0
What else can I help you with?
How did the improvements in siegecraft effect the Netherlands?
The Netherlands was subject to a siege, however, it had an ample supply of crops and other supplies to delay any surrender to a siege. A sieging army might take up to two months to effect a surrender from its target. Despite developments in sieges there was always the problem of having enough troops that were required to implement an effective siege. Then there was always the danger of having to protect itself from an army of relief.
What is the history of the catapult?
History of CatapultsIn Europe, the first catapults appeared in later Greek times around 400 BC-300 BC. According to Roman engineer Heron of Alexandria, the first types derived from by the earlier gastraph�tes ("Belly shooter"), constisting in camposite bow mounted trasversely on a stock. Biton attributes the creation of the first crewed catapult to one Zopyrus from Taranto, in soutern Italy.Early adopters of the catapult design were Dionysius of Syracuse (who called it katapeltikon) and Onomarchus of Phocis. Katapaltai are mentioned in the Siegecraft (Poliork�tika) treatise of Aeneas Tacticus, from around 350 BC. It is probable that standard torsion-powered catapults entered in common use in Greek world and Macedon only around 330 BC. Alexander the Great introduced the idea of using them to provide cover on the battlefield in addition to using them during sieges. Projectiles included both arrows and (later) stones.Romans started to use catapults probably as booty from their wars against Syracuse, Macedon, Sparta and Aetolia (3rd-2nd century BC). Standard use of artillery (ballista and onager) is attested only from the time of Julius Caesar, however.In the Medieval times, when the trebuchet was introduced a relatively short time before the advent of gunpowder, the catapult became basically obsolete. Cannons soon replaced catapults as the standard siege weapon in Europe in the 14th century.During medieval times, catapults and related siege machines were the first weapons used for biological warfare. The carcasses of diseased animals and those who had perished from the Black Death or other diseases were loaded onto the catapult and then thrown over the castle's walls to infect those barricaded inside. There have even been recorded instances of beehives being catapulted over castle walls.The last large-scale military use of catapults was during the trench warfare of World War I. During the early stages of the war, catapults were used to throw hand grenades across no man's land into enemy trenches.At the present, in England, trebuchets are sometimes used by thrill-seekers as human catapults to experience being catapulted through the air. There has been at least one fatality, when the participant failed to land onto the safety net.newtest3
Was medieval warfare effective?
in its own right, yes. just as modern warfare is effective for fighting a modern war.medieval warfare you needed more technique and skill in modern war you learn how to hold a gun and who not to shoot but either way the first asnwer was right i ujst wanted to throw that in thereAnswerIt was effective throughout the medieval period when it suited the technology they had at the time but it would not be effective in modern warfare against modern technology.For example, a knight in full plate armour throughout the middle ages was feared on the battlefield as his armour could withstand alot of what was dished out to it and a heavy cavalry charge could devastate infantry ranks. Nowadays though, it is likely that a single soldier with a submachine gun could take down a whole unit of charging knights as their armour simply could not withstand a modern bullet.AnswerOf course, when determining if a style of combat, type of equipment, and tactics used is effective, one must compare it to others in contemporary use. You can't compare them between different time periods. In general, European Medieval warfare was effective, if modestly inefficient. The weapons and armor used were suitable to the task, and could both protect and inflict injuries without excessive problems. Tactics, however, were mostly very primitive, with the English-French battle of Agincourt being perhaps the most tactically advanced battle fought in the timeperiod. And, siegecraft was long and drawn out, often requiring years to successfully take strategic strongpoints.However, when compared with other contemporary warfare methods, European Medieval warfare was less effective. The various Ottoman and other Muslim forces of Middle Eastern cultures were generally more successful against European foes, than the opposite, despite having comparable technology levels. They were not decisively better, however, and superior European numbers (particularly in sieges) could overcome some deficiencies in European tactical prowess.When the Mongols showed up, though, the complete inadequacy of European tactical warfare was exposed. The Mongols were slightly technologically inferior (with little metal-making production ability), but were vastly more advanced in tactics and strategy. No Medieval European force of ANY size was able to defeat an opposing Mongol force, with the vast majority of battles being very significant defeats for the Europeans, despite the Mongols often being outnumbered. For Europeans still fought as warriors - that is, combat was a mob of individuals, seeking individual combat contests. The Mongols, on the other hand, understood small unit tactics, where groups of soldiers (not warriors - look up the difference) fought together as a unit to achieve a goal, not seek individual glory in 1-on-1 contests. Soldiers will alwaysdefeat warriors, unless ridiculously outnumbered.
