I suppost I was, to a certain extent, infuenced by a previous thread, in which you and Raymott disagreed with each other.
Apart from that, this is what I was taught at school. Present perfect is used when people talk about things that happened in the past and have a present influence, so grammar books claim.
But the fact is that simple past works just as well in sentences such as the one being discussed in this thread. There is absolutely no good reason for saying that simple past can't be used when there is a present influence.
The only way simple past can be 'wrong' is if one arbitrarily defines it as being wrong in this context. That's exactly what some people who are very fond of perfect tense have done.
The reason I would tell people that I've studied history is that I am speaking of my current knowledge of Habsburgs by introducing a fact that something
was done in the past.
(my underling)
Since something was done in the past,
why in the world would anyone think that simple past would be not as good as present perfect?
Then again, I am probably just quating an example of a statement with which you disagree.
Honestly, I don't know if there is a real difference between the present perfect tense and the simple past tense or not,
In some sentences there is, but in many there is no difference at all except for the present perfect having an unnecessary word. dispite all these years of self-studying and all I've heard and read.
All you can do is decide for yourself.
Contrary to what Raymott suggested in the thread you reference, I am not the only one who thinks simple past is at least as good as present perfect in sentences such as the one in this thread.