White Lotus sect, who caused endless trouble for something like 300 years. And then there’s the Taiping Rebellion — led by Jesus Christ’s brother! — and by now I’m sure y’all take my point. You can’t really blame the Qing for everyone’s opium addiction, or getting stomped by the British, but you’ve got to blame someone – hence the mystical character of pretty much all Chinese rebellions, certainly including the Maoist.
Severian, “Witch Trial Syndrome”, Rotten Chestnuts, 2021-01-27.
May 1, 2021
Rulers Who Were Actually Good — History Hijinks
Overly Sarcastic Productions
Published 30 Apr 2021History is full of Rulers, but most of them (especially some famous ones) can be Kind Of Terrible upon closer inspection. So let’s take a look at two kings we can actually consider to be Good — not perfect, not blameless, but a heck of a lot more virtuous than the average ruler, that’s for sure.
This topic was requested by our patron Duncan! Thank you for your patronage, and for the topic suggestion.
SOURCES & Further Reading: The Great Courses Plus lectures “Being Persian” by Robert Garland, “The Persian Era” by Jean-Pierre Isbouts, “Saladin: Chivalry and Conquest – 1187” by Eamonn Gearon, and “Saladin and the Defeat of the Crusaders” by Dorsey Armstrong.
Our content is intended for teenage audiences and up.
TRACKLIST: “Monkeys Spinning Monkeys,” “Pippin the Hunchback” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/…PATREON: https://www.Patreon.com/OSP
PODCAST: https://overlysarcasticpodcast.transi…
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/osp
MERCH LINKS: http://rdbl.co/ospOUR WEBSITE: https://www.OverlySarcasticProductions.com
Find us on Twitter https://www.Twitter.com/OSPYouTube
Find us on Reddit https://www.Reddit.com/r/OSP/
April 28, 2021
The Royals at War – WW2 Special
World War Two
Published 27 Apr 2021From inspiring their subjects to plotting international strategy, the world’s monarchies still have a crucial role to play in their country’s war effort during the Second World War. As you’ll find out, some sovereigns are much more successful at this than others.
Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory
Or join The TimeGhost Army directly at: https://timeghost.tvFollow WW2 day by day on Instagram @ww2_day_by_day – https://www.instagram.com/ww2_day_by_day
Between 2 Wars: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Source list: http://bit.ly/WW2sourcesHosted by: Astrid Deinhard
Written by: Fiona Rachel Fischer
Director: Astrid Deinhard
Producers: Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson, Bodo Rittenauer
Creative Producer: Maria Kyhle
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Fiona Rachel Fischer
Edited by: Karolina Dołęga
Sound design: Marek Kamiński
Map animations: Eastory (https://www.youtube.com/c/eastory)Colorizations by:
– Daniel Weiss
– Mikołaj Uchman
– Norman Stewart – https://oldtimesincolor.blogspot.com/
– Julius Jääskeläinen – https://www.facebook.com/JJcolorization/
– Jaris Almazani (Artistic Man) – https://instagram.com/artistic.manSources:
– National Archives NARA
– National Portrait Gallery
– FDR Presidential Library & Museum
– Imperial War Museums: HU 55966, H 1971,
– Girl Guides of Canada
– Narodowe Archiwum Cyfrowe
– Australian War Memorial: AWM 4067471Soundtracks from the Epidemic Sound:
– “Other Sides of Glory” – Fabien Tell
– “London” – Howard Harper-Barnes
– “Break Free” – Fabien Tell
– “Last Point of Safe Return” – Fabien Tell
– “Weapon of Choice” – Fabien Tel
– “Please Hear Me Out” – Philip Ayers
– “Disciples of Sun Tzu” – Christian Andersen
– “Dragon King” – Jo Wandrini
– “Remembrance” – Fabien Tell
– “Ominous” – Philip AyersArchive by Screenocean/Reuters https://www.screenocean.com.
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.
From the comments:
World War Two
1 day ago (edited)
With recent events surrounding the death of Prince Phillip, the British Royal Family has been front-and-center of the worldwide news cycle as of late. In 2021, it is rare for the royals to be at the center of people’s lives, but this wasn’t the case in the days of World War Two. Even though the age of kingdoms was largely over when war came around, sovereigns still had a role to play in their country’s war effort all over the world.In this episode, we are taking a closer look at the role royalty played during the war. Is there still a monarchy where you live and if so, what is your experience with it? We would love to hear about that in the comments!
April 13, 2021
QotD: The Hundred Years’ War and information velocity
… at least in the early phases of the war. Low information velocity meant that even big changes at the top — the capture of the King at Poitiers, say — didn’t have much impact out in the sticks. By the time you found out about it, you’d been “subjects” of “England” for months, years, decades. Whatever, it didn’t matter, since the whole thing worked like loan sharking in Mob movies. Does it matter if it’s Rocco or Vito who’s collecting the vig this week? Maybe the Godfather got rubbed out, and now all the under-bosses from the Solozzo family report to the new capos of the Corleone family. None of that matters to you. All you know is, the new guy is going to break your legs if you don’t pay, same as the old guy would’ve done.
By the war’s later phases, though, the velocity of information had dramatically increased. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the French have always had a knack for cultural propaganda. Joan of Arc wasn’t worth much, militarily, but it’s one hell of a story, the kind that rallies troops. Nobody cares who the legal King of France is — that is, the guy whose name the lawyers finally hack out of the undergrowth of however-many family trees. The guy who is divinely anointed, though, by a prophet, in person? That’s a big deal. That’s the kind of story that spreads like lightning; the kind of story that makes “France” far more than just the name at the top of the org chart.
Moreover, the new guy — the divinely ordained guy — is competent. You can tell, because he’s winning. Your average feminist scholar knows as much about strategy as she does about heterosexuality, so we can ignore all their claims about Joan’s military genius. There are times when total incompetence is, in fact, a virtue, and this was one of them. Joan’s military strategy didn’t make any sense, because she wasn’t thinking in military terms — which is why it worked. Victory followed victory, until the English got wise … by which point it didn’t matter, because the Dauphin had been crowned as Charles VII and had solidified power behind him. In fact, you don’t have to be Machiavelli to see that Joan’s capture and execution by the English were all to Charles’s benefit — Charles gained a martyr to his cause, but only after Henry VI finally managed to beat a little girl. Information velocity guaranteed that both stories were all over France almost from the minute they happened.
Over in England, meanwhile, it was their turn to have an insane, incompetent king, and we know how that turned out. The point is, you can have a bad king. You can have a mad king. You can even have a bad, mad king and things can still work out ok — see Charles VI, who remained King of France for 42 years of the Hundred Years’ War despite believing he was made of glass — provided your mad, bad king reigns in a period of low information velocity. Not that things were hunky-dory in France from 1380-1422 — you know, Agincourt and all that — but the Charles VII who was anointed by God via Joan of Arc was the mad, bad guy’s direct lineal descendant. Charles VII’s main antagonist, Henry VI, was also a mad, bad king, and his successor, Henry Tudor … well, you know. I don’t think it’s an accident that the printing press was invented in the 1440s and made its first appearance in England in 1476, in the nastiest part of the Wars of the Roses.
Severian, “Crises”, Rotten Chestnuts, 2020-12-25.
April 10, 2021
The monarchy is a weird anachronism from our history … but it’s better than any likely replacement
I’m a very soft monarchist myself, largely for the same reasons that The Line articulates here:
Queen Elizabeth II signs Canada’s constitutional proclamation in Ottawa on April 17, 1982 as Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau looks on.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Stf-Ron Poling
A little more seriously, though your Line editors wouldn’t describe themselves as ardent monarchists, we do believe that we shouldn’t invest much time and energy into trying to fix what ain’t broke. Canada’s system of government doesn’t always deliver optimal outcomes — we mean, look around, folks — but it is stable, reliable and proven. Given our track record at big new policies, those are three things we have absolutely zero confidence any successor system to the monarchy would be, even in the fantastically unlikely chance we could design and implement one.
Is it weird putting a ton of our reserve powers and our very sovereignty inside the living essence of an old woman on an island across the ocean? Yes. Does it work? Also yes. Would we botch any effort to replace said old lady with literally any other system? A resolute yes. The monarchy is weird, and it’s not how we’d design Canada if we were starting Canada from scratch today, but it works, folks, and these days, there’s not much else we can say that about. Further, it’s hard not to like Her Majesty. Our thoughts are with her today. Whatever your qualms with royalty or the royals may be, surely you can spare a thought to a woman who lost her husband … oh, who are we kidding? Lots of people can’t or won’t.
