We could answer this question just by knowing who was the president in 1938 - it was <span>A. Neville Chamberlain. But it is also true that he appeased Hitler- or thought he did</span>
The Department of War was one of the first executive branch departments in the u.s. government.
Ehm, Robert Fulton is best known for fully developing the first successful commercial steamboat.
Hope this helps ;p
Answer:
copper and iron swords were easier to make but less durable while bronze and steel swords were more effective for combat but more difficult to fashion.
Explanation:
Pros
- Copper: It was a very common material and it could be sharpened easily.
- Iron: Like copper, very easy to find and harder than copper, so it is a better option to fabricate iron swords than copper swords.
- Bronze: Bronze is harder than copper and its rust is just shallow which make bronze swords way durable in comparison. With the materials in hand (copper and tin), it was easy to fabricate bronze swords on a great scale.
- Steel: This is the most durable and hardest of all the elements above.
Cons
- Copper: Easy to get rusty and be broken.
- Iron: Sucseptible to severe oxidation, although it is more durable than copper.
- Bronze: As this is an alloy, it requires copper and tin, which it is not very common to find close each other, so it makes difficult to make bronze swords. Additionally, bronze weapons do not last very much; they are easy to break.
- Steel: Unlike bronze, steel rusting can wreck the sword if it is treated in time. Additionally, on ancient times, steel forges were very uncommon as not many knew the way to create steel from iron and carbon, so steel swords were very expensive and more likely to find in hand of kings and royal guards.
