[deleted]

I've heard several accounts of Nathan Rothschild increasing his fortune many times over, having received news from an agent named Rothworth that Wellington had triumphed well before the public. The story goes that Rothschild hung his head in the London stock exchange and began selling his British consul bonds, triggering a fire sale which his agents then capitalized on to scoop up bonds at a fraction of their value, making him a fortune when news of Wellington's victory was known.

However, other sources have said that the increase in wealth occured mostly between 1818 and 1823, due to his having financed the war effort itself, and was the result of a slower and more long-term investment.

I am having trouble finding primary sources to this effect- wouldn't there tend to be recordings of stock transactions? In any case, which is believed to be more true, and how did the story of Rothworth come about if it is not? Thank you all for your help, and I am sorry if I've breached etiquette or subreddit rules, or if the information could be found in a previous thread. I am excited to make my first post here.

I know that there would be certain major differences, such as a Latin liturgy and the priest conducting mass with his back to the congregation, but are there any other, smaller differences? As an extra question, how did the earliest Christians practice, and when did something resembling a Roman Catholic mass first emerge?

It seems to be the official stance of /r/History that the trope of history being written by winners is a false one. I don't know enough about history in general to truly disagree that stance, but I'm struggling to find any real logic in denying the idea. What am I missing that argues against winners writing history? (In general, of course.)

[deleted]

I know there were probably newspaper articles and campaign stops that people saw, but it obviously didn't have a big enough audience than today because of television, radio and the Internet. Was the public, generally speaking, less informed about the candidates' positions and what they wanted to do as president?

[deleted]

You can see this by looking at 1920, 1930, and then 1940 model year cars. Aviation technology also seems to have improved greatly in the 1930s. The DC-3 is a great example of a 1930s plane still used today, while no 1920s aircraft would be used today other than at airshows. Why was the prosperous 1920s a more stagnant period when it comes to technological innovation and why did it take a worldwide economic depression to end this stagnation?

The other day me and my friends were at a sporting event and fans started booing. This happened almost instinctively after a bad show of sportsmanship. When did this become common place?

I was considering that the Romans may have been the originators of this, given the gladiator matched etc. But my question goes further than that. Did it originate independently from culture to culture. Or did one culture just spread it to the others it met?

In reading Roman history, one often finds reference to structures raised by people communally, by rulers, or by private individuals for various reasons. How in practice would this process look like? How much in terms of resources would projects of various scales take? I'm interested primarily in structures for human use rather than monuments or statues. I'm also somewhat interested in e.g. water and sewage projects, or dredging projects, but I still am most interested in buildings that people would walk around in.

My perspective is couched from the perspective of Rome, as I don't know anything about private monumental or public use construction projects in other civilizations, though I'd be happy to hear about those too, especially (classical) Asian or Indian ones.

Also, how much would be calculated out versus done by experience in terms of planning a viable construction project? How often did these projects result in an unsafe building that would later fail? Did the contemporaries understand the reasons for the failure of their buildings properly? What sorts of cares would be taken to construct with an eye to surviving water damage of various forms? Fire? Earthquake?

Also, how unstable was a Christian-Muslim alliance as opposed to a normal union between European christian lords?

And finally, how likely was a lord of a specific religion to give millitary support to their Interfaith friends?

I was reading about the silk road and its role on the spread of Islam, but I am not quite sure as to why Islam didn't spread into China like in other places.

First time posting on this sub so go easy on me if this is a dumb question. While reading about the nazi regime I've come to notice that Rommel doesnt seem like he knew much of anything about "the final solution" and seemed more preoccupied with military operations and things of that nature. Was he involved/ aware of what was happening or was he just strictly a cog in the war machine? I know a lot most Germans were kept in the dark but I'm curious because he was so important to the war machine