Was the loss considered a big deal in European politics of the day, or was the American Revolutionary War considered more of a proxy war between other European powers, and the loss simply a minor event of a larger European political environment?

I've been trying to research it and from what I have found it basically says that shia's want Muhammad's bloodline to rule and the sunni's want elected leaders. I can understand this disagreement - but how does it go from this to ISIS saying that they want to destroy the Kaaba? Shouldn't they all we worshipping the same things but just have a disagreement about who's in charge? Are they effectively two different religions now?

I mean come on. Were they represented by the British? France was represented and they got knocked out six weeks after Germany attacked. SIX WEEKS. Canadians even participated in the Normandy invasions. What's up with that?

I heard today that ISIS has vowed to "Destroy Mecca’s Kaaba, 'Kill Those Who Worship Stones.'" A friendly redditor suggested that:

"The idea of wanting to destroy the Kaaba has a long and interesting precedent. Throughout history, Arabs who have traditionally hated Muhammad have expressed their desire of doing so, probably out of spite of what Muhammad represents. Yazid bin Muawiya of the opposing clan of the Ummayads, who massacred Muhammad's family including Muhammad's grandson Hussein at Karbala, also attacked the Kaaba with catapults. Previously, Muhammad's grandfather Abdul Muttalib organized the defense of the Kaaba against another attacker named Abraha. In the current incarnation, ISIS represents Wahabi'ism, a cult that wishes to erase Muhammad's heritage and establish the supremacy of the rival, non-Hashemite clans descended from Ummaya and Abd Shams(translated as slave of the Sun). Wahabis have already destroyed many heritage buildings belonging to Muhammad and his family and friends in Saudi Arabia, under the same guise. So why the enmity stretching over centuries? At its core was the ideology of Muhammad. Muhammad belonged to the poor, the downtrodden, the disenfranchised. The opposing clans represented elitism, money, power and Arab imperialism. It was the selfless vs the selfish. They tried to persuade, bribe, cajole, armtwist him to their side. He refused. They massacred most of his family. The survivors refused to budge, citing egalitarianism and condemning the trappings of concentrated power and wealth. And so it continues to this day."

How accurate is this assessment? It seems biased, but I know very little about the subject.

I recently watched this movie. I'm wondering how much was fiction and fact. I know this film was made during the war so I'm thinking there might have been propaganda reasons to twist the facts a little.

I'm familiar with the Pontic hypothesis, but don't know what evidence suggests an Anatolian origin. Is there significant linguistic and archeological evidence to support an origin in modern Turkey?

I'm asking as my History education focused largely on isolated periods and locations with little focus on any other subjects. I only found out about the English Anarchy last week through chance!

How do I find out about the larger narrative so that I can use other sources to fill in the specifics?

I was recently listening to a portion of a TED talk where the speaker claimed that due to a combination of coffee houses being a place where intellectuals gathered and shared ideas, and that they had coffee to drink rather than the ubiquitous alcohol of the day, they greatly accelerated the enlightenment. Is there any truth to this claim?

It wasn't connected to the rest of their country by land and it wasn't even connected to a sea.

For example, I have recently read several books on WWI, and they all have called Romania 'Rumania.'

I think we all grew up with the importance of the food pyramid, but previous to this, was there any precedence for the importance of variety in diet?

In many works of fiction, particularly video games, Dwarves usually have a Scottish accent. Is there any reason for this? I'd have thought since a lot of fantasy worlds are inspired by Tolkien that the Dwarves would be equally inspired by Norse mythology and by the Jewish people, as are Tolkien's.

If there's a better place to ask this, could you please point me in that direction?

If so, why aren't they as well known as the Pacific campaign? If not, why wasn't it as important?

I'm looking for information on how a murder trial would have proceeded in Scotland in the early 1600s. Beyond the Justice of the Peace/Magistrate, would there have been prosecutors or an equivalent? Would there be defence/prosecution arguments etc? In short, how would it have differed from trials as they're conducted these days?

Facts or directions to further reading would be majorly appreciated. Thanks!