Because history isn't written by only the winners (see also the bot reply, it is quite informative). Have you never heard of for example Lost Causers or Wehraboos?

And who says we never see war 'from the other side'? Plenty of ego-documents left by people from all sides in historical events like for example, WW II. If you haven't seen it, it is not because it does not exist, it is because you haven't read it.

And as others have said, the study of history requires one to be very circumspect, and this is the focus of aby historian in training.

One could say modern sex scandals in politics come to mind, think perhaps of famously Bill Clinton.

You'll find older examples, too. However, often they are more up for debate due to the context. Case in point, the case of the French king Philip I (1060-1108), who was put under Interdict by the pope (multiple times) for taking another (married) woman as his own. Whilst Philip repudiated his former wife, the Reform Papacy retaliated on moral grounds. The whole affair lasted years, and while Philip made it seem as if he broke of his second marriage, he stayed with his new woman. It went so far that the former husband (the Count of Anjou) of his new wife retracted his allegiance to the house of Capet & placed Anjou under the suzerainity of the Papacy... Clerical writers on the side of the Papacy couched this affair in terms of weakness of the flesh.

The reality was, however, more prosaic.

Philip's former wife was eventually barren, and with only one male heir, the king had his dynastic duty to consider and ensure more offspring. The feelings he might have held for his new woman we will never truly know. It is important to consider that in early medieval Europe, marriage as a singular concept was not yet established, and various forms of matching existed. Basically, noble and clerical values clashed as both sides were in the process of establishing social norms that in this regard, conflicted.

So the Pope and his cronies would say it was weakness of the flesh, but king Philip arguably had other things on his mind.

They acted according to the majority of settlers their allegiances. Those colonies who were populated by for example puritan emigrees sided with parliament, whereas crown colonies typically sided with the king. Their was some limited fighting but overall the colonies were pro-Parliament. The last rebellious islands in the Caribean were forced in line by Cromwell by 1652.

Not necessarily, differences would be regional & in part dependent on socio-political conditions and available material.

It isn’t and what you are postulating as has no equivalent in academic circles. Nobody of any credibility ever said this.

One is the leader-figure, the other the lackeys. People tend to see the people at the top first.

Yes, that clears up what you are aiming at. While I’m not English myself, I have a very strong preference for history books concerning English history. What I would surmise based on your example is that these sovereigns all are central to periods of socio-political ferment on which a general education will generally pay the most attention, even if - if were to go into academic detail - we can make many remarks around these. General education in any case tends to have this type of focus.

What is the stereotypical king epitome to you, and you mean they get preferred attention?

Yes, but when you have enough volunteers you don’t need to enforce it. The problem was the rapid escalation.

No, not in that strict sense.

We don’t know - Richard III might have had them killed, someone might have killed them to please Richard, maybe they just died due to other reasons. We don’t know.

Because they were running short of volunteers… Initially a lot of people volunteered to ‘fight commies’ & ‘liberate Vietnam’, yet that fiction soon was shown for what it was and it became harder to find recruits, hence the draft.

Because the outright majority never stayed. This is well documented by historians, in particularly Riley-Smith did extensive research into how crusades were organized by the nobility, it basically meant investing/pawning all their property to be able to fund it.

Important to point out that the Peace & Truce of God were purely Western Francian ideas. These were mimicked by Imperial ordinances in the HRE meant to have the same effect.

While I follow the sentiment, the contemporary reality was that Napoleon had done something no previous French monarch had even done: he tied together the eastern & western European spheres. By creating the Polish satellite he ensured that Russia for example would forever ‘haunt’ him till the end of his days. Russia had been generally lukewarm about what was happening in France up until then, no more so after that point.

Grand Duchy of Warsaw was a move in that direction, that is not the PLC itself, but a 4th political power between the other 3 Eastern European powerhouses. Keep in mind doing so was antagonizing these. Napoleon defeated them, sure, but not completely. That is not how war worked unless you are Napoleon after Moscow and Europe has had enough. If you want geopolitical stability & not war after war each few years, then at some point you want to create a stable political context. Messing with Poland was one of the (many) reasons that served to perpetually antagonize in particular Russia & caused Napoleon to get in too deep.

No, not at all, this is really peak hollywood fantasy to make things flashy. Fire arrows were seldom used, and only in specific contexts, certainly not in battle.

But cinematically it is ‘nice’.