Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Republican Roman Armor Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 11:44 am    Post subject: Republican Roman Armor         Reply with quote

While this probably was already discussed in the past, i ran into some discussion on this topic recently. Overall agreement was that Mail/Hamata was relatively costly piece of armor, therefore not all men could afford it. especially in times of late Roman Republic, where census was lowered and even men with minimal wealth were accepted as recruits into legions, while Senate payed for their equipment.

This is particularly interesting, as high cost would most likely make this armor less likely to be procured to all men, and while practice was that soldiers actually payed for armor provided, still, freshly recruited men would have quite a problem to pay for it.

So, my question is, what would be the alternative for them? I think leather is out of question, considering its relative weakness against thrusting weapons like spears and swords. this leaves me with some sort of layered linen tunics/vests to be more likely alternative.

Anyway so far, when talking about Hamata, everybody was mentioning it as a complete shirt, yet is there a possibility, Mail could be used as a partial reinforcement for those linen vests? Something like front and back layers attached by straps, instead of full shirts? wouldn't that be a bit less costly, while providing improved protection of most critical areas? After all, early legionaries used a lot of heart protectors, which dint even covered entire chest..

Is there any good publication on this topic? i have a few already, but i find it quite hard to believe authors like D'Amato, who considers every muscled shaped armor to be leather, ignoring the poor resistance of such armor to the most common weapons used..
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,184

PostPosted: Tue 16 Sep, 2014 2:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

IMO segmentata was specifically developed as munitions armour because alternatives such as mail, scale, and musculata were too expensive. D'Amato doesn't have a clue what he is talking about regarding leather armour.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of legionaries simply did not have any body armor. There are several figurines from that general era, as well as frescoes and mosaics, that show soldiers in just tunics and helmets. There is also the account from the siege of Dyrrhachium, where Caesar's men have to make coats out of hides and padding to protect themselves from Pompey's archers--they wouldn't have to do that if they'd had mail.

I'd have to have another look through D'Amato's book to be sure, but there just aren't many depictions from that era that are likely to be quilted fabric (or something else). I really don't recall anything that looks like bits and pieces of mail or plate stuck onto something else. There certainly aren't any descriptions of such things, either.

In all fairness, I did just run across a reference yesterday that mentioned one of the guys from the Year of Four Emperors (Galba? Otho?), 69 AD, putting on a linen corslet. On the one hand, that shows that such things apparently did survive much later than we tend to think, but on the other hand, this was a Senator! So it's a high-end cuirass, not something stop-gap or cobbled together.

At some point, I really must try to dig a little deeper through the murk to see what was going on in the 4th to 2nd centuries BC. At the moment, the impression I get is that the introduction of mail made a lot of the older leather and linen armor go away. It simply had too many advantages. And IF it was still too expensive for many troops, so what? It was already common for the grunts to go unarmored, so no big deal. Even putting a helmet on every man put you ahead of any Celtic force, for example.

It's a good question, though!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Elliot R.





Joined: 03 Jun 2013
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed 17 Sep, 2014 11:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ah, well, I'm taking an Ancient Roman History course this year at college, so I do have some access to source literature. Happy

According to Polybius, the youngest of the legion, the Velites, only have a "plain helmet" as well as a sword, spear, and a smaller round shield. The Hastati, however, were the ones who apparently had some manner of (bronze?) breastplate during the Late Republican Era:

"Besides this armament the private soldiers also wear a brass breast-plate a span square, which is placed in the front of the heart, and called a heart-protector (pectorale)." (Polybius, Histories 6.23)

Regarding the maille, yeah - even Polybius says it was flipping expensive:

"...but those who are rated at a property qualification of above 10,000 drachmae wear instead a coat of chain-mail (lorica)." (Polybius, Histories 6.23)
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,432

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of legionaries simply did not have any body armor. There are several figurines from that general era, as well as frescoes and mosaics, that show soldiers in just tunics and helmets. There is also the account from the siege of Dyrrhachium, where Caesar's men have to make coats out of hides and padding to protect themselves from Pompey's archers--they wouldn't have to do that if they'd had mail.

I'd have to have another look through D'Amato's book to be sure, but there just aren't many depictions from that era that are likely to be quilted fabric (or something else). I really don't recall anything that looks like bits and pieces of mail or plate stuck onto something else. There certainly aren't any descriptions of such things, either.

In all fairness, I did just run across a reference yesterday that mentioned one of the guys from the Year of Four Emperors (Galba? Otho?), 69 AD, putting on a linen corslet. On the one hand, that shows that such things apparently did survive much later than we tend to think, but on the other hand, this was a Senator! So it's a high-end cuirass, not something stop-gap or cobbled together.

At some point, I really must try to dig a little deeper through the murk to see what was going on in the 4th to 2nd centuries BC. At the moment, the impression I get is that the introduction of mail made a lot of the older leather and linen armor go away. It simply had too many advantages. And IF it was still too expensive for many troops, so what? It was already common for the grunts to go unarmored, so no big deal. Even putting a helmet on every man put you ahead of any Celtic force, for example.

It's a good question, though!

Matthew


just a slightly off topic mark, bu how did this change after the marian reforms? does the instance of a lack of armour decrease?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 4:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Well, the basics of the "Marian Reforms" is that Marius dropped the requirement that a citizen be a landowner to serve in the legions. The actuality of how they got their kit was probably a messy mix of increased pay, state supply, gear supplied by the general himself, and soldiers buying their own kit with their higher pay. And we know this was not a sweeping "reform" that happened all at once--there was a lot of resistance to it and some armies were still raised the traditional way, with the land-owning requirement. And it has long been assumed that mail became "standard" under Marius, but I think we all agree that that may be a shaky assumption.

On the other hand, we do know that there was a dramatic drop in the quality of helmets from that era. Previous ones are very nice and finely finished, but then they get plain, sloppy, and cranked-out, with features like cheekpiece rivets held by only one rivet instead of up to 4. SO, combined with the Republic turning into an empire and absorbing areas like northern Italy, it's entirely possible that cheaper "crappy" mail was also cranked out. But I'd be very surprised if there were enough datable finds of mail from that era to be able to trace a trend like that. Heck, there isn't even much decent artwork! But bronze helmets are easily preserved, identified, and stylistically dated, whereas mail tends to become a brown, stiff stain that is easily turned into a turnip patch.

It should be emphasized that *many* Republican legionaries had little or no armor. As Elliot points out, velites had only helmets, and velites were legionaries. And of the "heavies", only the wealthier men had mail, while most of the rest had only the little pectoral plate. So going to war with little or no armor was the "default"--heavy armor was the exception. We should avoid seeing unarmored soldiers from the late Republic or early Empire as some sort of abnormalities.

That shift in viewpoint also helps us avoid angst over ancient armor that to us might seem like it is too thin or not covering enough, basically not being all that *we* want it to be. Since unarmored was the norm, any armor was an advantage.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 6:08 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i think early Republican Legions were actually a bit heavier armored than later.. Census was much higher early, so only richer citizens were called to arms, and those could afford best protection they could buy. But then census was lowered, more Proletarii class citizens got into army, who couldn't afford armor by themselves.

Another good hint is, that Early Republic fielded 2 and later 4 legions, yet during Second Punnic war they had to field 30 legions.. It is quite probable that those first 4 legions were formed of richer citizens, but when munstering replacements, amount of wealthy citizens would steadily decrease, as would amount of heavy armor within units... plus, due to dissasters at Trasimene or Cannae meant Rome lost huge amount of equipment that couldnt be simply replaced..
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,188

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 6:54 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I didn't realize so many Roman soldiers fighting as heavy infantry went without armor. Later writers like Cassius Dio seem to have considered armor the default, and Vegetius of course insisted on the importance of armor.

That underscores the contrast what present-day scholarship understands about the Roman military and what sixteenth-century writers thought. Machiavelli and others following him described Roman heavy infantry as equipped with a helmet that went down to the shoulders, a cuirass that reached to the knee, arm defense, and leg defenses. Rather few Roman soldiers ever wore so much armor, and apparently many wore little or no armor.

Read my historically inspired fantasy fiction in here. I walk along a winding path set by Ludovico Ariosto, William Morris, J. R. R. Tolkien, and Ursula Le Guin.

Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 7:06 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jaroslav Jakubov wrote:
i think early Republican Legions were actually a bit heavier armored than later.. Census was much higher early, so only richer citizens were called to arms, and those could afford best protection they could buy. But then census was lowered, more Proletarii class citizens got into army, who couldn't afford armor by themselves.


I can see what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's that simple. We know that most men in those early legions were *not* wealthy enough to afford much body armor, in fact the velites had none. Being a landowner by legal definition did not necessarily make one rich! Poorer men made up a large part of the total. And it's possible that some non-landowners had plenty of money if they were businessmen, though it's clear that most of them were "head count", meaning the very lowest citizen class.

Quote:
Another good hint is, that Early Republic fielded 2 and later 4 legions, yet during Second Punnic war they had to field 30 legions.. It is quite probable that those first 4 legions were formed of richer citizens, but when munstering replacements, amount of wealthy citizens would steadily decrease, as would amount of heavy armor within units...


Well, again, the descriptions of how legions were selected never imply that the wealthy men were preferred. Fitness and experience were also valued.

Quote:
plus, due to dissasters at Trasimene or Cannae meant Rome lost huge amount of equipment that couldnt be simply replaced..


Since most of the gear was owned by the dead men, there wasn't a lot that had to be replaced. The men who were not killed already had their own gear. Men didn't have to buy new kit every time they were levied, they simply bought it once for their first campaign and then kept it, upgrading or maintaining it over the years as necessary. A normal annual levy didn't use up anything near the number of qualified men. On the other hand, all the "company gear" would certainly be gone, such as wagons and tents. THAT would be a logistical problem! Horses, artillery, tools. Plus, it is also clear that there was always a certain amount of state-issued equipment, though I don't know what the rules were for who might have gotten it. Oddly, the very *wealthiest* of the upper-class cavalry were issued a horse at state expense! So the state wasn't automatically seen as just a charity for the poor, by any means. AND there were a few occasions of raising emergency troops, even from freedmen or slaves, and those would certainly need some kind of kit in a hurry. Shields and javelins, for starters.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 10:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i was basing my post a bit on modern situation i read recently - ongoing war on Ukraine, government doesn't have enough of ballistic vests for all men, so those conscripted either buy their own by themselves - read a interview with parents of such soldier, where they mentioned they sold a car so their son could get proper protection so he would have chance to return home, while those who dont have enough money, buy improvised protection in form of steel sheets inserts and similar...

So, if a citizen, father or son was called to arms (which was considered to be a prestige), i think it is fair to assume their family would do whatever they could to give them adequate protection so they could stand a chance and return home.. armor was often inherited from father to son, so we cannot say Hastati just because they are youngest men are automatically wearing worse armor..

And regarding selection, Peter Connoly in his book mentioned the process legions were assembled each campaign season. for every legion, tribune Militi were present to select men from the pool. First pick was for 1st legion, then 2nd,3rd and 4th. next turn 4th started first etc.. this continued untill all men were assigned to one of those legions, and they were informed where legions will be stationed.

Once men got to their legion, they were again divided based on wealth and age. First 1200 men of lowest class was assigned to Velites/Leves, while remaining men got to heavy infantry. 1200 youngest to Hastati, 1200 older men to Principes and about 600 oldest men to Triarii. It is quite possible they were not divided by military experience but by their actual age. yet, due to this division, amount of wealthy and poor would be probably evenly distributed amongst all heavy infantry types.

Polybius said that those who had wealth worth of 10000 denarii, used mail. yet he didnt mentioned how many of those men were actually in the legion..
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Thu 18 Sep, 2014 1:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
I didn't realize so many Roman soldiers fighting as heavy infantry went without armor. Later writers like Cassius Dio seem to have considered armor the default, and Vegetius of course insisted on the importance of armor.


Well, to be fair, it does seem that by the early Empire most legionaries *were* armored. That certainly is the "default" in artwork such as Trajan's Column. But we do still have a few glimpses of what seem to be unarmored Romans, here and there.

Quote:
That underscores the contrast what present-day scholarship understands about the Roman military and what sixteenth-century writers thought. Machiavelli and others following him described Roman heavy infantry as equipped with a helmet that went down to the shoulders, a cuirass that reached to the knee, arm defense, and leg defenses. Rather few Roman soldiers ever wore so much armor, and apparently many wore little or no armor.


They may have been mixing sources from different eras. A lot of modern folks do that, too!


Jaroslav Jakubov wrote:
i was basing my post a bit on modern situation i read recently - ongoing war on Ukraine, government doesn't have enough of ballistic vests for all men, so those conscripted either buy their own by themselves - read a interview with parents of such soldier, where they mentioned they sold a car so their son could get proper protection so he would have chance to return home, while those who dont have enough money, buy improvised protection in form of steel sheets inserts and similar...


I gotcha. We don't hear much about supply problems like that in the Roman army, at least in the Principate. Though it should be noted that soldiers were still legally responsible for equipping themselves, even if they got their kit from central supply like everyone else and just had their paychecks docked. But we do have an amusing letter from a kid in the Egyptian fleet who writes home to Dad, asking him to send a new pickaxe and a good spear! Apparently his were confiscated by his centurion (screwing around with a pickaxe belowdecks, perhaps?), but it shows that there were other ways to get weaponry. (And if he can con Dad into paying for it, hee hee hee...)

Quote:
So, if a citizen, father or son was called to arms (which was considered to be a prestige), i think it is fair to assume their family would do whatever they could to give them adequate protection so they could stand a chance and return home..


Sure, but since armor requirements were based on wealth, you were only required to have what you could afford. There couldn't have been much objection to anyone having more than what was required, but until Hannibal, even defeated armies mostly survived.

Quote:
armor was often inherited from father to son, so we cannot say Hastati just because they are youngest men are automatically wearing worse armor..


Inheritance is fine, IF you have only one son, and he doesn't start his service until you are 60--which is unlikely! Having more than one son was pretty common, and they could easily be eligible for duty even before Grandad is past the maximum age. Of course, given a successful campaign or two, Dad and Grandad might have extra stuff to pass along.

[/quote]...Once men got to their legion, they were again divided based on wealth and age. First 1200 men of lowest class was assigned to Velites/Leves, while remaining men got to heavy infantry. 1200 youngest to Hastati, 1200 older men to Principes and about 600 oldest men to Triarii. It is quite possible they were not divided by military experience but by their actual age. yet, due to this division, amount of wealthy and poor would be probably evenly distributed amongst all heavy infantry types.[/quote]

Right. There is a little bit of a tendency to think of hastati as all wearing pectorals and the triarii all in mail, but as you say, that wasn't how they were divided.

Quote:
Polybius said that those who had wealth worth of 10000 denarii, used mail. yet he didnt mentioned how many of those men were actually in the legion..


Very true! Isn't that frustrating? Typical ancient historian, sloppy with his details. No respect for future generations that are trying to recreate all this stuff! Could have saved us all a decade of vicious arguments if he had bothered to talk about clothing colors, too...

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Shahril Dzulkifli




Location: Malaysia
Joined: 13 Dec 2007
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 1,265

PostPosted: Sat 20 Sep, 2014 5:34 am    Post subject: Republican Roman Armour         Reply with quote


This is how Roman Republican armour looks like, being worn by the two soldiers at the back.
They differ a lot from the ones worn by legionaries during the Imperial era.

“You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength”

- Marcus Aurelius
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Mon 22 Sep, 2014 10:58 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

i'm a bit sceptical about circular one.. that piece of armor was found to be used by Etruscans since 8century BC, i would say they would use a bit more modern versions like tripple disc pectoral or muscled version which are a bit more common to be found in Italy.. For example there are 30 pieces of muscled front and back plates in museums around Italy, which makes it the most commonly found armor from 3rd century BC.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Mon 22 Sep, 2014 12:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That circular pectoral was found at Numantia along with other Roman items.

http://s129.photobucket.com/user/mcbishop/med...1.png.html

Round ones are also shown in artwork from that general era. Though I certainly agree that the muscled and triple-disc styles are VERY cool!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 2:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

is that scale right? 10cm diameter, is quite small. Weren't Pectorals at least 20-30cm wide?


just recently read and article The Homogenisation of Military Equipment Under the Roman Republic by Michael T. Burns, and he only mentioned muscled and tripple disc pectorales. no mention of circular ones.


Quote:
The breast-plates described by Polybius correspond to the dimensions and
details of the rectangular anatomical cuirasses which have been found mainly in the
coastal regions of Campania, Lucania and Apulia (fig. 6).52 This type of armour first
appears in the middle of the fourth century, and is derived from the triple-disc type
cuirass, which was developed in the central Apennine region (fig. 7). The triple-disc
cuirass is named for the three discs, two upper and one lower, which form a
triangular-shaped pectoral. The earliest examples have been recovered from the
necropolis at Alfedena in the Abruzzo and are dated to the second half of the fifth
century.53 Both the triple-disc and rectangular cuirasses are harnesses, consisting of
breast- and back-plate pectorals, held together by shoulder- and side-plates. At present,
I have been able to locate a total of 38 triple-disc cuirasses in museums and private
collections, 23 of which are provenanced (map 5). Only two of these cuirasses have
been found outside southern Italy, at Vulci and Carthage, and all come from burials
when the context is known. Although no actual examples have been found in
Campania, the triple-disc cuirass is the most frequently depicted type of armour on
red-figure vases, which points to its use in this region.
View user's profile Send private message
Kai Lawson




Location: Madison, WI
Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 477

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 6:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Can anyone provide a link or post images of the muscled pectoral? I'm familiar with some of the triple disk deals, but I'm not sure what the muscled version would look like...
"And they crossed swords."
--William Goldman, alias S. Morgenstern
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 8:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote




View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Joined: 17 Sep 2003

Posts: 1,297

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 9:51 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jaroslav Jakubov wrote:
is that scale right? 10cm diameter, is quite small. Weren't Pectorals at least 20-30cm wide?


I don't think any surviving ones are over 9"/c.22cm, actually. According to that scale, the diameter would be 15 cm, which is smallish but not the smallest I've seen. Though I haven't seen dimensions offhand for triple-disc or muscled pectorals, it's possible they were a little bigger. Not much, though! It doesn't take much width to interfere with full movement of the arms.

Quote:
just recently read and article The Homogenisation of Military Equipment Under the Roman Republic by Michael T. Burns, and he only mentioned muscled and tripple disc pectorales. no mention of circular ones.


Huh! Well, square/rectangular and circular pectorals certainly existed! But there were changes and variations over time, and regionally. I had heard that the muscled ones were very Samnite in fashion, so they might not be something the Romans used much, for example.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Michael Harley




Location: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 12 Apr 2006

Posts: 86

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This one is from an old Hermann Historica catalogue, they describe it as: "A short bronze Samnite muscle breastplate with contoured anatomical details. Lining holes along the perimeter. Remnants of rings in the shoulder area of the chest. Height 30 cm. Weight 737g."

http://www.hermann-historica-archiv.de/index_gb.html Auction 54 - Axel Guttmann Collection



 Attachment: 44.87 KB
Elements of Armour ca.5th.-4th.C. BCE Italic-Chalcidian&Samnite .jpg
© Hermann Historica

 Attachment: 73.43 KB
Elements of Armour ca.5th.-4th.C. BCE Italic-Chalcidian&Samnite 5 .jpg
© Hermann Historica

Information is not knowledge, Knowledge is not wisdom, Wisdom is not truth - Frank Zappa
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jaroslav Jakubov




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 26 Aug 2008

Posts: 48

PostPosted: Tue 23 Sep, 2014 4:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Huh! Well, square/rectangular and circular pectorals certainly existed! But there were changes and variations over time, and regionally. I had heard that the muscled ones were very Samnite in fashion, so they might not be something the Romans used much, for example.


Actually, he literally quotes some historians, saying Romans adopted Samnite way of fighting, and were proud of beating them with their own weapons and tactics. He mentions the whole reason why Romans dropped the Greek like phalanx, and adopted more open maniple style fighting was due to their problems facing more mobile Samnites, which forced Romans to reform their army based on their model.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Republican Roman Armor
Page 1 of 2 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum