Schools seem like a ready-made breeding ground for communicable diseases; I like to refer to my nieces as little petri dishes. But how did schools handle outbreaks of serious diseases like the Spanish Flu & Polio in the early 20th century? Did they have set responses, or was it all ad hoc?

There is so much nonsense involved with Sparta in its heyday that I'm absolutely not surprised about but just realized that Athens was more intellectual and record based. How do we know that Athens didn't hate Sparta so much that they labeled the city state in history as murderous pedophelliac slave drivers? Even though said practices were more common than not probably?

Since submarines were relatively new in WW1 and there weren’t any proper countermeasures to fight back against them so what would Allied Convoy ships do in WW1 to avoid getting destroyed by German U-boats in WW1

I have recently come across several relatively new journals and articles that depict China’s modernisation as a feat largely attributed to Deng Xiaoping. (Cynically) Disregarding Mao’s economic policies’ huge cost of life, how much did he actually help to modernise and industrialise China?

Time to vote for the best answers of February 2020! Upvote your favorites (plural!); add links to any answers you think belong on this list.

Why weren't European settlers/explorers/conquerors affected by contact with unfamiliar diseases to the extent that indigenous people were?

We've all heard of people like Yente the Matchmaker who seemed to play a strong role in deciding the romantic fates of youth in the old country. How realistic was this?

Was matchmaking a formal profession that families would turn to or were they just the village busy bodies? Were they paid or tipped for their service?

Food and housing struggles are still incredibly common in the world today, and are often are what contemporary leftists are railing against in their critiques of society. But, it feels like lack of access to clothing isn't really brought up anymore, despite taking up an entire section in The Conquest of Bread. Were clothing shortages really as big of an issue in the 1890s as lack of access to food or shelter? And if so what factors lead to this not being the case anymore? What changed so that we have relatively easy access to clothing today?

Recently Ive looked into causes of the American Civil War and the overall timeline of the war starting from Bloody Kansas.

I got to the part where i read about the emancipation proclamation in 1863 and started to think about why it was enacted in the middle of the war and came to the conclusion that European powers where getting antsy about the lack of cotton imports and may have been getting ready to take action.

So is the view that the American Civil War was never about slavery or states rights but instead about Preservation of the Union, Correct in this sense or am i missing something?

I know that the Romans had the four-horned saddle and that the Sassanids also had some pretty good saddles, but cavalrymen were fighting as cataphracts long before this. Given the immense weight of their armour and that they were using lances, how did they stay on their horses?

As a Korean American, I often hear about how terribly my people were treated by the Japanese during the colonial period in Korea. However, I also hear from different sources that varied on how they were treated relatively better compared to other races, particularly other Asians and white people, especially from Allied countries like Britain and America. While I've heard the Japanese treated the Taiwanese better than Koreans, how did the treatment of Koreans compare to say Chinese people or American POWs?

I'm not trying to dismiss or downplay the actions of Imperial Japan, I'm just curious.

Why did soldiers 250 years ago march toward gun, and cannon fire? Was It an act of bravery or negligent foresight on the commanding officers in charge?

I've have read some publications that make the soldiers lives seem dispensable.

The popular conception of Alexander the Great is that of a man who essentially single-handedly lead the Greeks to establish a great empire over the known world. Is this accurate, or is does that narrative ignore other key factors that allowed him to achieve as much as he did?

In addition, can his personal image be attributed to a posthumous (or contemporary!) "cult of personality," or can we accept without reservation the deified Alexander the Great that history has conveyed to us?

Hi all! I have two questions: can you help me sort out the ranks of the nobility and how to address them?

Feudalism is crazy and complicated, but help me out as best you can. Below I will have ranks of noble titles in order of rank the higher you are on the list the higher your title is). Could you fill in any gaps I have and make any corrections. Let’s assume this is the 1200 or 1400s Britain.

The King- Your Majesty Prince- Your Highness Duke- Your Grace Earl/Count- Your Excellency? Baron- also your Excellency?? Knights- Sir.

Also, where do margraves, baronets, and viscounts fit in?

Had a fruitless discussion about this in class hoping some of you can clear the air

It seems the biggest criticism of Elvis Presley was that he "stole" black music and it made him popular. Regardless if that statement is true or not he did cover many songs that were originally recorded by black artists and musicians. Did any contemporary black artists have any opinions either positive or negative of Elvis during that time?