0
That depends on what you wanted to use them for, and what you are comparing them against. Obviously they were good enough to win many battles. But if you wanted to use them for finer work like opening cans, or to defend against modern sieges, they would obviously be bad. How about rephrasing the question to permit a more solid answer?
What else can I help you with?
What is the main reason of nuclear weapons being bad?
Nuclear weapons are tools. Tools can be neither bad nor good. The only things that can be bad or good are the people using them and the purpose those people use them for.
Did the roman emperor constatine have a good or bad reputation?
he was a good emperor
How are weapons bad?
Weapons are used to kill other people. Since murdering others is bad, weapons are bad.
How is evaluated the ruling of the roman emperor Nero?
he was good and bad
Does the roman goddess Nox have any good or bad traits?
She seems to be just the night, neither bad nor good.
What are the bad points for using a siege?
it can hurt you
Was the roman army a good thing or a bad thing?
rome need an army
Is the world ready for energy weapons?
depends if the world is ready for no bad wars and to finally use it for the good
Why was Henry III a bad king?
Which Henry III - of France, England or the Holy Roman Empire. Each one had good points and bad points. None could be considered bad.
What was bad and good about the siege tower?
Siege towers were of benefit in breaching enemy defenses/fortifications . For those within the siege engine itself they were in danger of having boiling oil scalding them and if the tower were set alight then those trapped could be burned alive or subject to missiles as they attempted to exit and flee from the tower itself .
What is Julius Caesar Appearances?
roman, evil, a good general, stupid, all the bad things u can think about inc. he conquered Europe.
What are the good and bad points about a siege?
It depends on what perspective(s) you are studying - strategical/military, environmental, socioeconomic, etc. From a military point of view, sieges are good for the army that is sieging because casualties can be greatly reduced as opposed to rushing a fortified position. Sieges are bad for the sieging army because they are expensive since they can take a lot of time - soldiers need to be fed and paid, disease can spread through the army, supplies can run low and the siege can fail if it is not well supplied. Sieges are good for the army getting sieged because there is time to make plans, regroup, make better defenses, and all while not suffering too many casualties. Sieges are bad for the army getting sieged because supply routes are cut off, so food and water stocks will be worn out as the siege progresses. Siege equipment will also damage the fortification during the process of the siege. There are just a few things but there are surely more that you can think about!
