#This is about blatant disregard for history and thus sacrificing setting and believability

[nickelnackleberries]

Okay, returning to this again to say that there are ways you can do historical inaccuracies well

These will be split into categories:

Good style choices : the writers knew it would be inaccurate, but decided to keep it due to it's significant tonal/thematic/ascthetic resonance. It futhers the plot, environment, tone, worldbuilding ect in a satisfying way

Eg. Bridgerton - the costumes, make up ect is wildly innacurate, but it still works, because it futhers and creates the shows unique tone and universe. As long as no one thinks that is the history, I like it

Accurate Inaccuracies : changes they made that aren't specifically accurate but are close enough, true to the general time or pattern and serve a wider purpose

Eg. Gentleman Jack - Anne Lister's clothes and hair aren't true to her portraiture, but are true to the time period, and serves the wider purpose of conveying her nonconformity, particularly in regards to gender

Unnoticeable innacuracies: the kind of (often unintentional) innacuracies that only someone passionate about the period would notice and are not significant enough to detract from the worldbuilding or sense of setting

Eg. Cross instead of spiral lacing for medieval period.

THIS CATAGORICALLY DOES NOT INCLUDE USING MODERN MAKEUP ON OTHERWISE PERIOD SHOWS. Sentenced to death by hanging. Actually that's too nice, this should be hung, drawn and quarterd.

Please add more categories or examples :)

historical inaccuracies in period dramas are okay as long as i like them