the jolt of the shot sends a very intense vibration into the shooters and it gives them a short sexual arousal. Also, the thumping of the cannons will weaken the foundations of the sleeping quarters so as to provide easy entrance.
The best weapon to use in attacking is a long sword,switch axe,and great sword. The good weapon to use in defending is a lance. The good weapon in speed is the sword and shield. It matters if your good at a long sword,switch axe, and great sword, lance,sword and shield. If you feel good when using a long sword then it means that it is power full.
Castles are stationary structures, not very good at attacking. Castles are mainly for defence. One option would be to open a gate and let cavalry out to attack the opposing army and then hurry back before the enemy made it up to the gates.
In 1086, or any year before about 1350, castles made good sense. The only ranged weapon was the longbow, and a strong stone wall with parapets could keep invaders out of the castle as long as there was food and water. The advent of gunpowder and cannons changed everything. A couple of large cannon, dragged near the castle, could compel the defenders to surrender or be destroyed. Cannon fire could break down most average castle walls, and if the defenders didn't have cannon of their own, the outcome would be certain. In the 1600s and later, newer "star fortifications" would be built allowing the defenders' cannon to be used to destroy an attacking army. But these "star forts", vaguely shaped like a 7-pointed star, didn't much look like a castle and were more like fortified cities.
Because They just had moats and 0pen bridges to get into the castles.
"Japanese castles 1540-1640" (2003) by Stephen Turnbull is a good one, but your taste may lie in European castles.
Because before gunpowder castles were virtually impenetrable. They were very good fortresses.
Many of the world's castles are now museums or rented out.
Castle building for military reasonscame to an end because of gunpowder and explosives being invented. When guns, cannons, howitzers, artillery and bombs became powerful enough to destroy any built structure, the castles became pointless from a military perspective. Castles kept being built every now and then mainly for propaganda and/or romantic reasons. If you're a country, it can be good to show that you're wealthy enough to afford to build something huge and impressive, even if it isn't that useful any more.
In Northamptonshire there are two castles: # Rockingham Castle # Castle Ashby There are many good websites to get some good information about these castles. If you would like to view these websites click on one of the "related links" below.
Stone castles were good because unlike Motte and Bailey castles they could last longer and they couldn't catch fire as easily even though they they took longer to build. Also, Stone castles were a good source to show your religeon and how wealthy you were. Hope this helps.History is my faveourite subject at school so I know my stuff! :)
Medieval castles were neither good nor bad; they simply were. They were defensive fortifications within which the inhabitants could defend against invaders and from which the owner of the castle could impose his rule on the surrounding countryside. Today, the surviving medieval castles are good tourist attractions.
Castle building for military reasonscame to an end at about 1500because of gunpowder and explosives being invented. When guns, cannons, howitzers, artillery and bombs became powerful enough to destroy any built structure, the castles became pointless from a military perspective. Castles kept being built every now and then mainly for propaganda and/or romantic reasons. If you're a country, it can be good to show that you're wealthy enough to afford to build something huge and impressive, even if it isn't that useful any more.