First: I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Christian. Just curious.

Modern Egyptians don't call their country 'Egypt' because that's the name the Greeks gave it. Instead they call it Misr, which is Arabic and possibly originates from the Babylonian term for the place.

So what did the people who built the pyramids call their civilization? What name did the pharoahs use to describe their lands? Is there a name that is recorded in hieroglyphics?

Just an interesting topic and seems less known of that the Romans and Chinese had some diplomacy or trade directly at one point or another. How would they go about sailing there and back to Rome?

To preface this question I want to give some context, I am a soldier in the US ARMY and recently I have been watching World War II in Color on Netflix and I noticed that most, if not all of the countries showcased in the series are wearing similar uniforms, the German, US, Japan etc. I can understand why duty uniforms might look similar, necessary kit like helmets, ammo pouches and so on are worn by everyone because in war these things are necessary, But why are the things like the dress uniforms for the Navy so similar with medals and so on placed on the same side with the same hash marks and stripes on the sleeve and the same neckerchiefs on, I'm not sure if it's so other countries will be able to recognize who is a higher value Target and more easily be able to recognize people of other ranks and so on.

To sum up my question, why do different countries in different parts of the world all wear similar uniforms in the military, both historically and today.

This question reflects my own somewhat sketchy knowledge of recent developments in the field. It often seems to be taken as a given in some historical works I've recently read that surveying and mapping imperial spaces was a vital plank of colonisation, directly enabling the defeat and subjugation of local peoples, a factor that's sometimes ranked alongside superior military and logistical technologies in enabling the rapid expansion of European empires, particularly in the late nineteenth century. But most texts I've read just kind of assert this off-handedly rather than explaining why mapping was so vital in this process.

I don't want to say "dark ages," but a book I was reading claimed that the denarius (penny, pfennig, etc.) was the standard unit of currency in circulation, and that gold coinages had disappeared. Is this accurate, or (as I suspect) is the situation more complicated?

As king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sigismund III added Sweden to his domain and was intent on adding the Troubles-stricken Russia to it too, but from what I can gather, in Sweden, Sigismund III began constructing Catholic schools and placing Catholics in high positions (in contravention of a promise to not infringe on the religious freedoms of the mostly Lutheran Swedes). This would eventually cause a civil war within Sweden, followed by an outright war between Poland and Sweden, which ended with the destruction of the union between the PLC and Sweden.

During the Polish-Muscovite War which took place during The Troubles, he came close to placing his son on the Tsarist throne, but was outraged when one of the conditions of sympathetic Russian nobles for their support was the conversion of his son to Orthodoxy. In retaliation, Sigismund III proclaimed himself Tsar, eroding what little support he had among the Russian population.

So why on Earth was Sigismund III so intent on spreading Catholicism to the PLC's new or prospective territories, even when it was clear the people did not want to be converted from their own religions?

I'm from Poland so this question is obviously written from a Polish person perspective.

We're being taught in school Marie Skłodowska-Curie was Polish. I already got myself up to speed as to why she is considered French too and it seems completely reasonable to me - especially that Chopin, for example, is not considered French despite actually having a French father due to same criterion used for Marie - he did not naturalize.

What I completely don't get is why is Marie's maiden name dropped in sources foreign to Polish? I checked some papers and scans of old documents and historic evidence and all this suggests she actually was using both last names.

EDIT: a word.

I’ve heard that only around 1,2-1,5% of people in the US were slave owners. My knowledge of that period in US history is very limited but in Tom Sawyer novel it is shown that his aunt has a slave without owning a plantation.

To clarify: we know that our ancestors did not perceive their world and their reality as we do; for example, there's a debate surrounding the idea that blue wasn't an existing color for the Greeks, who would rather describe the sea as "green" or "shiny". The perception of smells, colors, shapes have changed drastically in the last centuries. So, was it the same for emotions? Do historians sometimes stumble upon a depiction of a feeling that doesn't exist anymore in our vocabulary or that would be considered downright weird nowadays?

EDIT: Due to a comment about the perception of blue from ancient Greeks, I modified my example to reflect that it is a debated point of view.

Is there such a thing as a "citizen historian" as there is a "citizen scientist"?

*were. Damn autocorrect.

Static electricity is a source of energy that is very easy produce and very easily noticed (via feeling a small shock or visually seeing in the dark). So what did people think of static electricity before the discovery of electricity and what was it called? I can only imagine that it must have seemed like magic.

Thanks for any replies

Of all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, this one stood out the most to me. 2 days after Oswald killed Kennedy he was assassinated by someone else. What was Ruby's motivation?

PS Please don't answer with conspiracy theories; accurate speculation please

Why did the United States in WWII capture Saipan first instead of any other of the Marianas Islands

If one were to walk into a "public" music performance in the Baroque/classical era, be it an opera, concerto, mass etc., what would one expect to see? Would the audience be mainly wealthy or nobility, lower class commoners, or a mixture of both? Would the audience be excited and involved, or calm and subdued? What would the concessions/facilities look like, if any? How would these performances compare to a modern pop/rock concert, or theatre performance?

How familiar would the audience be with the performers, composers, story, and music beforehand, if at all?

Related: how were "famous" stars of opera, or instrumental virtuosos treated by the general public? Did they have a large dedicated following?

Sorry for the many questions, this is just a topic I've long pondered! Thanks in advance.

Hi r/AskHistorians!

I’ve got a question for you on the back of doing some research into my family tree. One of my ancestors, Sir Miles Partridge (1488-1552) is recorded in a number of sources as “when playing with the king [Henry VIII], he staked on one throw of the dice 100l. against the bells of the Jesus Chapel in St. Paul's Churchyard; Partridge won, and had the bells taken down and broken “

This logically dates from during the dissolution (1536-41) and up to the death of Henry (1547), but I can’t find any information about how St Paul’s was affected by the dissolution and particularly when, which is making it tricky to try to date this story with any more accuracy. My understanding of the dissolution was that anything sold was recorded reasonably well (Court of Augmentations), but I’m struggling!

I know that he went on to be beheaded in 1552 at the Tower of London for allegedly conspiring against the new regime after the fall of his friend Thomas Seymour, Protector of Edward VI, but I’d love to find out more.

Any suggestions or guidance would be brilliant!

If not, was it based on a dramatization of real events, a common trope among soldiers, or some other source?