I have heard that this battle was the turning point in stopping the muslim conquests in Europe, and after that point the muslim expansion from the iberic peninsula was forced to a complete halt

Is this true? Would we have a very different situation if the muslims won the battle? And, do people attribute to much importance to an event that would have happened anyway, regarless of the battle itself?

To my understanding, under international law, the Entente blockade could not prevent imports to neutral countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc... In fact it seems like such a thing would be very profitable. Did these countries bend under Entente pressure and refuse to trade with Germany?

1983 was in fact the year the F-117A became operational, and Clancy's description sounds an awful lot like the real deal. Were enough rumors floating around at the time, as he suggests in the book, to support such an idea? The plane wasn't made public until I think 1988. Did this upset anyone in the Air Force, or intrigue anyone in the Soviet Union? For all I know Popular Mechanics was talking about it already.....

I recently learned that all of Canada’s military falls under the umbrella of the Canadian Armed Forces rather than a Canadian army, navy, and Air Force. Why did Canada enact this change? And in practice does their military structure differ that much from other countries with separate branches?

I've heard this common phrase "history is written by the victors" before but with the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war I started to realize how big of a difference there can be between different accounts of it.

Current events led me on a hunt for some historical information about USSR vs "West" relations from the year 1800 onwards.

I am Polish and one point of contention here when discussing Ukrainian refugees is the Volhynia (Wołyń) massacre. I know that some people in my country still hold a grudge against Ukrainians for that particular event but after reading a Wikipedia article (which seemed to recount both sides of the story) I realized that our nation wasn't much better during that period.

That exact article made me realize that many events in our history taught as facts might not be facts in the first place or might as well be only a part of the whole story.

Even though it is impossible to avoid historical inaccuracies, how do you separate un-biased (or as un-biased as possible) information from propaganda when it comes to world history? Where can I find the best sources?

Not sure if this is the right place to ask. I live in the Philippines where sometimes our education systems are shit. And I live far from Manila(National Capital) so it only gets much worse from there. This kind of history is something I have not been taught yet, but should have. I want to know more.

I have only heard of stories of wars online. In school I have read Numbering The Stars and hopefully we'll look into more of this. Very hard to force myself to keep reading without choking up into tears.

But a question that resonates whenever I read is, why? Why is this happening? Is there something in these history books that I've missed? What is the reason for all this discrimination? I haven't gotten a straight answer to this question in google, let alone anyone in my country.

The reason I ask both questions is this. When we talk about the relationship between the U.S government and Native American tribes(this can apply to Canada as well) it often comes across like this. The U.S government is on the East Coast. You have these independent Native American tribes in the West Coast. And the U.S government just invaded and colonised their territory.

Now the invasion and colonisation of Native American land is true. But when the Thirteen colonies became independent weren't many Native Americans already living under the colonial rule of other European powers that ruled parts of the continental U.S? I'm thinking of the French who ruled what was called Louisiana before the purchase Jefferson made or the Spanish who ruled over places like Florida.

And to second this question, when Little Bighord was fought against the Native American tribes in 1876, wasn't Manifest destiny already completed by then? At least by thirty years since the Mexican American War? Just trying to brush up on the specifics when it comes to my understanding of history.

Why did it change every reign, in comparison to the later repeats of regnal names by post-Norman English monarchs?

What made Valentine and Patrick's day unique when there are many more saints and more famous saints than Valentine or Patrick? Saint Peter, Joan of Arc, George. What made Valentine & Patrick specifically special?

I am going out of my comfort zone and attempting to write a fictional story based in either the 18th or 19th century, but can't find anything online about my specific question. This could certainly be a dumb question, but firstly, could an uncle, if he had no heirs, or no wife, leave his estate to his nephew? I know that the Primogeniture law was a thing, but is that just if there is no written will? And secondly, if that is possible would it be frowned upon by the uncle's brother (nephew's father) to accept? Thanks! Hope this is the right place to ask this.