In describing a battle, how might the winner’s historical account be different from the loser’s account? All of the above
The two sides could describe the way they fought differently.
The two sides may disagree about what or who started the battle.
The two sides might disagree about who won the battle.

I believe that all of the above would be the correct answer. Let's say the two fighters were called A and B. Let's say A was the one who won the fistfight/argument/whatever they were unhappy about. A could say that they were the victim, and fought defensively. So could B. A could say that B started the battle, and B might be a sore loser, and deny the fact that they lost. If this is wrong, then I'd say the two sides could describe the way they fought differently, or the two sides may disagree about what or who started the battle could be the answer instead. Hope this helps! :)

It's 100% all of the above!

Explanation:

a-he encouraged islamic schools to introduce greek texts.

d-he invited greek scholars to teach their texts to the locals.

explanation:

the transmission of the greek classics to latin western europe during the middle ages was a key factor in the development of intellectual life in western europe.[1] interest in greek texts and their availability was scarce in the latin west during the earlier middle ages, but as traffic to the east increased so did western scholarship.

mark brainliest and have a great day!

the conclusion would be the most affected category scoring