• 
• 2 answers

• 
• 1 answer

Better weapons were made by armorers. Blacksmiths made weapons, and peasants made weapons by putting agricultural tools like scythe blades and bill hooks on poles. Bowyers made bows, fletchers made arrows, and heavy weapons like catapults were made by engineers. The early cannons were sometimes made by bellfounders.

• 
• 1 answer

OB is the abbreviation for obsolete.

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

Knights probably never used flails. The flail is a tool used for threshing grain. The first known use of it as a weapon in Europe was in the Hussite Wars, which were in the period of 1420 to 1434, where it was used by farmers.

There is a link to a very short article below.

• 
• 1 answer

Kublai defeated the song in 1279.so the answer is year 1279 :)

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

As a general answer, no - but with some possibilities.

the Celts were skilled craftsmen in the production and creation of iron and steel, and are known to have produced maille (chainmail) for defence. They are likewise known to have produced helms which involved the creation of metal plates it is not impossible that the same skills were used for body defenses.

Tacitus makes reference to the German Celts wearing strong metal armour, but it is uncertain if this is solid plate, or maille.

Therefore, it should be concluded that it is certainly possible that a few rare peices of plate defence such as breastplates were made by the Celts, but there is insufficient evidence of its use to state so with absolute certainty. What is absolutely certain is their use of metal, non-plate armours.

• 
• 1 answer

they were more violent and increased taxes. They did not know the same language as the Chinese.

• 
• 1 answer

Sultan Mehmed II of the Ottoman Empire was famous for mainly conqoring the one of the Holy Christian city of Constantinople and reforming its power and people to Islam beleifs. After conqoring the city, he moved the Ottoman Empire capital from Adrianople to Constantinople. To control his people from Christian uprisings, he gave them a choic; switch to Islamic or die. The Christian men who feared death chose to change religions, as though who were true to God and his son, chose death. The migration of people to Constantinople increased ideas, for individuals from all over where sharing ideas. Besides conqoring the city of Constantinople, Sultan Mehmed is also given credit for Eastern European urbanization.

• 
• 1 answer

No and no.

Specifically, arrows for bows are longer and more flexible as a slight flex can improve an arrow's flight, but crossbows would be too powerful and break the arrow.

Crossbow bolts/quarrels are far too short to be used correctly in a bow, as a real archer would never partially draw the bow to shoot an arrow, yet a bolt would not be long enough for the archer to draw back to his or her anchor point (that same place on their face they always draw back to, to make shots powerful and consistent).

• 
• 1 answer

Sometimes, but usually not. Because battles were mostly conducted by Royalty, there would usually only be someone to take the place of a killed or injured leader if there were other Royals on the field. There was nothing like the chain of command and the organised leadership transfers that there are in today's armies

To expound on the above, Western medieval combat was basically a semi-organized mob. Each side would consist of several groups, each usually commanded by the noble from whose lands the soldiers came. There would be a single "commander" of the whole army, but this person was often not in operational control of the army. There did not exist any sort of chain-of-command; rather, the assemblage of nobles would usually pick a leader (and often a deputy) to be in overall command. This commander could then issue what we would now call directives (rather than orders) to each of the nobles' groups.

For instance, here's how a medieval army might be "structured":

King A brings 100 knights, 1000 man-at-arms, and 500 archers.

King B bring 200 knights, 5000 man-at-arms, but no archers.

Noble C (who nominally owes fealty to King B) bring 100 knights.

Noble D (an independent noble who isn't royalty, but isn't a vassal of King A or B) bring 500 man-at-arms and 500 archers.

A, B, C, and D would all retain "command" of their individual groups of soldiers (it would be very unlikely to do something like combine the archers of A & D into one group under someone else's command). Probably, King B sould be selected as the leader of the whole army. King A would likely be elected deputy commanders. In all likelihood, though, Noble C and D would NOT take "orders" from A unless they knew that B had been killed or otherwise out-of-action.

If that sounds horrible, it was. Medieval battles were notoriously uncoordinated and chaotic, with bad battlefield communication technology making the situation even worse.

Formal chain-of-command structures didn't start occuring until the end of the medieval period, when warfare shifted towards nation vs nation rather than traditional feudal warfare. That is, things didn't really improve until the Renaissance.

• 
• 1 answer

The fork had not quite gained all its tines so there was a pointed stick, knives, and spoons. Forks were in fact hardly used at all until after the renaissance.

Most cutlery in the medieval period was made out of pewter or sometimes wrought iron. Silver cutlery was sometimes used by the gentry, but even they often used pewter and wrought iron.

• 
• 1 answer

The weapons available to enforce the law were basically peasant farm tools. The law keepers of the Middle Ages were quite different from what we have today, and there were no official police organizations. The types of law keeping organizations differed from place to place as well.

In England, for example, there were constables, who were able to get support by recruiting from local peasants, when that was necessary, and tithings, which were the groups of peasant families from which the constables got their support. A tithing was nominally a group of ten households and was held responsible, as a group, for maintaining the peace. If one of the members of a tithing got into trouble with the law, the tithing was held responsible for seeing that the person was available to be tried.

• 
• 1 answer

Catapults have been used since before Alexander the Great. Around 400 BC I think. These were simple ones like a bow tilted sideways on steroids. Called a gastrophetes or belly bow. Then Romans made some nice catapults called onagers (100 BC to 300 AD was their high time). Eventually you get to trebuchets which had counterweights and were the biggest and baddest of all. These were used in medieval times up to the late fourteen century until cannons beat them out. Hope this helps!

• 
• 1 answer

Yes very. They were known as the bane of christianity as they moved in to eirope on their military campiagns and killed Christians.

Generally, people throughout history have used the term "barbaric" to mean "something different than the way we do things", implying that the "barbaric" way was inferior. Which, of course, was not strictly true.

In that sense, the mongols were "barbaric", because they most certainly were very different than the European cultures of the time.

In the other sense of the word "barbaric", meaning "cruel or brutal", the tactics of the Mongols could certainly be characterized as such. The Mongols were famous for butchering to the last person any city which refused to surrender to it. That is, the Mongol army would arrive at a city, and demand it's surrender. If it refused, and the Mongols later captured the city (which, happend the vast majority of the time), then Mongols would then kill everyone inside. Even if the city surrendered immediately, the typical Mongol response would be to depopulate the city (move everyone out) into the local countryside, raze the entire city to the ground, then sell large portions of the remaining population into slavery, while forcing the rest into agricultural work.

• 
• 1 answer

Catapults were built for infiltration of reinforced areas. also used for terrifying citizens during a siege

• 
• 1 answer

I think war has always been a constant feature, except recently. We know more about wars in the Late Middle Ages than we do of the Early Middle Ages, but that is probably because records were not kept in the Early Middle Ages quite as well in the later times. Remember, the Early Middle Ages was prehistoric for large parts of Europe, and we have very little information about what was happening in those places.

As English speaking people, our sense of history is also very much formed by the history of England. The Late Middle Ages is often dated as being from 1300 to 1453, and the Hundred Years' War lasted from 1337 to 1453, nearly the entire time. When we consider the broader picture, we see that in the years from the start of the Late Middle Ages to the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, there were other conflicts going on, with the English being involved in the Wars of Scottish Independence from before 1300, with only four years' break, until 1357. So there were only four years in which England was not at war in the Late Middle ages.

But if we compare this with the Early Middle Ages, Britain was occupied by a large number of small kingdoms, and there was always conflict among them. We read about the heptarchy, which had seven kingdoms, but in fact the number was closer to twenty, and that was just Anglo-Saxons. Include Scots, Picts, Welsh, and others, and there was quite a number of small nations. And we have not begun to talk about Vikings, who were at constant warfare with All of these people.

In the High Middle Ages, England was often warring with the Welsh, Scots, and each other. Of course, we must remember the crusades.

Since the Middle Ages, there was nearly always some sort of war going on in Europe, until the late 19th century.

Before the Middle Ages, there was a time some historians refer to as the Pax Romana. But you might consider the gates of Janus, which were closed when there was peace everywhere for Romans. During the first centuries of their existence, under the kings and the republic, they were only closed twice for short times. Augustus closed them two or three times, each time to be reopened. They were occasionally closed under later emperors, to much celebration. But they never stayed closed for long.

Hopefully, the 20th century taught us something, which is that wars are too costly for anyone to win. When a war starts, the most likely result is that everyone loses.

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

• 
• 1 answer

In runescape. You can always

• 
• 1 answer

Troy if the myth is correct well at least i think so

• 
• 1 answer

No it is the most modernly build castle in the U.k. Build after world war 2.

• 
• 1 answer

NO. They successfully staved off 2 invasion attempts made by the Mongols in 1274 and 1281.