clarifying questions: Why did they not use other siege instruments, considering the cost, reload time and labour skill required for early Bombards/cannons? What made the cannons special?

Did kings in medieval times have snake pits and other such ingenious methods specifically to execute their enemies?Would a king in britain be able to procure and feed such a number of snakes?Are there even poisonous snakes capable to kill a man in england?At least in the TV series vikings most of the snakes in the scene did not look like they were european

[deleted]

I know this sounds like a slightly odd question, but given the vast array of armour over the generations of metal armour from the 3rd century BC until the common use of gunpowder weapon beginning in the 15th century.

(I understand the scientific method, as we understand it, didn't really appear until really the end of the medieval period.)

Was there any attempt to performance test armour? Or was it a style thing? Was there comparisons like during WWII, like how armies tested or took apart enemies and allies tanks and planes?

Did historians comment on the benefits or disadvantages of their own 'nations' or enemies armour?

p.s. I am aware that metal armour was used until really WWI

So I was reading a book and in one part it said how some non-Christians in Bosnia preferred to be under ottoman occupation rather than being slaves under Christian occupation,. This is because it said that the ottomans allowed them to believe in any religion, is this true?

Especially who won.

They could never really beat Athens decisively in the Peloponnesian Wars. I tend to think that they were all Brute no brain when it came for warefare. Lacking military strategy and tactics. I know the Spartans lacked a Navy while fighting the Peloponnesian Wars against athens. However I feel as if that proves my point even further. What of kinda idiot do you have to be to be a port city and not have a strong navy.

So I'm curious to know if secluded Empire was still Eastern. By 270 B.C or the beginning of the Roman Empire conquests.

Could citizens of east or West Berlin leave their respective sides or was a wall all around the city and dividing it? What had to be done to go from one side to the other? What had to be done to leave? if no1 COULD leave, were they all inherently slaves? Were their any people of power or class that were living there at that time that had any sort of special privilege? Sorry about all the questions that are probably answered by simple explanation but every time this has been talked about or every video I have seen leaves these things out and just talks about communism and capitalism.

I'm not a history buff or claim anything like that. I just am curious why we weren't invaded like middle Europe was during this time. I know we have Pearl Harbor as a majoring reasoning to become involved in the situation. I am curious as to why we weren't invaded or why we haven't been considered invaded since, I'd reach as far as saying the civil war, when it comes to actually being invaded and seeing complete towns destroyed by war inflicted damage.

It doesn’t really make sense to me, the Soviets send weapons to Cuba and then remove them in exchange for the US’s promise never to invade Cuba. Why would they care about that? If they really didn’t want the US to invade Cuba they could just leave the weapons there right?

Particularly at the major milestones of the scandal (e.g. the Senate hearings, Saturday Night Massacre, release of the tapes) - To what extent did the White House, pro-Nixon politicians or commentators deny or defend against allegations? Were there any "whataboutisms" at the time?

I am genuinely curious, and as this could be said about many stories in the bible, I have never really heard of what historians may believe to be true about his life when you exclude supernatural phenomena from his life story. What may have been people's explanations for things like walking on water or turning water into wine, etc.

[deleted]

Thankful for suggestions!

thanks