Recent comments in /f/history

AnaphoricReference t1_j1pkmwb wrote

Yes. They had no almost no control over how hard the iron would turn out. The real cost would be in fuel and skilled labour. If the weapon turned out too brittle or soft for its purpose, you had to start all over again.

If you compare the standard types of side arms armies used in those days:

- The small hand axe (Franciska, Tomahawk) needs one hard edge, but is otherwise not prone to bending or breaking.

- The long knife (Seax) needs one hard edge and a stiff back.

- The short short (Gladius) needs two hard edges and a stiff centerline. This is an order of magnitude more difficult to achieve. Needs to be stiff enough not to bend or break when stabbing a shield or armour.

- The long sword (Spatha) needs two hard edges and a long stiff centerline, that is stiff enough not to break or bend when blocked halfway with another weapon. Again an order of magnitude more difficult than a short sword.

The small axe was a weaponized common tool that was within reach of any household. Owning a seax was fairly common as well, but would have been more expensive. A functioning long sword was really something else. Not because of the amount of material, but the amount of trying (and fuel) that went into it.

The main advantage the Romans had, was centralization and industrialization of weapon making. More fuel and labour dedicated to it.

Edit: To gain some insight into how involved weaponsmithing would be in those times: Try to build a fire of 1500 degrees celsius using just wood. It is impossible.

2

boluroru t1_j1pd1jm wrote

There's a tendency on the internet to assume the urban centres were how the majority of Iranians lived. Like those Iran before and after the revolution photos that get posted all the time

Majority of the population though was poor, rural and very religious. Why the revolution ended the way it did makes a lot of sense when you consider that

6

JustLessWorld t1_j1p4s9p wrote

>The vast majority of Iran wanted what they got.

This is a skewed generalization of Irans political representation.

You can look at the 1952 elections of mossadegh, and you'll see that communism and socialist parties had a far higher votes than the religious ones.

The revolution consisted of three groups, roughly equal in size. The religious group siezed power due to superior organizational capabilities.

1

JustLessWorld t1_j1p3m7e wrote

Not defending mossadeghs course of action.

But lets not forget that the CIA was paying royalists to influence the outcome of the election, hence why mossadegh called it off, as it was being manipulated by foreign agents.

He should've provided proof of said agents before calling the elections to strengthen his position.

2

nova9001 t1_j1p28a5 wrote

I think most Iranians at that time were disappointing in the West and anything to do with them like democracy. You have remember the Western powers were the ones who put the Shah into power and causing so much suffering in Iran.

Its not surprised Iran turned into a religious dictatorship after the revolution. That's pretty much how every country in ME is run except Israel. People on reddit seem surprised Iran isn't a democracy.

1

Sayurimai t1_j1oxhy6 wrote

So I’m actually watching an interview on California Insider, with woman activist former Iranian citizen; Sufi Farokhnia.

She had described the revolution going back and comparing to now, in the current revolution. Apparently Khoumeini had promised everyone free water and electricity etc etc. well there was a vote. Khoumeini like another President was running a campaign from a plush arrangement in France. There was a referendum asking the citizens to choose between two options. “Republic or not,” with everyone assuming that monarchy opposed the republic. Everyone voted republic, and apparently on the last day of the tallies “Islamic” was added just before republic. What would called bamboozling the entire population.

The people of Iran heard rumors and were growing restless and losing their patience with the late lord Pahlavi. Rumors of unjust killing in questioning the monarch, which the people were right to do. Pahlavi from my understanding was dubbed by the media as “the briefcase monarch.” He was little more than a figure head, and when pressure boiled over or began to he would just leave. Vacation somewhere exotic.

That created the problem, Pahlavi may have helped modernize and westernize Persia. In the word of one my favorite actresses of all time Shohreh Aghdashloo “Tehran was the Paris of the Middle East.” Of course no country was perfect and when Pahlavi’s desk was filled with complaints he would leave. He removed himself from his people. Literally out of touch.

Khoumeini who was exiled in Iraq was somehow put into France where he campaigned. Promising people all this freedom of material and goods for nothing more than loyalty. He rallied the religious whom felt their country was becoming to decadent, pacified the freedom fighters with empty promises.

The Pahlavi family during a revolution was spirited away, if memory serves; to the Bahamas, Mexico, the US, and eventually permanent exile to Cairo. Where his widow Farah whom now resides in exile in France annually visits the grave of her late husband. Accompanied with supporters of the monarchy.

To make a long story short (to late) politics gambled. A distant relative of a near lost lineage was educated in the west. He then westernized his country as the face without knowing the inner workings. Some may say he was to accustomed to luxury to care, and the freedom fighters that sparked the revolution. He wasn’t a good figure head.

The people of Iran were twice bamboozled. First by a figurehead whom gorged on food and finance while his people starved. Any questions were met with cruelty. The second time came when supreme ruler Khomeini made false promises, collected public favor and turned around stabbing the literal hand that fed him.

The current revolution (if anyone is curious) began, when a young Kurdish girl failed to follow customs she didn’t know existed. Iran has separated their provinces by ethnicity, each ethnicity of Iran may follow the same religion but not always the same customs. To the west this may sound awkward but I’m from Asia and these two things culturally blend but are very easily separated and defined.

In a country locked down filled with propaganda, that people stomach knowing it’s fake simply needed a spark. Imagine Iran like a bomb or propane tank, such devices need to be handled with care. The Iranian government is a new employee whom bangs these bombs or tanks left and right, knowing it’s wrong. The employee does not care, the tank is under stress and it just takes one more dent or careless swing to set off a chain of events.

Below is a link to California Insider, and the story of Queen Pahlavi: The Queen and I. The first being an interview and summary of Iran’s history with revolutions. The second a documentary, an Iranian protesting freedom fighter and film maker from Sweden. She interviews and documents the Highness Farah Pahlavi while narrating her own perspective on what the revolution was.

https://youtu.be/pxP5kIJvDPM

https://youtu.be/4P5S8jqls2A

1