Mostly with a dagger and sword.
Somehow adherents of the Jewish Sicari group, which operated in the first century A.D. on the territory of Palestine, they preferred to stab their enemies in the crowd with daggers - more witnesses, more panic, more fear. The very name "Sicarii" comes from the Latin word meaning "dagger". Sicarii killed both Roman officials and military and their own Jews loyal to the Roman government. Arson of enemy property was widely used. Moreover, they often destroyed their food reserves in order to further embitter the people.
Another religious group that widely used terror was the medieval Shiite sect of assassins based in Persia. Assassins also preferred daggers as weapons of terror. The head of the sect, Hassan Sabbah, was the first to introduce psychological training for future suicide bombers. In practice, hashish was often used, which later gave the name to the sect. During the war against the Seljuk State, the Assassins killed hundreds of its top officials. In the end, the great vizier of the Seljukids was also killed in this war. The killings were carried out in public with a dagger or sword. Moreover, the assassins considered it an honor to complete the task of perishing yourself.
So it was like this - there was always terror. It's just that with the invention of firearms and dynamite, it became bigger.
They set fire to cities and crops, poisoned wells, threw corpses of those who died from dangerous diseases into the cities, intercepted merchants delivering vital goods, drowned merchant ships, provoked slave uprisings, blocked navigable rivers with chains, sometimes even desecrated places of worship. p>
In the conventional sense, these were not terrorist attacks, because they were often done within the framework of open war, but they were quite sabotage.
Didn't suit me in any way. The first terrorist attack was in 1883, when dynamite and firearms were already invented.
That is, yes, of course, fortresses / buildings / cities were burned before, and the water was poisoned, and in general people were killed in many possible ways. But this was not the activity of small terrorist groups, these were army operations, roughly speaking. - to blame the king or sultan, terrorism cannot be, IMHO.
You must understand what is the main purpose of the attacks. These are far from murders or explosions. Kills and explosions are a side effect. A good terrorist attack can take place without casualties at all with a minimum amount of effort and expense. For example, at one time the Irish Liberation Army (IRA) parked trucks with explosives outside government buildings and called with warnings. Or one of the many Jewish groups in Palestine during the British Mandate called the police and reported explosives in one of the elite hotels. I don't remember the exact history, but it seems that there was not even explosives there.
The purpose of the attacks is in fear. The enemy should be afraid to leave the house, fear should paralyze everyone and everything. 18 years ago in Israel, there were constant explosions in buses and public places. Today they are lone terrorists with a knife or in a truck. They killed someone - great. No, that's fine too. The main thing is that people began to be afraid. This means making mistakes and making concessions.
How to achieve the goal is not important at all. It might be a fanatic in the main square who kills in the name of his ideals. These can be bombers, planting bombs under the parliament during the king's speech. Or a suicide bomber in a truck. Or any other method that will lead to the desired results.
it will sound better, how the terrorist attacks were organized before the terrorist attacks were invented))) But there are a lot of options at all times - from shit under the door to shit in a common well.