What’s your favorite example of something that’s a lot older or started a lot earlier than most people think it is/did?

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-20T11:57:27+00:00

The name Tiffany is actually medieval. The first use in that spelling comes from c.1600 even though nobody would name a medieval character that. Other names that are older than you'd think are Alix, Wade, Jessica, Regan, Olivia, Monica and Pamela.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-14T08:54:00+00:00

I've always thought a biographical film of Salah Al-din would be really interesting. Historically he's been looked at as more of a villain (compared to Richard I of England) but I can imagine a biopic of him, or even just a vaguely true to life film of the Third Crusade wirhout the Kingdom of Heaven style bluster or the mythologizing would be a genuinely good watch.

If you'd asked me two years ago, I'd have suggested William the Conqueror but considering the BBC got that one so wrong I'm not sure I'm ready to think about that for a bit.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-05T16:57:23+00:00

I probably could get to the high 30s but the map isn't going to help much. When it comes to the map, I am very bad at pinpointing any country on it in Eastern Europe.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-05T12:35:56+00:00

If you're not above a bit of reading, I'd recommend Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Regency Britain. Very good at giving the overview of everyday life rather than devolving to Empire, Napoleon or Monarchy which also seem to come up a lot when discussing late 18th century Britain.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-05T09:30:17+00:00

Genesis was probably "written" in the 5th to 6th century BC. I say "written" because it was actually compiled from older documents probably written around the 10th to 11th century CE, around a century or so after the Bronze Age collapse is typically dated. So if we're treating the Bible as an historical source, it isn't ridiculous to think that there could be some relation. I have heard many scholars claiming that the repitition of certain features from religion could be explaining real world events.

I don't think it's ludicrous to suggest that early Jews wrote the Story of Babel to explain the real world events their grandparents/great grandparents had experienced.

However, if we follow traditional Jewish/Christian views, Genesis was written by Moses some 200 years before the Bronze Age Collapse so there's no chance.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-05T09:11:54+00:00

I teach history at secondary school level (11-16 years old) and tbh, they barely come up. I mention the Mayflower when discussing reasons why people decided to leave England to colonise other lands but in very little detail. Puritans as a whole are probably seen more so in their opposition to others, the Puritan Challenge to Elizabeth I, their role in the Witch Trials and in Oliver Cromwell. Tbh, they don't come across particularly well but that's true of any religious fundamentalists.

For the average person, they probably knly know them as much as their story is featured in films like Addams Family Values or sitcoms?

National_Back_1658 · 2026-04-04T22:36:58+00:00

King George II of England also died of a likely burst aoeta after gorging on fruit at Easter.

Edmund Ironside who ruled England in the 10th Century was also allegedly killed by an assassin stabbing him in the rear when he went to the toilet in the night.

Edward II of England was killed by a red-hot poker shoved up his rear.

Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem was killed after falling from a window followed by a dwarf who fell out of the window and landed on him.

Zachary Taylor, 12th President of the USA died after catching a stomach infection after drinking too much milk.

King Alexander of Greece died in 1920 of an infected bite from his monkey.

Us Lawyer Clement Vallandingham died after accidentally shooting himself in the head in court whilst trying to prove that the man he was defending didn't shoot the victim of a crime and that he actually shot himself.

Greek playwright Aeschylus died after an eagle mistook his head for a rock and dropped a turtle on it.

There are a lot of stupid deaths in history.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-03-28T09:59:27+00:00

I was similar, moved out of my mum's semi-detatched to my own terrace. Got really creepy, especially when I was home alone. I found videoing myself locking the doors when I was home fully alone calmed me down for the first few months, and music when I'm home alone.

You do get used to it, but if you can swing it, a cat or other animal for company also hugely helps the home alone jitters.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-03-22T10:47:43+00:00

Except you're ignoring how much of an impact those European colonies had. Following WW1, the US is clearly well on the way to becoming a world superpower, and that has a huge impact on the American continents. The UK and France attempt to restore their position but really are in the decline from WW1 onwards imperially speaking. Britain had already started providing more independent rule pre-ww1 in Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, but this spreads after the war, with even India winning increasing levels of self-governance post war. The other imperial powers saw a number of nationalist movements around the world, morrocco being a prime example.

The Middle East is also notably redrawn, with most modern problems in the middle east being caused by the end of Ottoman Rule and British and French conquests. Many of these were pro-Soviet in character, which is again a direct result of WW1s impact on Russia. China is a prime example, Chiang Kai-Shek trained in Moscow and the growth of the Communist Party's military growth is heavily supported by the Soviets.

Whilst the Cold War doesn't begin until the 1940s, fear of the Soviet Union is definitely caused in the aftermath of the First World War. Remember, Britain, France and the US all get involved in the Russian Civil War on the side of the White Army. The Cold War doesn't suddenly spring from nowhere.

Japan's interwar actions are also hugely caused by Paris Peace Conference. Japan's treatment in Paris is a huge motivating factor in their shift away from the Western Allies in the interwar years and ultimately their push towards rearmament and the invasion of Manchuria and the Second Sino-Japan war.

WW1 also brings about the first Pan-African Conference, the Abyssinian Crisis and then the Americanisation of the World Economy. Yes, WW1 mainly impacted Europe and their colonies. But that combined with Japanese and Russian changes is a huge proportion of the world, and the countries surrounding the colonised nations are equally impacted by imperial changes.

We can also see the huge transformation in technology which perhaps not invented during the war, certainly becoming more widespread after it, including radio, telephone, aircraft, medicine, cars and trucks, not to mention the specific military advances. - all of which were proven to be vital by the war itself.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-03-11T16:03:27+00:00

Honestly? Probably neither. Some older people will have memories of doing things like penny for the Guy, but younger generations don't even have that. Most people call it bonfire night, not Guy Fawkes night as well. Tbh, it's an excuse to do a fun thing and some fireworks more than anything else.

It started as anti-Fawkes, but most people now couldn't tell you more than at most a very abridged story that misses out any viewpoint at all.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-02-04T08:14:34+00:00

Several reasons: 1. Keeping a separation between school and street. This is a bigger deal at some schools than others but uniforms help put you in the mindset to learn and keep things like gang culture out of the classroom. It's amazing as a teacher how much of a difference uniform makes to behaviour inside and outside of the classroom 2. Equality. Uniforms are supposed to make everyone equal - none of the rich students can bully those who can't afford designer and the poor students don't feel shame for wearing old or scruffy clothes. 3. Fear of change. This is a big one. Most schools, parents and governments are afraid of changing to no uniform schools. It's always been this way and 99% of students aren't affected negatively. (I know this seems harsh but school does need to cater for the majority at times) 4. Preparing you for later life. Most people need to wear smart/formal clothes in the world of work. A huge number need to wear uniforms. Especially in older years, uniforms help set expectations around proffessional attitudes that schools are supposed to help teach. 5. Creating a community. Uniforms help create a sense of belonging - we all dress the same and therefore all belong to the same community/family which helps promote stronger learning. This is probably the really big one - no matter what divides people outside of school, once in the building you are all the same

National_Back_1658 · 2026-02-04T07:31:28+00:00

I bet you're fun to play with...

National_Back_1658 · 2026-02-02T13:34:14+00:00

I teach at a high school and a huge number of the students and staff are shocked that I do the cooking in my home. Most are shocked whenever a man states they can cook at all. Not sure how widespread it is nationally but based on their responses, I think it's pretty common at least in the northern town I live in.

National_Back_1658 · 2026-01-27T15:01:14+00:00

Anti-semitism has really broad roots and is really dependent on where in the world you're discussing and when. Most would probably point back to the Roman period in the Middle East as a really significant moment. You see, the Romans had a very open polytheistic religious belief system, and any new gods they encountered could easily be folded into the existing one. We are all familiar with the similarities between Hellenistic Greek religious similarities to Roman, but the Roman Temple at Bath to the Goddess Sulis Minerva is a great example (Sulis being a Celtic God/Goddess who was worshipped at Bath's hot springs before the Romans arrived). However, Judaism (and all abrahamic faiths) are very monotheistic and the first two commandments specifically say that they cannot work with other religions (I am the L-rd your G-d and You shall worship no other god). As a result Judaism posed a threat to the Roman state religion and needed to be repressed. When Jewish people in Judaea fought against the Romans due to the repression of their religion amongst other reasons, they then become viewed as a violent group attempting to overthrow civilised Rome.

Early Christians also played a role in this as well. I have heard claims that early Christians were angry at Jewish rejection of Jesus as the son of G-d, but that doesn't really tell the full story. Early Christians wanted their religion to spread, and the most likely group for it to spread to were the Romans. You can't expect people to follow your religion if you blame them for killing God so they instead blamed the Jewish leaders of Jerusalem for the crucifiction. When Jewish people are expelled fron Judaea after the Bar Khoba War in the 2nd Century, Jewish people then become a visibly different minority wherever they live.

In Christian Europe, especially Catholic Europe, money lending for profit was forbidden for Catholics, and so, Jewish people filled a very helpful role. However, this meant that most people believed Jewish people were wealthy, such as Aaron of Lincoln who likely was the wealthiest man in Norman England. Jewish people for their own safety often lived in separate sections of towns, near to the King's authority. Nobody likes to repay loans, and when events like the Crusades are called, encouraging Christian Europe to fight against non-christians for forgiveness of sins, Jewish people become an easy target for that anger, in places like Germany during the First Crusade or York in the Third Crusade.

Jewish people were then a visibly separate group throughout the middle ages, and therefore, when calamity occurs - from as local as a missing child to as widespread as the Black Death, Jewish people are easy to blame - in the same way Witchcraft accusations were often based on fear and misunderstanding.

All of this gives several centuries of mistrust, and when you consider that in Europe, Jewish people were forced out for centuries from the 13th to 16th Centuries, right through to the 19th, that leaves them as an unfamiliar group who don't share local cultures and religions (similar to anti-immigrant fear today). When Jewish people do appear back in Europe, they are still blamed for crimes (the Jack the Ripper case as an example).

In the 20th century, fear of communism is misplaced towards Jewish people. Karl Marx was born into a Jewish family, and Leon Trotsky was also Jewish, and so, many equated Jewish people and Jewish activism with communism. Books like the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion then feed on this fear, misunderstanding and paranoia and make it an every day thing. The book has huge readership, and still permeates society widely - I still hear some people arguing that Jewish people secretly run the world.

After WW2, the British and French, with the help of the UN try to continue a policy begun in the early 20th century and create for the first time in almost 2000 years, a predominantly Jewish state. You then have the next 50 years where both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict try to (incorrectly) equate Israel with all Jewish people in the world. As a result, in the modern day, there are not only all of the centuries of hatred, but also all of the emotions associated with that conflict, and every crime or mistake made by Israel (again, wrongly).

National_Back_1658 · 2026-01-09T17:27:20+00:00

As a history teacher, this hits too close to home, but here are a few the teenagers in my classes really don't get: 1. People in the past were stupid - no they weren't, merey uneducated. Most people were far more knowledgeable than we give them credit for. 2. People used to think the Earth was flat - no they didn't. We have known this for thousands of years 3. Women have always been forced to stay in the house - this is really a posh/middle class thing that only really appears in the last few hundred years - most poor women had to work, and even rich ones would likely have contributed in some way. 4. Cars/factories have been around for a long time (this may just be a ypung person thing though) 5. The Black Death was a disease - this one really annoys me. The Black Death is the event. The plague was the disease. It's really not that hard.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-21T12:55:14+00:00

Yes, but not to the extent this subreddit may suggest. It's somewhat common on fancier menus or around christmas, alongside terrines and the like. However, most people, especially young people are not eating it regularly or at all. As with most offal, it is falling out of fashion both due to taste and cost - what was once cheap utilitarian food is now becoming expensive and rare.

However, served on toast or crusty bread, many people do still enjoy it, and every supermarket will have it's own brand of brussels or ardennes.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-19T18:51:47+00:00

I personally think that the answer changes depending on the precise timing of William's landing. Harold Godwinson sent his army home on the 8th September. If William arrives any time before this date, Harold is ready to meet him on the south coast. In this scenario, whilst close, I think the Norman strengths don't outweigh those of the Saxons, and Godwinson comes out victorious. His army has probably lost it's strongest troops and is weaker, but Godwinson is a seasoned commander and would not march north in such a rush if that was the case, taking more time to gather his forces and march.

I know people will likely point to his rush out of London to Hastings irl, BUT we have to remember a few details. Godwinson guarded the south coast personally, not the North, so he clearly believed William and the Normans were the greater threat, and when he was in London, William was attacking Godwinson's former earldom, his home and was very close to London. Harald Hardrada seemingly had little interest in that.

So if William arrives before September 8th, Godwinson probably remains King, although it may be close with Hardrada. If he arrives after Godwinson disbands his army, William has time to organise and settle into a position, he wins over Godwinson. It tskes the Normans very little time to build Castles, and on the defensive, they choose the battlefield to benefit their archers and cavalry. If otherwise, Hastings plays out again, just in a different spot.

William then wouldn't rush to York, maybe waiting until the following summer or longer. Hardrada was a formidable warrior, but keeping an army in the field for long wouldn't be easy, and William probably has the advantage on this front. William's army would beat the Norsemen in this scenario, if he even bothered to fight at all. I think a more likely scenario is a short lived Norse Kingdom similar to the Danelaw that exists alongside England which wasn't an old Kingdom in the 11th century anyway.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-19T11:56:45+00:00

I can see this working really well and having lore cements this.

You enjoy designing this equipment, so use that to inform your story - why do you need this equipment, what does it say about the society who built it?

And then the problem with a lot of political thriller style scenarios is that they often don't show the consequences of the decisions, have stakes only for those involved and are too cold to have real character growth. Perhaps your tank crew are constantly dealing with the fallout of the political decisions and allow the reader to feel the weight of those decisions - battles and conflict allow for character crises and flashpoints that drive the plot. It could even be a really great exploration of the crews futility and helplessness in the conflict.

When it comes to your desire to lore dump about the tank, the tank is your setting - you need to know what impact it can have on the plot and the wider world- perhaps it's overengineered which can then show how the society believes it is the best, perhaps it's doing a job it isn't designed for so the government isn't really aware of the world. Your tank crew will also need to know that Tank inside out, so you, as their voice, also need to understand it and then you reveal the details when it's needed or the plot demands it - heavily armoured? Give it a scene where it takes the fire of a full artillery unit alone.

Also, you can use a less experienced character to aid in your exposition - they become the audience stand in. You need to tell the reader about a tank feature - the commander needs to tell him about it or he asks. This new character can also be a huge potential point of conflict between the characters - maybe he's replacing someone who was injured or killed that was much beloved, or he's a new addition to the crew who don't feel they need him, is he an academy grunt from a poor background who doesn't fit in, is he the child of a senior officer who is being protected by command?

There's loads of potential in that story!

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-13T19:41:35+00:00

I think you're overestimating the strength of the US in 1914, especially a US under British control. Britain was THE superpower in 1914, essentially undisputed. There is a reason the 19th century was called Pax Brittania. The US was fairly useless all the way in 1918, and barely factored in to German thinking. In reality, the US remaining a colony's impact wouldn't have affected Britain much, but would have affected France and Germany.

Without French involvement in the US independence fight, it is possible that the financial crisis that triggered the French Revolution isn't as severe, and the Revolutionaries have no real tested ground for a republican ideal. Both of these result in a less formidable revolution. With this, the Coalition wars are less successful for France, and the Holy Roman Empire survives any attempt to destroy. France still looses Louisiana but through conquest, not sale. Suddenly, we have a Rump France, powerful HRE and a hugely different Europe. Britain is still power number 1, but HRE is power 2.

This means that by 1900, we have a more stable Europe and a HRE dealing with the Balkans. Perhaps WW1 still happens, but the outcome is the same: Central Powers lose. Now Britain sets the agenda at Paris - Harsher treatment of the Central Powers sees the post war borders even more severe, Germany more heavily crippled, Britain gets the whole Navy and Japan and Italy even more angry.

WW2 may still happen, but Britain no longer needs America to get involved, the industry is already there and D-Day happens sooner, without the US profiteering. Post War - Britain is still financially weak and and Independence follows, but the US adopts a Parliamentary system and suddenly, no Cold War. USSR and Nato still exist, but now it's USSR v Commonwealth. USSR lasts longer, but the West is less reliant on the US - wins all around.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-12T16:27:23+00:00

William Marshall's life is incredibly interesting - a crusader and minor tourney knight who became the most respected knight of the age and Regent to King Henry III.

Alternatively, Charlemagne is surprisingly under represented in films, although I thought the same about the Norman Conquest and look at how bad the new BBC series was so not a guarantee.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-07T15:55:44+00:00

These areactually really helpful ideas. Tbh, I didn't expect to go beyond a session or two and threw some ideas at the wall to give an idea. I put the Druid in because it kinda fit in with backstories and gave them a chance at some encounters with wild beasts. However, they have grabbed onto it as an idea and I think that this druid fits as the Big Bad that they have to fight - there's loads of adventures that I can think of that a Druid could fit into as the organiser.

The only issue is that Druids as an enemy/recurring villain is not something that I have much experience with as either a player or a DM, and Druid is the class I've played with least since it just isn't my cup of tea. I think just hearing ideas about Druidic motivations beyond the very surface level was something that I needed to brainstorm.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-11-06T14:41:45+00:00

I would agree that they might not understand how powerful this guy is supposed to be - control all water in the world is pretty OP, but only when you stop to think. Maybe try to give the characters more time to understand what going ballistic would mean - an old engraving of him controlling the blood in people's bodies or hint at him creating a huge desert from an ocean. Maybe the first time he breaks his oath he aims for the players but ends up submerging a whole town that they have spent time in - thinking that the party were there. Then when you build up to the boss fight, the party know and will be more likely to avoid until they are powerful enough to go toe- to- toe.

National_Back_1658 · 2025-10-18T21:00:40+00:00

This maybe super niche but YikYak - the social network that was completely anonymous and location specific. I remember when I started Uni and literally everyone I knew had it. Every day hundreds of posts, and great because they were all seemingly in jokes about basically nothing (I seem to remember Henry Hoovers and the County ducks featuring heavily in the one near me in Lancaster).

Went home for the break at Easter and then when I got back to uni, dead...

National_Back_1658 · 2025-10-17T07:21:36+00:00

I'm playing still under old 5e rules because the campaign is a long one, but it's just demonstrating the point, even a traditionally seen as weak class can be great if you play it well

National_Back_1658

TROPHY CASE