If Alan Turing was never to break The Enigma Code would the allied forces have still won or would Nazi Germany 'win' the war?

In theory, If I were a Historian in the early 19th Century, what major misconceptions (if any) would I have about ancient and general world history?

#From Wikipedia article of the duel: -

Modern historians have debated to what extent Hamilton's statements and letter represent his true beliefs, and how much of this was a deliberate attempt to permanently ruin Burr if Hamilton were to be killed. An example of this may be seen in what a historian has considered to be deliberate attempts to provoke Burr on the dueling ground, specifically Ogden's perspective that

Hamilton performed a series of deliberately provocative actions to ensure a lethal outcome. As they were taking their places, he asked that the proceedings stop, adjusted his spectacles, and slowly, repeatedly, sighted along his pistol to test his aim.[32]

It has also been claimed that Hamilton also made a conspicuous choice of dueling pistols, choosing the same pair which had shot a button off Aaron Burr's coat some five years earlier during a duel with Hamilton's brother-in-law John Barker Church (Chernow describes this assertion as a 'legend',[33]pointing out Burr's own statement that the pistols used in the duel with Church were his own and not Church's[34]). These details have caused many historians in recent years to re-examine the circumstances of the engagement and Hamilton's true intentions on the morning of July 11. Subsequent examination of the pistols used by Hamilton has revealed that they were fitted with a "hair trigger."[35] This would have brought considerable advantage in aiming accurately. Hamilton may have been unfamiliar with their use, and a mistake in arming them may have caused the gun to fire prematurely. This may have been the cause of Hamilton's errant first shot. If so, such a scenario would contradict the account that Hamilton fired into the air intentionally.

When I was a kid, I used to be really interested in the pre-spanish colonization civilizations of south america (Aztecs, Mayas, etc.). Recently, I thought it would be nice to pick up a book and revisit this part of history. Do you have any books to recommend?

This may seem like a stupid question but did two armies just happen to find one another while on the move or would there have been an agreed location to begin a battle?

In the FX show "Taboo", set in the early 19th century London, an episode showed the upper class at a party where chemists had bags of nitrous oxide (laughing gas) that they sprayed into the air as they circulated crowded rooms of the mansion, in front of guests faces, etc.. How authentic was this practice?

Why is the USA's nuking of Japan not considered/remembered as one of the largest acts of terrorism of all time? (>100 000 civilian casualties by modest estimates)

When you grow up in the religion there is nothing but positivity regarding these figures. Are there reliable sources that talk about them negatively? And the events that happened around the time of Jesus and Muhammed, the wars and alike, are they accurately portrayed, or is it safe to say that these were manipulated and to fit a narrative? Also, how easy would it be at those times to manipulate historical facts?

Regards,

I'm finishing up my degree this semster and of course, have my final capstone project to complete. I've narrowed down my research to a landmark SC case of The Church of the Lukumi vs. The City of Hieliagh, FL in 1993. Here's where I'm having trouble after a few discussions with my professor about my forming of an argument: The Church of the Lukumi's struggle in the court system is one of the most important cases in the Supreme Court because it reveals the challenges of a religious minoriorty group's suppression through legislation, and demands the courts to revise and reform the standards of general applicability of the law through their free exercise of religion.

Shortly thereafter Congress passed the RFRA ( Religious Freedom Restoration Act) in 1993 and referenced both the Smith and Verner cases in regards to the standards of general applicability of the law, free exercise, and so on.

My thoughts to put out a frame work is to first discuss the Lukumi case and the actors behind it, outline the oral arguments and the ruling of the SC, discuss the RFRA, discuss both cases referenced in not only the oral arguments for the Lukumi case, but those used in RFRA (unclear if I should do this before or after RFRA), and then in closing show the change over time such as the recent Hobby Lobby case( perhaps this is more of an afterward).

I have even actively researching and getting a basic understanding of these events, but I seem to keep running into the same conversation with my Professor tht I do not have an argument.

If any historians out there would be willing to discuss the topic, or even just basic ideas on how I can fine tune/ narrow my argument I would appreciate it. I of course, am not looking for someone to complete my work for me! Just ideas/ advice on how to proceed. Thanks!

Considering the number of years that the US fought the Vietnam War and its sheer intensity, it comes as quite a surprise to me that the war appears to be a mere footnote in US-Vietnam relations these days. Why is that so?

This includes the army of the Republic and the Empire. Did Rome's Army ever have any marching songs with lyrics or did they just use the beat of drums for marching or did they just leave any musical elements away?

I have heard that Roman soldiers were paid in Salt, and we still have phrases like a man "worth his salt". In ritualism around the world as well, salt also seems represent something rather valuable.

My basic understanding is that Salt was a precious commodity in Ancient times, was valuable during the height of the Spice Trade, and then became mundane in modern times.

So what happened to change that, and when?

Was Salt ever particularly valuable?

(Yes, I'm sure its a large global industry so its not exactly "devauled", but my understanding is that it certainly used to be much more valuable per pound)

Thanks!

In hindsight it seems fairly obvious that it was many years in the making. Was this common knowledge at the time or was the public unaware of rising tensions within the band?

To clarify he was an Iranian historian who took a keen interest in Islamic studies. He always claimed this, but I was curious what some other people thought about his idea.

Edit: I meant the niqab, not the hijab, thank you for pointing this out.