Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21  Next

Randall Moffett wrote:
Jean,

Hard to say what the draw weights are for any one but the archers of Henry VIII's flagship the Mary Rose. That said not sure we can assume it was markedly different.

RPM


i think your right about that the draw was up to 170 lbs and i haven't read any books on it in a while but i believe that the lowest was 110 lbs its safe to assume that the average would be around 150 lbs (please don't quote me i'm making an educated guess)
oh for all involved in the "Arma" translation debate it truly does mean weapons not armor i'm studying latin and im not sure if the medieval latin changed the meaning (this happoned to a few words) but in roman latin arma means weapons
The issue is that in the medieval period armed tends to mean the armour they are in. A fully armed man was decide by the defensive armour he had on. So a man half armed is not there with half a sword or spear but half armour or less than full armour.

You see this distinction a great deal in the Patent and Close rolls. For the most part they seem to have focused on defensive equipment over weapons for some reason. In fact only a small number of the large amount of the requirement lists I have seen even list the need for weapons, though I think we can assume they had them ;)

I know some later Roman authors use this term in this way as well. Vegetius comes to mind but it has been a while since I looked at Strabo and the likes.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
Jean,

Seems much of the Lance attendants were used elsewhere. Several people take the term valet which is used in the period texts in the final group that does not join in the battle as being made up of this group.

William,

Hard to say what the draw weights are for any one but the archers of Henry VIII's flagship the Mary Rose. That said not sure we can assume it was markedly different.

As far as cannons go I'd be hesitant to put any real use of these there as none of the people present at the battle indicate they did much or anything, most not even mentioning them.

It is highly likely any cannons Henry had were left at Harfleur. They had issues with bringing enough supplies do to room, unlikely to bring large cannons along over arrows and food.

RPM


which i admitted myself, though the book i read implied henry had them with him at agingcourt, but just that he didnt use them i didnt know they were left at harfleur, but it doesnt matter either ay.. they still wernt used at agincourt.

but according to froissart (from the wikipedia page .. so might be wrong)

Quote:
Froissart writes that English cannon had made "two or three discharges on the Genoese", which is taken to mean individual shots by two or three guns because of the time necessary to reload such primitive artillery.[2] These were believed to shoot large arrows and primitive grapeshot. The Florentine Giovanni Villani agreed that they were destructive on the field, though he also indicated that the guns continued to fire upon French cavalry later in the battle:

The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses...The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners...[by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.



when talking about the performance of bows at a specific battle we need to know what the various knights were wearing and armed with, especially in terms of shields..

and we have records of for example the parliment reissuing a law to ensure hardened arrows, is there any record of the TYPE of arrows ordered?

because hardened arrows will perform differently against differing levels of armour.

and over time, the armour will have more pieces and less gaps,
by vernuil, i assume were getting to the level of alwite armour like the gothic and milanese styles. which will have alot less gaps.

crecy?

poltiers?

agincourt?

vernuil?

what did breastplates likely look like, did they have solid breastplates? or did most have COP's? at poltiers and crecy.
whether a COP protects more at the front doesnt matter, what did they wear at each battle? it might have more gaps at the side, although those gaps might be compensated by having a full maile hauberk underneath..

dan, you mention gaps... but at crecy, how many would have worn a full shirt, or even haubergon of maile underneath. meaning we still have trouble?
would they be wearing this maile shirt at agincourt?

so, how many wore maile shirts under the plate?

how well developed was the armour for the limbs?

what did sabatons consist of?

what helmets did they use, what neck protection would have been utilised

how commonly would shields be used at each battle? what kind of shields would be used?



my understanding is that, as far as helmets go

for the 14th century, the cone visored bascinet with eyepieces which were bulhged so that the eye wasnt right up against the eyeslot. this had a maile, maintle covering the neck and shoulders although poorer men would have just had an open faced bascnet.. this would mean that arrow fire would quite likely hit you in the face.

my understanding is that this, around the 1400ish mark, evolved into the grand bascinet, this instead having a plate collar rather than a mail mantle, and a more rounded snout.

the eye slots look like they are well suited to preventing an arrow from reaching the eye,

how do those things perform in terms of breathing and visibility?
like, in close combat, a visored sallet with bevor, you could raise the visor and lock into place.. and lower the bevor...

you cant do that with a snouted bascinet.


 Attachment: 97.42 KB
Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg
froissarts image of the battle of crecy..

 Attachment: 147.98 KB
The_battle_of_Poitiers.jpg
battle of poltiers
Contents:
Jean Froissart, Chroniques (Vol. I)

Place of origin, date:
Paris, Virgil Master (illuminator); c. 1410

Material:
Vellum, ff. 382, 385x288 (243x187) mm, 42 lines, littera cursiva, Binding: 18th-century brown leather; gilt; w

Matt Easton wrote:
Very interesting, thanks.
I'm presuming that the number of French men-at-arms is to some degree a matter of conjecture still then? I am surprised that the French men-at-arms outnumbered the militias which had swelled the French force on the march. My impression previously had been that these militias, together with various less-armoured retainers, such as the more lightly armed gros valets probably outnumbered the men-at-arms. But you think not?

In regards to the equipment, I have been listing a few examples of armour left in wills from this period here:
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewtopi...mp;t=18196


I think it would be unusual to have so much heavy cavalry without their support, which does not just include valetti but also armed retainers. A typical Lance in the Baltic in the Mid 15th Century included 1 knight or konstafler (burgher knight) 1 or 2 lancers (sometimes also referred to as scutifer or squires), a mounted crossbowman, and a valetti.

This is a typical Feudal army going to war in the (late) 15th Century in Bavaria

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...eerzug.jpg

I think the cavalry in that image are pretty good example of a 'lancers' kit, which includes a helmet and breast plate, and often some limb armor, but could not be categorized as cap-a-pied armor. I think you'd have a lot of cavalry and infantry armed like that.

Quote:

I find it interesting that on one hand some people who are listed as civilian tradesmen owned quite extensive amounts of armour in England at the time (presumably they had served as men-at-arms, or someone in the family had),


I don't know why anyone would find this surprising, since 'civilian tradesmen' (i.e. artisans with burgher citizenship) were tasked with the defense of towns throughout the Medieval period, and in many parts of Europe comprised the core military defense of the town and the surrounding region. Merchants fought as heavy cavalry. Even in England burgher militias were important this way.

Quote:

but also the amount of armour left in wills suggests that a good percentage of lower status men-at-arms would have been equipped with somewhat of a mixture of armour, some perhaps a generation old. In some of these wills they list items of armour, but certain pieces we expect to see are not there - such as listing a bascinet, haubergeon and gauntlets, but in some cases no mention of arm or leg plates, or a breastplate/cuirass/coat of plates. This makes me wonder if actually a lot of men-at-arms were not as well equipped as we might have believed. Certainly some period art shows a great variation between what individual men-at-arms wore at this time. Not that this necessarily makes much difference, I just find it interesting. :)


It does reflect the reality of urban militias, burghers had to swear an oath that they owned the armor which town regulations required, based on which specific form of citizenship they held. More importnatly I think it's also a common situation for the gentry and lower ranks of the aristocracy from records I've seen. Your description matches what you see in the image above, which is a depiction of the army of a castle (Schloss Wolfegg) going to war

Jean
Clifford Rogers wrote:
Matt Easton wrote:
This makes me wonder if actually a lot of men-at-arms were not as well equipped as we might have believed. Certainly some period art shows a great variation between what individual men-at-arms wore at this time.


Men-at-arms were normally gentlemen, knights and esquires. Most of the guys whose wills you cite would likely not have been classed as men-at-arms in an English army, and certainly not in a French one. Their armor was probably for urban militia service. Members of the urban elite would often have enough armor to provide some for their servants as well.


There was a whole category of urban men-at-arms called "konstaffler" (same etymological root as constable, from comes stabili 'count of the stable'), who were usually members of burgher "Patrician" societies and fought as a lance . For example The patrician society of the city of Lübeck, called the Lillienvente, fielded an impressive 402 Lances in 1435. The the City of Strasbourg fielded a smaller force of a total of 115 lances in 1363: 81 ‘Lances’ from among the Merchant ‘Patricians’, 21 from the craft-Guilds, 5 from the boatmen, 4 from the storekeepers, and 4 from the wine merchants. This was supported by a much larger force of heavy infantry and crossbowmen.

My source for this is Towns and Defense in Later Medieval Germany, Eltis, David, Nottingham Medieval Studies 33 (1989), 91–103. See also “Imperial and Free Towns of the Holy Roman Empire, City States in Pre-modern Germany?” Peter Johanek, A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: an investigation The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, (2000), ISBN 8778761778, and also Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, “History of the German People at the close of the Middle Ages”, Johannes Janssen, 1896 (translated by M.A. Mitchell and A.M. Christie in two volumes. http://www.archive.org/details/historyofgermanp15jansuoft

The statistics on Stuttgart (along with a photo of a stained glass window which depicts the deployment in question, including the craft-Guilds going out as heavy-infantry on carts under their guild-banners) are also quoted in the Osprey military book German Medieval Armies 1300-1500, Christopher Gravett ISBN 0-85045-614-2


I'm not sure about all of France but I know for a fact that the Flemish cities which were part of the Duchy of Burgundy had this type of urban knight, as did the Italian towns, and I think some of the Breton and Norman towns did too in the 14th C. It depended on the specific type of charter they had.

J
In England at least towns and city provided all sorts of troops for war, including men at arms. That said the reviews I have seen indicate if you did not have fairly complete armour you were not considered a Man at arms. Once I get my PhD up you can look at the Appdx. and see how often some towns like Soton were used for war. Certainly slows down at points but there is not a single decade between 1300-1500 but one that they did not have men out on military activity for the king.

I have seen weavers and bakers in some English major cities with full harnesses and have no doubt considering this armour, spurs, horse harness and horses they fought as MAA. They also provide armed men quite often which seem to be infantry but well armoured.

I have a fairly long list of inventories from places like London, York, Southampton, Norwich and others of military equipment owned by towns and townsmen.

Jean,

If you any other Imperial sources for the late medieval period along the lines of Urban military activity I'd love them. Once I finish with my research on English towns (decades of work) I'd love to compare them with continental ones.

RPM
Randall Moffett wrote:
In England at least towns and city provided all sorts of troops for war, including men at arms. That said the reviews I have seen indicate if you did not have fairly complete armour you were not considered a Man at arms. Once I get my PhD up you can look at the Appdx. and see how often some towns like Soton were used for war. Certainly slows down at points but there is not a single decade between 1300-1500 but one that they did not have men out on military activity for the king.


This is the same in Flanders, Swabia, Saxony, Bohemia and Prussia. The only difference is in Central Europe a lot of these towns were fighting for their own interests at least as often as for the King or their Prince. In fact fairly often they were fighting against Princes or robber-knights. There is a common misconception that burghers were peaceful and soft while knights did all the fighting. That may have been the feudal ideal, but it appears to be far from the reality. All the towns I've read about were quite warlike. In that Osprey book for example the author claims that the towns on the Rhine in Swabia destroyed the castles of over 100 robber knights just in the last few years of the 14th C.

Quote:

I have seen weavers and bakers in some English major cities with full harnesses and have no doubt considering this armour, spurs, horse harness and horses they fought as MAA. They also provide armed men quite often which seem to be infantry but well armoured.


As in the stats I listed above for Strassbourg, each segment or faction of the town society would equip a certain number of lances, and the rest would typically fight as what I call heavy infantry / fully armored footmen, the rest usually as gunners or crossbowmen. The stained glass image from Strassbourg shows all the guild members fully armored in a typical late 14th C transitional harness, riding on carts. But other more realistic period images I've seen like from the Hausbuch from Schloss Wolfegg, also linked above, often show them without leg armor.

Quote:

I have a fairly long list of inventories from places like London, York, Southampton, Norwich and others of military equipment owned by towns and townsmen.


I'd love to see these especially for York, as I have a buddy who lives there who is researching the military history of the town as it relates to HEMA.

Quote:

Jean,

If you any other Imperial sources for the late medieval period along the lines of Urban military activity I'd love them. Once I finish with my research on English towns (decades of work) I'd love to compare them with continental ones.

RPM


I have a ton of sources in my my bibliography for my Baltic book for the HRE and the Baltic areas (mainly towns under German Town Law) for the mid 15th Century, I'll be glad to PM it to you if you like.

That article "Towns and Defense in late Medieval Germany" is a really good short introduction for an overall perspective but it's not as easy to find online any more.

J
I'd also love to see those Randall.

Matt
please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c&feature=related

please keep in mind that this is done with bows that would be considered light for a warbow and at close range so a heavyer bow should be able to do the same damage at a much greater distance or against a thiker target at the same distance these are modern reproductions so the breastplate (1.5mm) was highcrabon steel (so it said) and the bodkins hardened the bow that did the most penetration was a yew bow and only 110 lbs (this was one of the lowest draw wieghts found on the mary rose)
1) Where is the thickness stated?
2) Where did you take HIGH carbon steel?

This video can't be taken as any proof for the following reasons:
1) plate thickness is unknown and can be between 1 and 1.5mm (most likely around 1.3mm if it started as 1.5mm sheet and then was dished and sanded). At least some parts of medieval armor were more than twice as thick.
2) plate is made of low-carbon steel. Many 15th century armors (IIRC over half of the Italian armors mentioned in The knight and the blast furnace) were made of medium-carbon steel which depending on carbon content can be considerably harder even without heat treatment. And some armors were heat treated. And some of those heat treated were heat treated successfully.
3) No padding was used, breast plate was placed against a solid object
4) Garment worn under armor could give additional protection, at least if we are speaking about 14th century
5) Again, in the 14th century and sometimes in the 15th century maille was worn under plate and that maille would certainly give additional protection.

But even in such test that was biased against the armor we seem to get on average only about 1" of penetration. If we take into account padding and the fact that in most places armor does not lie against the body but there is some space between wounds inflicted would be even less deep.

So what would we get if we took a good 15th century armor such as the AVANT armor? Plate thickness is mentioned here http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21152&start=44 and IIRC metallurgical analysis is in The knight and the blast furnace.

As already stated many times in this thread, it is much easier to penetrate a weak spot where there is relatively weak armor or no armor at all. These chances are increased when shooting from the side or back as armor was mainly designed to deflect points that come from the front. Leg armor is a good example. While being made of relatively thin plate, it is shaped so that it is very difficult to penetrate it from the front, in most cases points would just harmlessly slide off.
R. Kolick wrote:
please watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCE40J93m5c&feature=related

please keep in mind that this is done with bows that would be considered light for a warbow and at close range so a heavyer bow should be able to do the same damage at a much greater distance or against a thiker target at the same distance these are modern reproductions so the breastplate (1.5mm) was highcrabon steel (so it said) and the bodkins hardened the bow that did the most penetration was a yew bow and only 110 lbs (this was one of the lowest draw wieghts found on the mary rose)


I saw the "carbon" steel comment, which is somewhat telling as to the limited knowledge of armour these guys have. The BP looked like one of those Indian import 18ga mild steel jobbies, which frankly I can bend in my hands. The fact that a number of arrows deflected off the sides and struck the backstop was equally amusing considering the crap quality of such decorative armour. That their "hardened" tips fired at close range dented or breeched the BP was also instructive as they barely entered the BP let alone the straw mannequin supporting it. They would not have damaged the normal sublayers of mail and foundation garment that would be worn.

I suppose it was somewhat better than the "Longbow" sequence from Weapons that Made Britain. Simon Stanley and Robert Hardy crowing about a minor perforation of a flat plate stuck on some balistic gel... well it was just sad.

This argument will never go away. :p
William P wrote:
Randall Moffett wrote:
Jean,

Seems much of the Lance attendants were used elsewhere. Several people take the term valet which is used in the period texts in the final group that does not join in the battle as being made up of this group.

William,

Hard to say what the draw weights are for any one but the archers of Henry VIII's flagship the Mary Rose. That said not sure we can assume it was markedly different.

As far as cannons go I'd be hesitant to put any real use of these there as none of the people present at the battle indicate they did much or anything, most not even mentioning them.

It is highly likely any cannons Henry had were left at Harfleur. They had issues with bringing enough supplies do to room, unlikely to bring large cannons along over arrows and food.

RPM


which i admitted myself, though the book i read implied henry had them with him at agingcourt, but just that he didnt use them i didnt know they were left at harfleur, but it doesnt matter either ay.. they still wernt used at agincourt.

but according to froissart (from the wikipedia page .. so might be wrong)

Quote:
Froissart writes that English cannon had made "two or three discharges on the Genoese", which is taken to mean individual shots by two or three guns because of the time necessary to reload such primitive artillery.[2] These were believed to shoot large arrows and primitive grapeshot. The Florentine Giovanni Villani agreed that they were destructive on the field, though he also indicated that the guns continued to fire upon French cavalry later in the battle:

The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses...The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners...[by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.



when talking about the performance of bows at a specific battle we need to know what the various knights were wearing and armed with, especially in terms of shields..

and we have records of for example the parliment reissuing a law to ensure hardened arrows, is there any record of the TYPE of arrows ordered?

because hardened arrows will perform differently against differing levels of armour.

and over time, the armour will have more pieces and less gaps,
by vernuil, i assume were getting to the level of alwite armour like the gothic and milanese styles. which will have alot less gaps.

crecy?

poltiers?

agincourt?

vernuil?

what did breastplates likely look like, did they have solid breastplates? or did most have COP's? at poltiers and crecy.
whether a COP protects more at the front doesnt matter, what did they wear at each battle? it might have more gaps at the side, although those gaps might be compensated by having a full maile hauberk underneath..

dan, you mention gaps... but at crecy, how many would have worn a full shirt, or even haubergon of maile underneath. meaning we still have trouble?
would they be wearing this maile shirt at agincourt?

so, how many wore maile shirts under the plate?

how well developed was the armour for the limbs?

what did sabatons consist of?

what helmets did they use, what neck protection would have been utilised

how commonly would shields be used at each battle? what kind of shields would be used?



my understanding is that, as far as helmets go

for the 14th century, the cone visored bascinet with eyepieces which were bulhged so that the eye wasnt right up against the eyeslot. this had a maile, maintle covering the neck and shoulders although poorer men would have just had an open faced bascnet.. this would mean that arrow fire would quite likely hit you in the face.

my understanding is that this, around the 1400ish mark, evolved into the grand bascinet, this instead having a plate collar rather than a mail mantle, and a more rounded snout.

the eye slots look like they are well suited to preventing an arrow from reaching the eye,

how do those things perform in terms of breathing and visibility?
like, in close combat, a visored sallet with bevor, you could raise the visor and lock into place.. and lower the bevor...

you cant do that with a snouted bascinet.


Knightly armour by the time of Crecy and Poitiers actually had few gaps in the plate, and what gaps there were were always covered by mail.
These are some examples of up-to-date armour from that time

1344
[ Linked Image ]
1346
[ Linked Image ]
1350
[ Linked Image ]

The image of Crecy you posted was made generations after the actual battle, and has absolutely no bearing on what was actually worn in 1346.
(Not trying to sound rude, I just wasn't sure if you were aware.)
The BEST knightly armour had few gaps. What percentage of the army at Crecy and Poitiers had the best armour?
It's impossible to say, but obviously there would have been a lot of variation in the armour worn.
The above effigies are only really representative of the knightly class. (and probably wealthier men-at-arms.)
Sometime before Crecy, I think Edward was requiring everyone in his army to have a minimum of a bascinet, gauntlets and a coat-of-plates, which gives an idea of how the lower infantryman might have been equipped.
Jojo Zerach wrote:
Knightly armour by the time of Crecy and Poitiers actually had few gaps in the plate, and what gaps there were were always covered by mail.
These are some examples of up-to-date armour from that time

1344
[ Linked Image ]
1346
[ Linked Image ]
1350
[ Linked Image ]

The image of Crecy you posted was made generations after the actual battle, and has absolutely no bearing on what was actually worn in 1346.
(Not trying to sound rude, I just wasn't sure if you were aware.)

no no, no offense taken, im genuinely confused, some people say coat of plates over maile others say they had full breastplates by the time of crec as the standard armour.
William,

Seems we are crossing wires on Crecy and Agincourt here.

Quote"but according to froissart (from the wikipedia page .. so might be wrong)

Quote:
Froissart writes that English cannon had made "two or three discharges on the Genoese", which is taken to mean individual shots by two or three guns because of the time necessary to reload such primitive artillery.[2] These were believed to shoot large arrows and primitive grapeshot. The Florentine Giovanni Villani agreed that they were destructive on the field, though he also indicated that the guns continued to fire upon French cavalry later in the battle:

The English guns cast iron balls by means of fire...They made a noise like thunder and caused much loss in men and horses...The Genoese were continually hit by the archers and the gunners...[by the end of the battle] the whole plain was covered by men struck down by arrows and cannon balls.
"

This Crecy, but still likely not correct-

Yes the latest version of Froissart includes reference to cannons and so does Villani. Since the preceding 4 or 5 lack cannons in Froissart I am somewhat doubtful as to why he only included it so late. Since Villani had been in Jail in Italy during this period I'd be careful in how one applies what he is saying as everything else he writes is wrong why would this be right in this respect? Seems more like a way to explain the Crossbowmen of Genoa's failure.

I doubt many had full breastplates by Crecy. But I am sure by this point they were beginning to be used as by the next decade they are being given away as gifts as other common militaria was. That said COPs are so common among commoners it'd be unlikely to have a knight without one. Since the 1330s we see requirements in England that more or less give a good idea of basic armaments and COPs are only second to aketons and bascinets.

I still doubt knights at Crecy were not largely equipped the same if not better than knights of later dates. First they had many more layers. Think a gent in the most protective armour, he would likely have a double textile armour below and above his plate and mail, as well as a COP on his chest and a mail hauberk to his mid thigh or so. By Agincourt the outer defense likely is less common but and we are only given info that the French wore, gambesons, hauberks and their harnesses by Monstrelet. Now he might have been well equipped but so many layers must have been an issue so I think we can figure not everyone was armed in this manner. But I think the gap thing gets overblow grossly. Plate harnesses have gaps in many of the same places. The only real difference is the gaps of the COP between the plates largely were replaced in a white harness by the breastplate.


RPM
Like Randall said, breastplates were likely used at Crecy, but were probably small in number.
They would also have been covered by a surcoat or jupon. (not worn exposed in the "white harness" style of the 15th century.)
if the knights at crecy and agincourt had, for the most part, maile under their breastplates... then as far as im concerned that nails the debate about lots of kills from arrowfire, the knights in those battles must have been killed by arrows hittingexposed faces, or gaps in the armour..

simply put, even if the arrows could puncture plates, i personally consider it pretty much impossible to penetrate BOTH maile and a plate over said maile, at the same time. unless your hit by a period cannonball.
an arrowhead that might punch into plate armour would rapidly lose energy trying to break the maile as well.
not to mention the fact that the type of arrowhead that would break a piece of plate armour and whats needed to bust maile are completely different.

and this consideration isnt including the fact you likely had a gambeson underneath. which would asorb any impact the maile and plates didnt..

im not saying you wouldnt feel it. just that it wouldnt kill you'


maybe the best way to replicate being a frenchman at agincourt and to try and assess the tiring effect of arrow impacts would be to get 2-3 guys to whack the man playing the frenchman with sticks while he walked, in harness, through mud, then had to fight a man, standing on the other end of the field.

this might help quantify the attrition the arrow storm might have caused to the french knights ability to engage efficiently in hand to hand combat.

now all we need is a man willing to get up in harness and trudge through the mud all the while being whacked with sticks..
William P wrote:


now all we need is a man willing to get up in harness and trudge through the mud all the while being whacked with sticks..


Been there, done that. SCAdians call it Pennsic. :p
Remember that while the knights were well armoured, the horses of this period had little protection.
Froissart writes that at the Battle of Poitiers, the English archers noticed their arrows were having little or no effect on the French armour, so the archers moved to the French flanks and shot at their horses.
If you can kill or cripple the knight's horse, you effectively destroy the cavalry charge.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 19, 20, 21  Next

Page 16 of 21

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum