I'd like to observe how did world change as far as possible

No, this is not a non-sequitur (am I using that right?) philosophy question. I am genuinely curious. There must be thousands of languages across the globe today and thousands more dead languages across history. Yet, from what I can tell, most languages call Earth "Earth" instead of some "fantasy" name (for example, in Chinese, the Earth is called Di Qiu, which means ball of soil/earth, while in French, it's called Terre, literally translating to Earth).

TLDR: how did the Earth get its name and why is it such an international name?

What did they do without perfectly flat, commercially made whetstones and oilstones?

I heard that several types of slavery existed within human history. One being where a slave's descendants would later be freed and incorporated as members of the ruling society.

I may be in error in assuming the modern Latin alphabet is the same as it was in ancient times, but it seems strange to me that despite all the romance languages, English is the only one to adhere to the traditional Latin alphabet. Is this a fluke, or is there some intrigue here?

I've recently seen footage of Churchill visiting troops in North Africa and it got me thinking about the logistics involved in ensuring someone as important as this was kept safe when visiting such places. Obviously I'm not an expert and so the first reaction I have to this is that's an unnecessary risk given that Europe was occupied by Axis forces at this time and the North African campaign was still ongoing, but maybe it wasn't as dangerous as I think it would have been?

The Aetolian and Achaean Leagues held prominent positions of power in Hellenistic Greece. Why did the cities/peoples of these areas feel the need to “federalize” into larger alliance structures? What function did they serve? How was each league structured, and how did these structures differ?

It's kind of a stupid question..............

P.S. I'm new to this sub so sorry for any formatting errors.

I was just introduced to a general overview of David Rohl's revised chronology yesterday. From what I understood, the theory is plausible to certain academics but seemed strange to me that it revised over 300 years of history. I wasn't able to find many direct refutations or arguments about the new chronology as was wondering if someone here could give some more insight as to what this theory implies and how it affects the general sweep of history?

[deleted]

to clarify: everytime i read about the Mongols, it seems like wherever they went, they just obliterated everyone; no one was able to repel the Mongol horde. i'm wondering if there were any kingdoms or nations that Genghis wanted but failed to conquer.

I'm mostly wondering for the case of caravel crews tasked with exploring the African coast or into the new world.

I'm finishing up the Genghis Khan book by Frank McLynn now.

In 1240-1242 the Mongols invaded Hungary and parts of Poland, with much killing and rape along the way, then withdrew.

What was the fate of the children of rape? Were they aborted or killed after birth? Sent off in shame to convents or monasteries? Relegated to the lowest fringes of society? Or were they generally accepted into the families in which they were born?

Were there any notable Hungarians who had Mongol blood?

Orville Wright died January 30, 1948 , after 2 world wars involving plains. What was his opinion, if any, in their involvement in warfare?

Is there any quotes or documents involving his opinion on the matter in existence?

Did he have an opinion one way or another about allies and enemy nations using such creations?

Did he have anything to say about the mid 1945 nuclear bombings?

What about pearl harbour, a national tragedy, did he feel responsible for or related to such events?

did he ever hear about, and have an opinion on, rockets and jet engines, like the ones used by the Germans?

Basically any insight into his thoughts and mental state during the military evolution of air travel would be great.

The Europeans upon discovering the Americas were much more technologically advanced compared to the indigenous peoples they met upon landing. The Europeans had the desire for exploration, expansion, and mapping the world; while it seems the indigenous people had barely (if at all) mapped their own lands and there was no desire for expansion. Perhaps the literature is biased towards Europeans, but why was there such a vast difference in cultures? Wouldn't we expect many great discoveries, inventions, and explorations to have arisen from the indigenous people over thousands of years?

Tom Holland has Miltiades shout "at them!" at the beginning of the battle of marathon. And in citations it's ascribed to a cetain "Aristides 3.566". Who is that ought to be? He also has an "Alcaeus 360" cite 3 pithy sayings of an "Aristodemus of Sparta". It can't be the dude who returned from the battle at Thermopylae, now, can it?

[deleted]

I saw on the latest episode of QI that Samuel F. B. Morse (of Morse Code fame) was a painter who would make paintings of the exhibits at the Louvre for people who were unable to visit. How many people would have known what the Mona Lisa would have looked like at the time? I'd assume that typically only people who had traveled to Paris would have seen it.

With this year closing out, there are tons of things to sit back and reflect on, and here at /r/AskHistorians one of our favorite things to chat about is books. This thread is the place to share your thoughts on all that reading you got through in 2015, and maybe what you are planning on tackling for the coming year as well!

Both new releases of the past year, as well as ancient tomes that you dusted off are fair game here, and while obviously we're of an historical mindset here, there is nothing wrong with gushing about that 'sword and sandal' thriller, or swooning about a bodice-ripper or two. We can't be reading paradigm shifting opuses all the time after all.

So, fellow Historians, what did you read last year!? What was the best!? What was the worst!? What are you putting on your shelf for the year to come!?

(Special thanks to /u/Cptbuck for suggesting this idea, as well as /u/TheGreenReaper7's whose post last week provided some additional inspiration)

After reading the recommended books section and giving it some thought, I bought The Proud Tower, by Barbara Tuchman (almost done with this one, just one chapter left) and The Sleepwalkers, by Christopher Clark.
Now, Clark's book gets nothing but praise and I'm looking forward to reading it, but I also read an equal amount of good things about The War That Ended Peace, by Margaret MacMillan (not included in the recommended list) and was convinced by the various reviewers claiming MacMillan's work and The Sleepwalkers complement each other really well.
I'd like to clarify that I'm an avid reader, these are my first history books and I want to have a clear understanding of these events. I'm from South America so I have to order my books online and they take a good amount of time to arrive. For this reason I have to plan my reading list in advance and, finally, my question is: am I good to start with the actual conflict after these three books? Is there another book that's really worth reading because it treats an aspect ignored by the rest or maybe has a really interesting and contrasting point of view?

What led him to prefer leaving Rome as an autocracy, as opposed to establishing institutions more in line with his presumably republican/populist upbringing? Did he not consider the office of Principes powerful enough that it might cause problems of its own?