Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Sword use and armored combat in the High Middle Ages Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page 1, 2  Next 
Author Message
Dashiell Harrison




Location: California
Joined: 14 Jun 2014

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject: Sword use and armored combat in the High Middle Ages         Reply with quote

I apologize if this has been asked before, but this is a question that has niggled at me for some time. If it's answered in detail somewhere else please feel free to point me to the thread, I couldn't find one when I looked.

Swords vs Mail Armor:

By the end of the 12th century knights were armored from head to toe in mail and deployed in sizable numbers. This trend increased into the 13th century. From what I understand, swords are generally viewed to be sub-optimal weapons for going up against men in mail armor. So, if that is the case then:

1) Why did swords evolve to be able to handle combat against armored men? Gus Trim recently wrote a fairly in depth post on facebook about how some Type XII and XIV swords seem to have been designed to be heavier with somewhat less acute edges specifically to be able to hold up in combat against armor from the High Medieval Period. Why bother designing a sword to be able to withstand combat against an opponent it's not going to be terribly effective against.

2) Why didn't knights just switch wholesale to axes, since an axe is handy against unarmored *and* armored opponents? I understand that a sword would still be handy against the un-armored or partially armored opponents one might encounter in warfare during the period, but it seems strange to me to carry a weapon that won't fare especially well against the most dangerous adversary you might have to fight, i.e. knights armored cap-a-pie in mail, when a different weapon will do about as well against unarmored adversaries and much better against armored ones. I understand that swords were side-arms for much of this period, but they seem to have been very common and widely used sidearms and more popular than some of the others that were available. Why?

3a) Why isn't it until the 14th century that anti-armor weapons (including anti-armor swords) come into major play? I understand that axes and maces were in use before this, but they (along with other anti-armor weapons) don't seem to have really reached their zenith of popularity until after the age of mail as state-of-the-art armor gave way to plate. If mail was so effective, why didn't some of this stuff come out earlier.

3b) I hear a lot about how rigid bladed swords were designed to thrust into gaps in armor... but those gaps were frequently protected by mail. If swords could defeat the mail voiders of the 14th and 15th centuries, then why weren't swords designed to defeat the mail hauberks of the 12th and 13th?

One explanation for the continued popularity of swords that seems to come up a lot is that they were status symbols. I think there is some truth to this, but it strikes me as an over-used argument. There is a vast body of evidence that medieval Europeans put a lot of energy into optimizing both sword design and swordfighting systems. I can't really see a military culture that was practical in other respects devoting that much energy to a weapon that was only popular because it was a status symbol.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cyrus S.




Location: Australia
Joined: 27 Jul 2017

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2017 7:39 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

G'day Dashiell,

All good questions and I will try to answer them. Someone more experienced with the Oakeshott typology will be able to explain in detail the advancement of sword technology for you.

1. The key thing to note is that the sword was a sidearm, not a primary weapon. In fact, polearms and spears never truly lost their popularity, they can be seen in use from the Bayeux Tapestry to the War of the Roses. They offer excellent reach, are arguably the easiest weapon to pick up and wield, yet a well train spearman can lunge and maneuver, all the while keeping enemies away from him.

You may have noticed up until the end of the 12th century, gloves are rather uncommon. You would think sword-wielding combatants would want to protect their hands, but they didn't need to. The spear was the backbone of medieval armies.


Detail of spears being used defensively from c.1400 - note the spear piercing the man's armpit

2. Axes are slow, so are maces. Spears offer excellent reach against every weapon, and that reach is only lost against a longer polearm. Spears averaged 8-9 feet. It might seem obvious to take an axe and bash em' all around the chops, but against a group of spearmen, you would quickly change your mind. Keep in mind that as weaponry advanced, poleaxes became popular. The weight and blunt force of an axe, with the reach and thrust of a spear. Marvelous.

3. Plate significantly reduces the danger of slashing and piercing from spears and swords, this is why weapons technology had to advance as plate became commonplace. It is also true that a heavy, blunt impact on plate can cause serious damage underneath without getting through the armour, and that was the purpose of such weapons.


Poleaxes - c.1250-60

You are correct, swords were a symbol of knighthood, the cross, of wealth, of power and of other sentiment. But the sword is in fact a very useful all-round weapon. A trained swordsman had considerable reach, and could thrust and swing with speed and nimbleness. It could be used two-handed, one handed, with or without a shield, on the ground or on horseback, and it had no 'specific' purpose. The sword remained as a constant side-arm because it was the ultimate in utilitarian weaponry.

Hope that helps!
Cheers
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Thu 03 Aug, 2017 9:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It's also important to remember that many of the combatants in the 12th century, particularly the infantry, could easily have had little or no armour at all. Thus, a sword would be of advantage against them

In my view the primary/secondary distinction between sword and lances is misleading. The lance is used first, but once your lances have broken, the sword comes out. Is the lance the "primary" weapon? Maybe, if we understand "primary" in the sense of "utilized first". Yet a substantial amount of the fighting, particularly in a battle, would have involved the sword; depending upon how quickly your lances broke, you might actually find yourself fighting the bulk of the battle with the sword! So I think it's more helpful to avoid the distinction of "primary" and "secondary" and simply mention that lances were used first, swords second. Obviously, in the case of infantry, the spear was probably often the first and only weapon in a substantial number of High Medieval conflicts.

Do not forget that you can still kill a 12th century knight armed from head to foot in mail with a sword. Nasal helmets and Phrygian cap helmets were common throughout the century: both leave parts of the face exposed. While it's less clear how well swords would fair against mail itself when hewing, it seems that a well-planted thrust could split through mail. Mail is good armour, but it it is not impervious to swords.
View user's profile Send private message
Juraj S




Location: CZ
Joined: 22 Jul 2016

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2017 2:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Another aspect is that you can eliminate a foe without killing him (once heŽs down, youŽll see whether you have the time to finish him off). A broken forearm of the sword arm is almost as good as a cut-off hand, same goes for the legs and I would not bet that my bones could take a sword hew even with mail. Also, even in a great helm, I guess a good sword swing around the head could very well mean a KO. Doubly so, when the longsword appears.
View user's profile Send private message
Timo Nieminen




Location: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 08 May 2009
Likes: 1 page
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 1,492

PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2017 6:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dashiell Harrison wrote:
2) Why didn't knights just switch wholesale to axes, since an axe is handy against unarmored *and* armored opponents?


Cyrus S. wrote:
2. Axes are slow, so are maces.


Plenty of battle axes are no more effective against armour than swords. Lightweight thin slicing blades, overall light weight, poor or no thrusting capability - not a recipe for "anti-armour". OTOH, light axes at 250g to 500g are far from slow - there's a reason why they were made that light. Heavier one-handed axes at 500-900g, 20" hafts, aren't as fast, but still hardly sluggish.

Yes, there are heavier ones, 1kg to 1.3kg for one-handed axes, but I'm not convinced those are very effective against armour. If they were, there wouldn't have been much motivation to use maces of up to about 1.5kg, various hammers/picks of 1kg to 1.6kg, etc.

Perhaps the maces and spears and knives/daggers sufficed as anti-armour weapons?

"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dashiell Harrison




Location: California
Joined: 14 Jun 2014

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2017 10:50 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:

In my view the primary/secondary distinction between sword and lances is misleading. The lance is used first, but once your lances have broken, the sword comes out. Is the lance the "primary" weapon? Maybe, if we understand "primary" in the sense of "utilized first". Yet a substantial amount of the fighting, particularly in a battle, would have involved the sword; depending upon how quickly your lances broke, you might actually find yourself fighting the bulk of the battle with the sword! So I think it's more helpful to avoid the distinction of "primary" and "secondary" and simply mention that lances were used first, swords second. Obviously, in the case of infantry, the spear was probably often the first and only weapon in a substantial number of High Medieval conflicts.


I think that's a really good point. My experience of talking about swords and spears on forums is that people are so frustrated by over-emphasis of swords and under emphasis of spears in popular media that they fall over themselves to highlight the importance of spears, even when it hasn't been called into doubt.

What we mean by primary weapon vs side arm is a bit confusing. For instance, in the Saga of King Hakkon the Good, the Norwegian warriors seem to be very fond of throwing their spears and then closing in to fight with their swords, almost like Roman legionaries. Viking literature in general seems to have a lot of accounts of warriors starting combat with a spear, and then either throwing it or getting it stuck in somebody and switching to their sword for the rest of the battle. Probably some of this can be explained by cultural importance of the sword, but I don't think swords would have gotten that kind of symbolic importance if people didn't find themselves using them a lot.

Craig Peters wrote:

Do not forget that you can still kill a 12th century knight armed from head to foot in mail with a sword. Nasal helmets and Phrygian cap helmets were common throughout the century: both leave parts of the face exposed. While it's less clear how well swords would fair against mail itself when hewing, it seems that a well-planted thrust could split through mail. Mail is good armour, but it it is not impervious to swords.


What kinds of blades are you envisioning going through mail hauberks? Are you talking about stuff like the type X or cut and thrusters like the the type XII or dedicated thrusters like the XVIII? The thing that's always struck me as a little confusing about sword design is the way that swords that seem designed to pierce mail become popular only after mail had started to get supplanted by plate.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Beeching





Joined: 22 Jan 2014
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 158

PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2017 2:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
What kinds of blades are you envisioning going through mail hauberks? Are you talking about stuff like the type X or cut and thrusters like the the type XII or dedicated thrusters like the XVIII? The thing that's always struck me as a little confusing about sword design is the way that swords that seem designed to pierce mail become popular only after mail had started to get supplanted by plate.


Plate still has many gaps that may be exploited (unless you are Henry VIII), and their exploitation is of such importance when reduced to your sidearm(s) that the acute points and stiff blades of the XV and XVIII become doubly important when heavy plate enters the battlefield. That is my opinion, at least.
View user's profile Send private message
Cyrus S.




Location: Australia
Joined: 27 Jul 2017

Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri 04 Aug, 2017 6:09 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
It's also important to remember that many of the combatants in the 12th century, particularly the infantry, could easily have had little or no armour at all. Thus, a sword would be of advantage against them.


All great points Craig, and your distinction of primary and secondary in fact being primary and "Oh yeah? Well here's my sword!" is quite right I expect. As you pointed out, for many it would be their only weapon. This is why it might be considered the backbone of medieval infantry. I would expect swords to be a pricey extravagance for the weary mercenary or man-at-arms.

Indeed the sword is highly effective across the board, utilitarian as I mentioned. But it was what you pulled out in close quarters, which is why I considered it a side-arm. Just replying to Dashiell's point, I don't think I'm a spear fan-boy. I'd rather have a sword than a spear anyday Laughing Out Loud

Timo Nieminen wrote:
Plenty of battle axes are no more effective against armour than swords.


Great info Timo, I honestly have no practical knowledge of axes. But I would assume they are slow in the sense of their momentum, not their weight. Swords can follow through a range of motion quite effortlessly, spears would be slower but as I mentioned require the least training to use effectively Happy

Cheers
View user's profile Send private message
Dashiell Harrison




Location: California
Joined: 14 Jun 2014

Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2017 1:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

So if we assume that swords evolved to defeat armor (as Craig quite rightly pointed out, armor was probably evolving in response to spears more than swords) then it seems to me that we can probably conclude that military swords in use in the 12th and 13th century were probably reasonably effective at inflicting serious contusions and fractures through mail since people didn't start seriously investing in swords that could stab through mail until after plate rendered blunt-force trauma with a sword unfeasible. I'm guessing a lot of dudes got smacked in the elbows, shoulders, and knees since that's where we start seeing plate first. Does that sound more or less right to folks?
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Philip Dyer





Joined: 25 Jul 2013

Posts: 493

PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2017 5:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Dashiell Harrison"]So if we assume that swords evolved to defeat armor (as Craig quite rightly pointed out, armor was probably evolving in response to spears more than swords) then it seems to me that we can probably conclude that military swords in use in the 12th and 13th century were probably reasonably effective at inflicting serious contusions and fractures through mail since people didn't start seriously investing in swords that could stab through mail until after plate rendered blunt-force trauma with a sword unfeasible. I'm guessing a lot of dudes got smacked in the elbows, shoulders, and knees since that's where we start seeing plate first. Does that sound more or less right to folks?[/quote
If you wanted to capture your fellow knight, that is where you would hit him, disable the limbs. Another thing I would thing spurred along the developed of stiff pointy sword when it did is that mail become more common for the common soldier and basicnets. Great helmets were often ditched after the lance charge and people would is a coif and skullcap. This leads to the fragile bones of the bottom side of the head only protected by mail, you could try to stab the man in the face or smash his facial bones through the mail. With a basic net, you try just a swing and you swing is nullified by the sides of the basicnet, you have to stab in the face if you want to kill him.
View user's profile Send private message
Mark Moore




Location: East backwoods-assed Texas
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Likes: 6 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 2,223

PostPosted: Sat 05 Aug, 2017 6:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dashiell Harrison wrote:
So if we assume that swords evolved to defeat armor (as Craig quite rightly pointed out, armor was probably evolving in response to spears more than swords) then it seems to me that we can probably conclude that military swords in use in the 12th and 13th century were probably reasonably effective at inflicting serious contusions and fractures through mail since people didn't start seriously investing in swords that could stab through mail until after plate rendered blunt-force trauma with a sword unfeasible. I'm guessing a lot of dudes got smacked in the elbows, shoulders, and knees since that's where we start seeing plate first. Does that sound more or less right to folks?


This is truly the case of weapons-vs-armor. They have been duking it out for centuries, saying to each other: ''Whatever you can do, I can do better!" Laughing Out Loud ....McM

''Life is like a box of chocolates...'' --- F. Gump
View user's profile Send private message
James Rogers





Joined: 31 May 2010

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug, 2017 10:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Modern ballistic body armor is rated to withstand a single impact from whatever the test round is (grade IV armor is tested against .30-06 AP rounds, for instance) but can't be guaranteed against additional impacts in or near the same location, because the earlier hit(s) will compromise the integrity of the plates.

Could this also be a factor in medieval armor, especially mail? Is it possible that a mail defense might be reliable for withstanding *a* thrust from a pointy sword, but if one kept attacking the same areas, eventually you'd get the point through? That might explain why later pointy sword forms were given reinforced points, prioritizing durability over actual ease of penetration.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,272

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug, 2017 12:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Rogers wrote:
Modern ballistic body armor is rated to withstand a single impact from whatever the test round is (grade IV armor is tested against .30-06 AP rounds, for instance) but can't be guaranteed against additional impacts in or near the same location, because the earlier hit(s) will compromise the integrity of the plates.

Could this also be a factor in medieval armor, especially mail? Is it possible that a mail defense might be reliable for withstanding *a* thrust from a pointy sword, but if one kept attacking the same areas, eventually you'd get the point through? That might explain why later pointy sword forms were given reinforced points, prioritizing durability over actual ease of penetration.


I don't think so. The whole thing about mail is its flexibility, whereas a modern armor plate is brittle enough to crack or shatter. IF you could thrust into the exact same ring on a piece of mail repeatedly, you could probably break it, but you're talking about a target a quarter-inch wide on a target that is moving and actively defending himself! And probably saying "ouch" a lot after the first hit or two, and being extra careful not to expose that spot again. If your aim is that good, it's much easier to go for the eyes or some other target.

And welcome to the board, by the way!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
M. Eversberg II




Location: California, Maryland, USA
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Reading list: 3 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,435

PostPosted: Thu 17 Aug, 2017 11:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Rogers wrote:
Modern ballistic body armor is rated to withstand a single impact from whatever the test round is (grade IV armor is tested against .30-06 AP rounds, for instance) but can't be guaranteed against additional impacts in or near the same location, because the earlier hit(s) will compromise the integrity of the plates.


Type III rigid plates require six shots to be certified, though they are spaced evenly.

M.

This space for rent or lease.
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number
James Rogers





Joined: 31 May 2010

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 5:00 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
I don't think so. The whole thing about mail is its flexibility, whereas a modern armor plate is brittle enough to crack or shatter. IF you could thrust into the exact same ring on a piece of mail repeatedly, you could probably break it, but you're talking about a target a quarter-inch wide on a target that is moving and actively defending himself! And probably saying "ouch" a lot after the first hit or two, and being extra careful not to expose that spot again. If your aim is that good, it's much easier to go for the eyes or some other target.

And welcome to the board, by the way!

Matthew


Thanks, I figured I'd just skip the "first post" post. Been lurking for a while.

Would you need to thrust into the exact same ring every time in order to weaken a spot on mail, since the rings pull on each other when stressed? If you repeatedly struck a region about six inches in diameter, wouldn't that compromise the entire area enough to eventually get a blade through? If I had $200 to blow on a piece of riveted mail and some padding I'd find it interesting to test.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




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

Posts: 1,272

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 6:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

James Rogers wrote:
Would you need to thrust into the exact same ring every time in order to weaken a spot on mail, since the rings pull on each other when stressed? If you repeatedly struck a region about six inches in diameter, wouldn't that compromise the entire area enough to eventually get a blade through?...


With wrought iron or low-carbon steel, I suspect the rings would be malleable enough that this wouldn't be a concern. The rings are *supposed* to move and deform. Repeated strikes that had enough force to actually weaken the rings would have to be emulsifying the body underneath. Easier to beat the man to death than beat your way through his mail, in other words.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,221

PostPosted: Fri 18 Aug, 2017 6:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I didn't test mail against swords but I did test it with a 55lb longbow. Dude who shot it has a long draw and probably draws it to about 60lb. The mail was placed over gambeson and over mail there was two layers of linen to act as a surcoat. Inside the gambeson was a cardboard box. Without "surcoat" gambeson and mail would defeat arrows, they would bounce off, but often one ring would be deformed and rivet would fall out from it, but surrounding rings held and arrow would lose enough Energy that it wouldn't have any more strength to penetrate the gambeson. Several arrows resulted in a few rings with their rivets popped out and a bit deformed, but the integrity of the mail was still good. No way anyone could exploit such small defects with a sword point unless by pure luck. With "surcoat" over mail, even less rivets were popped out and rings were only slightly deformed. And all that is on a mail I believe was not riveted properly because tips of wedge rivets were too small to form a proper "mushroom". So repeated thrusts to the mail would have to rely on luck to find that place where maybe on ring got broken or rivet fell out. Unless the thrust was so strong to break the ring and keep the momentum to pass though padding and into the target. That would be extremely hard to do with a sword, especially if one is not halfswording. I think the main reason the sword remained an important weapon in the age of mail is that killing a person was not a priority. Injuring and maiming is as good as killing, or even better if you get a ransom money later. And poor soldiers who didn't have enough money to be ransomed were easier to kill as they had less armour. Also, as long as the kite shield was Popular, it was really hard to thrust to anything other than the face.
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Huang




Location: Vancouver
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 12:59 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A huge amount of troops on the battlefield didn't wear metal armor. So a huge time the Knight would likely be cutting down opponents with the sword(when on horseback) after his lance broke. Also in civilian life, the sword would be the personal weapon for self defense.

Swords of the 1200s were quite heavy on the blade side. They were perfectly fine with crushing bones through mail and gambeson. So Knight using a sword against mail is perfectly viable. Sword v Axe probably was more of a preference thing.

It was not till plate armor, till anti-armor tips were made. Two handed Longswords rather than be blade heavy, were more pointy not to pierce plate, but to drive the point in the mail gaps like the armpits. The axe was not as common anymore, since like the sword the blows would glance off. For armored opponents, the mace and warhammer was developed to deal with them and that didn't appear widespread till mid-1300-1400s.

Andy Huang
View user's profile Send private message
T. Kew




Location: Cambridge, UK
Joined: 21 Apr 2012

Posts: 168

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 4:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Andrew Huang wrote:
A huge amount of troops on the battlefield didn't wear metal armor. So a huge time the Knight would likely be cutting down opponents with the sword(when on horseback) after his lance broke. Also in civilian life, the sword would be the personal weapon for self defense.

Swords of the 1200s were quite heavy on the blade side. They were perfectly fine with crushing bones through mail and gambeson. So Knight using a sword against mail is perfectly viable. Sword v Axe probably was more of a preference thing.

It was not till plate armor, till anti-armor tips were made. Two handed Longswords rather than be blade heavy, were more pointy not to pierce plate, but to drive the point in the mail gaps like the armpits. The axe was not as common anymore, since like the sword the blows would glance off. For armored opponents, the mace and warhammer was developed to deal with them and that didn't appear widespread till mid-1300-1400s.


The mace shows up well before then. In addition, the classic single-handed "horseman's axe" is a relatively late weapon - contemporary with the one-handed warhammer and later flanged maces.

Instructor and scholar, Cambridge HEMA
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Huang




Location: Vancouver
Joined: 14 Mar 2017

Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat 19 Aug, 2017 11:09 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

T. Kew wrote:
Andrew Huang wrote:
A huge amount of troops on the battlefield didn't wear metal armor. So a huge time the Knight would likely be cutting down opponents with the sword(when on horseback) after his lance broke. Also in civilian life, the sword would be the personal weapon for self defense.

Swords of the 1200s were quite heavy on the blade side. They were perfectly fine with crushing bones through mail and gambeson. So Knight using a sword against mail is perfectly viable. Sword v Axe probably was more of a preference thing.

It was not till plate armor, till anti-armor tips were made. Two handed Longswords rather than be blade heavy, were more pointy not to pierce plate, but to drive the point in the mail gaps like the armpits. The axe was not as common anymore, since like the sword the blows would glance off. For armored opponents, the mace and warhammer was developed to deal with them and that didn't appear widespread till mid-1300-1400s.


The mace shows up well before then. In addition, the classic single-handed "horseman's axe" is a relatively late weapon - contemporary with the one-handed warhammer and later flanged maces.

I don't think maces were as common till the Late Medieval period. Axes did exist later, however I believe maces and warhammers along with the Horseman's Pick were much more common.

Andy Huang
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Sword use and armored combat in the High Middle Ages
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