Multiple movies and TV shows have depicted armies besieging a fortress and eventually resorting to a large battering ram to get through the front gates, either carried or swinging from some chains (Return of the King?) with a metal head of some animal attached to the front.

Did armies put any sort of "cap" on the front of battering rams to make them more effective? Were they even effective to begin with? Finally, if they *did* put some sort of hardened endpoints on the battering rams, did they ever shape them in the head of some animal? Why would they do this?

More specifically, did the crusades garner a response from Ethiopian Christians? If so, what was that response? It seems I am assuming that Ethiopian Christians were a unified body but I do not intend that. I am interested in the myriad responses to the Crusades so any at all would help satiate my curiosity.

(I reposted this to correct a crucial typo in the title -- sorry!)

Not only were they contemporary figures, they were active members of the military or government. Churchill as PM, Mannerheim as Field Marshall, Weygand as Supreme Commander, etc.

The practice seems, to me, to have been pretty widespread, including the UK, France, Finland, and the USSR. When did this practice start, and when did it end? (Or did it even end? Though I have a hard time imagining the Boris Tank or the Biden-class aircraft carrier!)

More broadly, how were these things named? Was there a process, or did someone just, well, pick something? For the sake of specificity, let's say I'm interested in how British tank naming, but I'd be curious about any nation in the early 20th c.

As a person in many leftist circles, I am often recommended these. Are they very accurate?

Following the race to the sea, my understanding is - in broad terms - that there was some back and forth fighting (Ypres) and then the front (over-statement coming up) settled down until the following spring. I also understand that trench warfare reduced casualties compared to the relatively open fighting that took place prior to Ypres, but also made a return to such warfare difficult due to the power of the defender generally outweighing the attacker. So, why was an amphibious landing along the Belgium coast seriously considered? It would seem to be the ultimate outflanking move that was attempted during the 1914 race to the sea.
In the spring of 1915, Britain and France found five divisions (increased to 15 during the course of the year) to land at Gallipoli. It would seem that the two countries had the logistical and shipping capabilities, as well as the troops to do so. The following year (after further fighting at Artois, Loos, and Ypres), whole new armies were marshalled for the massive Somme offensive. After the relative failure of 1915, why did no different approach occur? The shadow of Gallipoli? I do find it interesting that it would take another year before even Operation Hush was considered, and even then it was proposal for a single division to land in the immediate rear of the German positions rather than further up the coast ala the Second World War Anzio landings well beyond the rear of the Winter Line. An actual landing would only occur in the final year of the war, less than a brigade, during a raid to try and block Zeebrugge from being used. It would seem by this point, the port had gained more importance to the Germans than earlier in the war.

So, why was there no major attempt on the Belgian coast?

I’ve heard a little about the alternate theories to the commonly accepted narrative that VG intentionally set out to kill himself, and was wondering if anyone had any depth of knowledge on this that wanted to talk about the theory behind the cowboy-obsessed kid with an old service revolver and a likely accidental misfire being the cause of his gunshot wound, which he then took credit for to keep them from having their lives ruined over a goof.

And along those lines, is there much theorizing or speculating that VG didn’t actually cut his ear off, and just said he did to protect Paul Gauguin, who sliced it in a fit of rage during their argument and fled that night?

Amongst modern day pistols there are colts, berettas, to name just two. Was there a comparable variety of flintlock pistols during the English civil war? Or was this stuff not that well-defined yet?

Failing that, what would be considered a unique or ‘rare’ pistol from the 17th century?

Was wondering if the population felt neutral or angry about the occupation of their country. If their was discontent, how did the allies handle it so it wouldn't create problems for their occupation?

I had believed that the stereotype of the "Martial arts monk" was just that, a stereotype, until I learned that the Shaolin temple (the alleged birthplace of Chan Buddhism) is, in fact, real, and not a made-up place like I had believed.

After skimming a bit of research, it seems that Daoism and Zen Buddhism (which was itself influenced by Daoism) both have strong histories of martial arts practice - why is this?

Was there a schism within the LDS church?

I get that poison would definitely have been used to kill specific people by putting it in their food or drink (or more cleverly by recent Russian attempts), but were poisoned weapons a thing which was used? Many video games allow you to coat a weapon you have with some kind of poison to cause extra injury to your opponent if you strike them and break the skin. Do we know if poisoned weapons were ever happened in history?

For soldiers who lost limbs and coudnt serve - what happened? We're they simply sent back home?

It seems that since Bruce Lee used them in his films in the early-70s, they increased in popularity and began to be banned in multiple countries. Wikipedia identifies Norway, Canada, Russia, Poland, Chile, Germany, England, Wales, Scotland and Spain as having strict regulations.

UK and German versions of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990) had to be edited to remove Nunchaku (signature weapon for Michelangelo) from the film altogether.

Even looking at the other traditional Eastern fighting weapons used by the Ninja Turtles (Bo staff, sai, sword), I don't believe that any of them are as strictly regulated. Is there any reason for this? Are nunchaku particularly dangerous compared to other weapons used in martial arts? Were there a significant number of injuries at some point around the 70s-90s that led to these restrictions? Thanks!

Everyone knows that the friendly hamsters we now keep as pets come from the Middle East. Particularly the parts of the Middle East (like Syria) where the Crusaders went.

Did the Crusaders (or the people of Outremer) say anything about the hamsters there?

The joke itself is about Sir Tristram, and how he attacks people apparently without much regard for his own safety or without parleying first. Obviously this isn't a serious claim, but it got me thinking: would a person who is considered disabled or physically impaired in any way today be able to become a knight in the past?

This might sound like a stupid question, but for example, Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands near the end of WWI to the Netherlands and he stayed there after the German Empire fell. So how did he finance his and his family's life after he no longer had a country to pay for him? Did he just get a nine-to-five? Did some office have to deal with employing the former Emperor of Germany or did he just bring a briefcase full of bills with him?