With current events, I am curious what might happen afterwards ~ And if you want to predict the future, the most accurate source of information is the past.

What happened after the Spanish Flu Epidemic of 1918? What was the world's mentality? What reforms occured in the wake of it?

I recently learned that this occurred under his administration but I haven’t found anything detailing if he knew about it and what his reactions were to it.

Edit:

As a follow up, what was Lincoln’s views on natives like during the civil war? What was his native America policy? Did he ever want to reform the way they were treated?

Did the Japanese prepare for a bombing run? Or did they think it was an empty threat or didn't have time to prepare? Why didn't Japan attempt to shoot down the plane?

Recent projects (read: Dungeons & Dragons) have pointed me to discover the ancient foodstuff known as Garum. But in mainstream sources, there are a lot of gaps in the information available. I can read all about how, where and in what quantity it was consumed in ancient Greece and Rome, but... That's it. Everything is in past tense. The method of preparation is still known, but as far as I can tell one day everyone just sort of... stopped.

So where did Garum go? Why is it so rare today and why did Europeans stop making it despite its apparent popularity?

I am currently reading Harriet Beecher Stowe's The Minister's Wooing after having finished Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Why is it that she sometimes puts an em-dash to censor certain years and names? (Example: "Mr. B—", "the year 17— AD"). I've seen other older authors do this as well. I find it incredibly inconsistent and quite distracting. Any insight?

A few questions for economic historians. I have recently been reading responses to bad libertarian history in r/badhistory wherein a libertarian (no disrespect to all libertarians, just the ones who do bad history) will look at some society, mostly in the distant past like Ancient Rome or Greece, look at how much the government intervenes in the economy (which is obviously not much, it's not like Ceaser had a broad range of Keynsian Macro-monetary controls that he could have used to keep interest rates at the right amount or anything) and then declare said society to be a free market/free trade paradise. Their mistake, it seems to me, is that they view the existence of any sort of market as the sole necessary and sufficient condition for capitalism and in so doing, make everything into capitalism. But this lead me to the realization that how capitalism is defined is actually incredibly important. So my main question is how can we reasonably define capitalism and what signs are there that its developed/developing? When I tried to think of my own answer, the conditions I thought would be considered sufficient are essential this:

1. Wage labor (free labor)
2. Mass commodity production (items produced for exchange rather than use, although I don't know how you would prove whether this existed
3. Markets on a large scale
4. Some sort of banking or reinvestment scheme(s)

Would these be reasonable criteria? If not, what are?

And as a secondary follow up question, I read on wikipedia that the earliest instances of things that resemble banks existed as early as 2000 bc so I'm curious what kind of qualitative differences are there between capitalist banking systems and pre-capitalist ones?

Sorry for the really long multi question rant, if anyone only feels like answering one or has something that I've gotten wrong thats totally fine, any information would really help. And I'm always looking for any book/paper recommendations too.

The Sengoku period is generally described as one in which daimyos waging war on each other was common, but was it really that common, or just far more common than at other points in history? Obviously the Onin War and the unification of Japan had large scale civil warfare, but between those, how much did a given daimyo need to fear his neighbors?

Along the same lines, just how many daimyos were there during that period? Did they roughly follow the pattern of the shugo system, or were daimyo who controlled multiple provinces or tiny fractions of a province common?

I’ve been reading Thomas Bartlett’s ‘Ireland: A History’. At the start of chapter two, ‘From Lordship to Kingdom: Ireland, 1169 - 1541’, he writes:

“... It was an English invasion and partial conquest: all talk of the ‘Normans’ or the Anglo-Normans’, or ‘Anglo-French’, or even ‘Cambro-Normans’ coming to Ireland is simply ahistorical. The invaders called themselves English (Engleis, Angli), were called Saxein (=English) or Gaill (=foreigner) by the Irish, and for the next seven hundred years were designated as English in the historical literature. Contemporaries never described them as Norman, Anglo-Norman, or much less Cambro-Norman. Only in the late nineteenth century, and largely on grounds of political sensitivity, was the identity of the English invaders fudged by these non-historical terms...”

Is this an accurate assessment? Had the Norman identity faded by that point and been replaced by a sense of being English?

Where does the stereotype of the French and being spies come from? Also why are most words associated with spying French and unchanged in English, example: Espionage, Sabotage, Saboteur. In modern media there are a lot of references to the French in spying as well; CIV VI the French get bonuses to spies, Team Fortress the Spy has a French accent, Dragon Age the country that is based on France has a lot of spies (bards). Where does this come from historically? Where the French always known for Spying? Why are the spies stereotyped as being French, and where does this come from?

I was reading Machiavelli’s Prince and he describes how it is necessary to have both the people and the army contented. If not, then either faction will revolt.

Why wasn’t this the case with Soviet Russia?

If say i was in prison for serious crimes during the start of ww1/2, would i have been made to fight on the front lines, or would i remain there for the duration? If yes, then would i have been returned to serve my time at the end of the war or granted some form of clemency for my service?

Other than of course the obvious reason that was a result of the Roman empire being stretched too thin.

I know the pyramids were covered and there was an actual point on the pyramids. I also know that they had funerary temples which performed necessary rituals and such. How long after this did the temples last before they were removed and the pyramids left to decay? Did they just last while the current pharaoh and abandoned quickly, or did they last a while?

When reading historical fiction and non fiction, it’s a relative common occurrence for riders or carriages to change their tired horses for fresh horses at post stations (or inns and other establishments) to enable a higher speed to be maintained throughout the journey. For stage coaches that make a specific journey repeatedly, one could assume they have a string of horses spread down the route and switch their own horses out for fresh horses that they own. Likewise for military supply and messenger routes. But for private individuals, who owned the horses they switched out their own for? in switching out the horses did they forfeit the horses they arrived on, even if they were better horses? Or did you personally have to possess horses at a post station in order to make a switch?

I already asked this here but I got no response. I dunno if that's against the rules, but I just wanted to see if more people would see the question if posted in a different hour.