About an old battle, two kingdoms' books say different things — each claims it won

Why

Ayesha wants a clean answer — one true book, one false — and that feels tidy. But history rarely splits so neatly. Each kingdom wrote from its OWN side, stressing what flattered it and quietly dropping what didn't; both can hold real facts AND a slant. So the job isn't to crown one and burn the other — it's to read both, notice where they AGREE (likely solid), and treat where they clash as each side's telling, then look for a third clue. Truth gets pieced together, not picked off a shelf. Test: two cricket fans describe the same match differently — you learn most by hearing both and spotting the common facts, not by trusting one blindly. Ayesha's approach isn't the only way, nor the best: historians compare accounts and cross-check, because each source is partial — the fuller truth comes from weighing them together.