Broad-side swords, crossbows, battle axes and catapults are the common ones.

The Trebuchet is a weapon that flung rocks or dead cows hoping to spread disease. catapults were out-classed by the monagol

Allow me to expand on this answer:

I'll assume that we're talking about the mid-medieval era, and there were MANY different weapons for many different purposes.

Swords were acctually less common then many people think - they worked well against unarmored peasents, but they were only usefull for breaking bones if someone was wearing chainmail. They were almost alltogether useless against a fully armoured knight. To take down one of these walking tanks, a Mace or other blunt-type weapons were prefered by many nobles. Getting bashed on the head by a big heavy piece of steel leaves your ears ringing if you're wearing a metal helmet...and taking off your helmet after a good hit would be many people's first instinct - which was the whole idea behind hitting your helmet to begin with.

Halberds were another handy weapon with multiple roles, useful against mounted and dismounted soldiers alike.

Bows were another common place weapon. Particularily the longbow with England, which Henry V used in a desicive victory over the french heavy cavalry at the battle of Agincourt in 1415 during the hundred years war.

here's a list of weapons I can think of off the top of my head:

Spear, Lance, Javeline, Axe, Mace, Swords(short,broad) Clubs, Bows, Halberd, Pike, Bows (short, long, cross),

and last but most certainly not least.....gunpowder!!(towards the end anyway)

i know i didn't include all weapons by anymeans, and everything i mentioned was handheld with the exception of gunpowder.

mostly farm tools were used because that's who fought the most not everyone was a knight in medieval times lol scythes were used ad so were flails both of which farm tools knights in full armor had a hard time walking because the armor was usually very heavy and knights on horseback sometimes had boots that made walking similar to walking with flippers it's wasn't the weight of the armor that was the problem usually though it was the flexibility

ANSWER 2

swords, 2 handed swords, crossbows, maces, battleaxes, flails, daggers, spears, javelins, clubs, bows and arrows. Just play runescape and know the answer.
Technically, a weapon is anything used for attack or defense, and medieval refers to something from the Middle Ages, so a medieval weapon would be something from the Middle Ages used for attack or defense. However, specific weapons present during the middle ages included many types of edged weapons (all variants of swords, daggers, axes or knives) ranged weapons such as bows, recurve bows, longbows, crossbows, javelins, throwing axes etcetera, polearm weapons such as spears, pikes, halberds, bills etcetera and siege weaponry ranging from catapults, mangonels and trebuchets etcetera through to siege towers, battering rams etctera.

How did the black death spread?

Because Europe was trading with the East, some medieval Europeans were aware of a mysterious disease sweeping through Asia in the 1330s. From Central Asia, the disease moved along an established trade route, passing through Turkestan and the Black Sea Region (Crimea and the Byzantine Empire).

In 1347, Kaffa, a town in modern-day Ukraine that was a Genoese trading post, came under attack by a Tartar army. When the Tartars were killed by the plague, the Genoese at first rejoiced: God had answered their prayers and punished their enemy. But that celebration ended when the Tartars began launching the corpses of plague victims over the walls of the city, hoping that the smell of rot would kill everyone in town. The smell didn't kill the Genoese, of course, but the disease did. The panicked Genoese threw the corpses back or submerged them in water. But it was no use; they were already exposed. As the dying Tartars retreated, the Genoese fled by ship to Sicily, taking the deadly disease with them to Europe.

Kaffa wasn't the only eastern trading port on the Black Death's path, but Genoa's ships took the blame for bringing the pestilence. Once it hit Europe, the Black Death moved fast, traveling at an average speed of 2.5 miles per day (4 km per day) [source: Duncan, Scott]. From the Mediterranean ports, the disease took two paths; one through France that eventually made its way to England and Ireland, and one through Italy that went to Austria and Germany. The Black Death moved through Europe astonishingly fast. Take a look at some of the stops on its path.

Written accounts state that the disease was frightfully contagious, and that death occurred only a few days after symptoms appeared. Other than this, people seemed to have no idea what was happening. Many felt that God's wrath was ravaging the earth and that the end of the world was near. Some theorized that Jews were contaminating the water supply. Both of these ideas spurred extreme responses that we'll explore in the next section.

When people began dying in France, King Philip VI turned to the Paris College of Physicians, the most highly-regarded medical authorities of the time, to learn the cause. The physicians produced a report that blamed the mass deaths on an event that occurred at 1 p.m. on March 20, 1345 -- the triple conjunction of the planets Saturn, Jupiter and Mars in Aquarius. The report explained that Jupiter, a wet and hot planet, soaked up evil vapors from Earth. And Mars, a dry planet, ignited the vapors and spread them through the air, which is how Europe got enveloped in a fog of death.
many believe that it started in China. Mongol army camps were the first sites.

According to the histories I have read, the war hammer was introduced during the 14th century. This would make it a weapon of the Late Middle Ages.
A war hammer is a very simple weapon, and would be, like many other weapons, a natural adaptation of a farm implement. It is hard for me to imagine that it was not used earlier than the 14th century, and the fact that it was not recorded earlier does not mean it was not in use. This would seem especially to be true, considering that the Vikings had the traditions about Thor's hammer being used in battle.

2nd answer: The reason that the war hammer became more common in the late medieval ages was that armor technology steadily improved over the period. As transitional armor and later full plate armor was introduced it became harder and harder to injure a heavily armored fighter with an ax or sword. In addition, sloped and rounded sections of armor were designed to try to not just stop the cutting edge, but cause the blow to turn aside and glance off, greatly reducing the amount ofkinetic energy delivered to the target.

One strategy that wasdevelopedtocombatthis was an increase in blunt weapons like the war hammer. By delivering a focused blunt strike the attacker was not trying to penetrate the armor, but rather to just deliver as much impact energy to the target as possible. Concussions, broken bones, and crushed tissues could take the enemy out of the fight just as well as an open wound from a blade could.

the medieval flail was a torture implement made of cow hide with bits of metal sewn into the tips to inflict more pain.

Flails were used as tools as well.

Flails were also a weapon of war during the Medieval times

as a tool they were 1 thing and as a weapon they (i thought) were metal balls with spiked chained to a stick and swung over a knight's head and slammed into the opponent to knock them off their horse forced to fight people on the ground

After some time, peasants noticed that the long reach of the pole, combined with the swinging head sections, made for a reasonably weapon - a considerable amount of force could be built up by swinging the main pole around, and slamming the attached rod sections into people. It was particularly effective against chainmail, as the flail caused significant blunt force trauma (broke ribs, bashed in heads, etc.) all without having to penetrate the actual steel armor.

Weapons designers improved on this concept in two steps: Firstly, they reduced the number of short rods to one or two at the most, covered the rods in iron (to prevent then from shattering when hitting an armored opponent), and used only chain link to connect the main shaft with the attacking rods. Later on, the rods themselves were replaced with metal balls; the balls tended to be small (4-6 inches in diameter), and had studs, spikes, or flanges cast into them.

Medieval flails were of two sizes: originally, they were for foot-use only, so the overall length was typical for a short polearm, about 5-6 feet total. These were very effective against mounted opponents, enabling the foot soldier to negate the height and reach advantage of a mounted opponent, and also providing a strong enough blow that unseating the mounted rider was a distinct possibility. After the creation of the ball flail, the main shaft was reduced significantly, to no more than 2 feet, making the flail a very effective weapon for close-in combat (the longer flail was only really usable against someone no closer than 3 feet away). The swinging arc required to use the short flail meant that it was more usable by the mounted warrior than the foot soldier, so the short flail became a mounted warrior's weapon, and was much less commonly used by foot soldiers.

The foot flail was generally replaced with more specialized ax and spear-derived weapons around the time that platemail became the common knightly armor (c. 1200-1300 AD), with the short flail lasting a bit longer, but generally disappearing about when firearms started making their debut (c. 1400 AD).

Originally drawbridges were the heavy wooden gates on castles that were surrounded by moats. The bridge was the only way to cross the moat, and they could be raised in the event of an attack, to prevent enemies from entering the castle.

The next great use was in the age of river trading, when large vessels had to travel upriver to ports. The drawbridge (technically called a bascule bridge) could be raised, either in whole or in two parts, only when necessary to allow tall ships to transit. Bascule bridges continue to be used for both traffic and railroads.

The presumed historic Arthur would have flourished somewhere in the former Roman province of Britannia, that is in the area now occupied by England, Wales, and southern Scotland.

It it is likely that he was more connected with some part of this area than others, but early sources don't indicate, except for some slight suggestions connecting Arthur to Cornwall. But some scholars reject this. Indeed, some scholars connect Arthur mainly with southern Scotland, and Arthur's main city in the earliest Arthurian romances is Carduel, which is generally believed to represent Carlisle.

In many of the medieval romances, Arthur is principally King of Logres. The name represents Welsh Loegyr, a Welsh name of unknown origin but used in historical sources to mean approximately England.

King Arthur is pictured as holding court at various different places, some of them historic and some of them unknown. In the earliest romances the cities where he most commonly holds court are Carduel/Carlisle and Caerleon. In the later prose romances King Arthur most often holds court at an inland city called Camelot, which has not been definitively identified with any historical site. Sites sometimes considered are Colchester in Essex (Latin Camulodunum), Slack in Yorkshire (also Latin Camulodunum), Cadbury Castle in Somerset, Winchester, Westminster, and Camelon in Falkirk in central Scotland. Some have said that Cornish legend also claims that Tintagel Castle in Cornwall was being the site of Camelot. However, this identification is found in no extant medieval text. Indeed, the two places are quite distinct.

The seacost town of Tintagel being close to the town of Camelford and the River Camel does not help this claim. Camelot is always in inland city when its geography is described.