| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
 Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: About maces in biblical times |
 |
|
Greetings
I was reading this page http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace1.html and it seems to me that the use of maces was very widespread in biblical lands yet there are no references to it in the Bible that I can remember. The most similar thing I can recall is Samson smashing skulls with the jaw of animal. Almost every time a weapon is mentioned is a sword. Does anyone have any info about these ancient maces apart from the link above?
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
  |
 |
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello all!
| Sergio Duarte wrote: | | Does anyone have any info about these ancient maces apart from the link above? |
Sergio,
I know that stone-headed maces were used in Ancient Egypt. They may have been more ceremonial than functional, but a functional version could have been possible. I'll have to do some digging around to find more details.
Stay safe in 2007!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | Hello all!
| Sergio Duarte wrote: | | Does anyone have any info about these ancient maces apart from the link above? |
Sergio,
I know that stone-headed maces were used in Ancient Egypt. They may have been more ceremonial than functional, but a functional version could have been possible. I'll have to do some digging around to find more details.
Stay safe in 2007! |
One thing that is very surprising about many stone maces on that site is the very small diameter of the hole through wich they were connected to the shaft. Maybe they were ceremonial indeed. They almost look like those weights used in looms.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
Okay, I consulted some of my books. This is general information about maces in ancient times, but it might help.
Firstly, ancient Egyptians did indeed use ceremonial maces with stone heads. One is pictured in the Diagram book Weapons: An International Encyclopedia from 5000 BC to 2000 AD. The caption claims that it is a stone mace-head of the "Scorpion King" dating from circa 3200 BC. The book also includes a small line drawing of King Nar-mer of Upper Egypt using a mace to smite a prisoner, from a stone palette of circa 2900 BC.
There is a brief description of the history of the mace in The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons , edited by Leonid Tarrasuk and Claude Blair. Here's what the entry said about maces in ancient times:
| Tarrasuk & Blair wrote: |
In ancient times in the Middle East, maces with heads made of stone, bronze, and copper were in use. The Romans, who never adopted the mace as a standard weapon in their own armies, saw to it that their allies were equipped with bronze-headed maces. |
Maces could be used in ancient times, but I don't think their use would have been wide-spread. I think bow, spear, and sword would have been more common. Perhaps one of our friendly fellow forumites with more knowledge about the ancient world will have more information for you.
I hope this was at least slightly helpful!
Happy New Year!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
| Sergio Duarte wrote: |
One thing that is very surprising about many stone maces on that site is the very small diameter of the hole through wich they were connected to the shaft. Maybe they were ceremonial indeed. They almost look like those weights used in looms. |
Sergio,
It does seem that at least some of the stone-objects from Egypt are mace-heads, at least ceremonial ones, since we have depictions of pharaohs wielding maces. It is occasionally seen in Egyptian art.
Now, your comment about loom-weights is interesting. It wouldn't be the first time that archaeologists misidentified artifacts found on a site. Of course, the stone-headed maces might just have been throwing-weapons as well. The Bayeux Tapestry (admittedly a medieval source, and not ancient) depicts what may be a mace, club, or some similar object flying through the air toward the Norman horsemen.
Just a thought!
By the way, thanks for sharing that link!
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
Last edited by Richard Fay on Sun 31 Dec, 2006 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | Hello again!
There is a brief description of the history of the mace in The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons , edited by Leonid Tarrasuk and Claude Blair. Here's what the entry said about maces in ancient times:
| Tarrasuk & Blair wrote: |
In ancient times in the Middle East, maces with heads made of stone, bronze, and copper were in use. The Romans, who never adopted the mace as a standard weapon in their own armies, saw to it that their allies were equipped with bronze-headed maces. |
! |
Thank you Richard
I never knew this about the romans. And I was recently surprised by learning that sassanid persian used maces and that they where much more common in the middle east than in western Europe. But if you think that heavy armoured cavalry was "invented" by parthians and not in medieval Europe maybe this won't be very surprising.
Yes it seems that apart from the romans with the gladius the primary weapon in ancient times was the spear, even for the celts.
Happy new year.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Dec, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The mace was the weapon of the supreme commander of wars in Sumerian/ Bablyonian stories and the creation story.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Resources/Ane/enumaA.html
Although the mace was mentioned and used in 12th century medieval Europe, it was still regarded as a Persian weapon according to David Crouche's book "Tournament."
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another thing that I find a bit confusing is why the mace would have went out of general use even in those ancient cultures of the middle east. Saying that they went out of use because of better armour is strange since I have always thought of the mace as the primary anti-armour weapon. apparently there were several centuries without noticeable use of the mace (although the aechemenid persians are known to have used the sagaris (a battle axe) I don't remember seeing any reference to maces) until the sassanian persians began to use it again some centuries after Christ.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I never knew that about Romans handing out bronze maces, either, and I've been studying Roman weaponry for a good 15 years... Sounds completely bogus to me, assuming they're talking about the Republic or Empire--I've never seen any sort of mace from those periods, aside from big clubs carried by some half-naked auxiliaries on Trajan's Column. If they mean something from the later Byzantine era, maybe, but that's out of my range.
The current wisdom for very early maces was that they were popular into the early Bronze Age, up to the point when helmets were invented. That limited their use enough that spears and other weapons took over. That seems a little weak to me, but it's not impossible. If those maceheads are particularly small, they'd still be enough to crack a skull while not being very good against any kind of armor (or softer body parts). Think about how big of a rock you want to get whacked on the head with, eh?
Later on, as some cultures developed very complete armor for their aristocrats, heavier maces would be logical weapons. So yes, Parthian and Persian armored cavalry used them in the Roman era.
Interesting point about the loom weights, but those tend to be a recognizable shape for their particular culture, and are generally clay rather than stone. Some of those Egyptian ones are rare or very hard stone, as well, so unless you want to suggest that they are "ceremonial loom weights", we'd better stick with mace heads!
Khairete,
Matthew
|
|
 |
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Duarte wrote: | | Another thing that I find a bit confusing is why the mace would have went out of general use even in those ancient cultures of the middle east. |
Sergio,
I'm taking a "stab in the dark" as it were, but perhaps the mace fell out of favour because battle tactics changed. I'm not even sure that the mace was ever the primary weapon in most ancient cultures; just browsing through some of my books, the bow and spear, followed by the sword and axe, seem to predominate. However, certain tactics don't really lend themselves to the use of the mace. The hoplites in their phalanxes would not have had much use for a mace. The Romans developed a certain style of fighting that involved the throwing spear (pilum) followed by an attack with the gladius. I believe the spear was important even in the somewhat different style of fighting of the Early Republic, with the three lines of hastati, principes, and triarii, and the veles skirmishers. Most seem to have been armed with spears and short swords. I think spears and short swords are more suited to close formations than a mace (which would take a bit of room to wield). The mace may have been effective against the armour of the period, but it might not have suited the tactics of the period.
In other cultures, the bow came to be the dominate weapon. Even if the mace was carried, it would be a secondary weapon, used if the bow could no longer be used.
I think the mace seems to have become an authority symbol early on; it was certainly symbolic in Ancient Egypt, and the same could be true in Ancient Babylonia (see Jared's post). Perhaps some of these surviving ancient maces were carried by "officers", high-ranking military officials or war-leaders.
I'm only making a suggestion, and I'm probably making some gross over-generalizations, but I hope this argument seems to make some sense.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | I never knew that about Romans handing out bronze maces, either, and I've been studying Roman weaponry for a good 15 years... Sounds completely bogus to me, assuming they're talking about the Republic or Empire--I've never seen any sort of mace from those periods, aside from big clubs carried by some half-naked auxiliaries on Trajan's Column. If they mean something from the later Byzantine era, maybe, but that's out of my range.
The current wisdom for very early maces was that they were popular into the early Bronze Age, up to the point when helmets were invented. That limited their use enough that spears and other weapons took over. That seems a little weak to me, but it's not impossible. If those maceheads are particularly small, they'd still be enough to crack a skull while not being very good against any kind of armor (or softer body parts). Think about how big of a rock you want to get whacked on the head with, eh?
Later on, as some cultures developed very complete armor for their aristocrats, heavier maces would be logical weapons. So yes, Parthian and Persian armored cavalry used them in the Roman era.
Interesting point about the loom weights, but those tend to be a recognizable shape for their particular culture, and are generally clay rather than stone. Some of those Egyptian ones are rare or very hard stone, as well, so unless you want to suggest that they are "ceremonial loom weights", we'd better stick with mace heads!
Khairete,
Matthew |
Yesterday I went looking for loom weights on google and they where rather different from the mace-heads on the site I mentioned above. So it was a general similarity but I was speaking out of my blurry memory  Still I find those small diameters more ceremonial-like than combat-like (I don't know if I can write it this way...  I hope it's understandable)
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | | Sergio Duarte wrote: | | Another thing that I find a bit confusing is why the mace would have went out of general use even in those ancient cultures of the middle east. |
Sergio,
I'm taking a "stab in the dark" as it were, but perhaps the mace fell out of favour because battle tactics changed. I'm not even sure that the mace was ever the primary weapon in most ancient cultures; just browsing through some of my books, the bow and spear, followed by the sword and axe, seem to predominate. However, certain tactics don't really lend themselves to the use of the mace. The hoplites in their phalanxes would not have had much use for a mace. The Romans developed a certain style of fighting that involved the throwing spear (pilum) followed by an attack with the gladius. I believe the spear was important even in the somewhat different style of fighting of the Early Republic, with the three lines of hastati, principes, and triarii, and the veles skirmishers. Most seem to have been armed with spears and short swords. I think spears and short swords are more suited to close formations than a mace (which would take a bit of room to wield). The mace may have been effective against the armour of the period, but it might not have suited the tactics of the period.
In other cultures, the bow came to be the dominate weapon. Even if the mace was carried, it would be a secondary weapon, used if the bow could no longer be used.
I think the mace seems to have become an authority symbol early on; it was certainly symbolic in Ancient Egypt, and the same could be true in Ancient Babylonia (see Jared's post). Perhaps some of these surviving ancient maces were carried by "officers", high-ranking military officials or war-leaders.
I'm only making a suggestion, and I'm probably making some gross over-generalizations, but I hope this argument seems to make some sense.
Stay safe! |
Thank you for pointing me in that direction you may be right. If we think about the so called standard of Ur the soldiers are shown using spears as their primary weapon and seem to be organized in a kind of phalanx so it would not be a good formation for wielding a mace. Maybe maces were more common in neolithic times with small warbands in loose formation (if any) and it made a come back with sassanians fighting parthian heavy cavalry because maybe ( I have one of Osprey's titles about parthians and sassanian persians but don't remember if they fought in formation) they were more prone to individual combat . There is one carving from Firusabad showing a "persian knight wrestling a parthian noble out of the saddle". Yet the use of maces seems to have been as backup weapons, the lance being the primary.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Amt wrote: | | I never knew that about Romans handing out bronze maces, either, and I've been studying Roman weaponry for a good 15 years... Sounds completely bogus to me, assuming they're talking about the Republic or Empire--I've never seen any sort of mace from those periods, aside from big clubs carried by some half-naked auxiliaries on Trajan's Column. If they mean something from the later Byzantine era, maybe, but that's out of my range. |
Matthew,
I must admit, I've never heard the bit about the Romans handing out maces either. I've studied arms and armour in general as a hobby for close to twenty years, and I've read a little about Roman arms and armour, and this was the first I saw it, too. However, I don't feel completely comfortable calling something said in a work by Claude Blair "bogus". I understand that he was just an editor in The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons, but he spent his lifetime studying European arms and armour.
Claude Blair accepted a post at the Tower of London as a result of research for a MA thesis on medieval armour. He worked at the Tower from 1951-56. He then became Keeper of the Department of Metalwork at the Victoria and Albert Museum. He was also a former Honorary Editor of the Journal of the Arms and Armour Society. He has examined every major collection of arms and armour in western Europe. In addition, he published various articles and books about arms and armour.
Blair's co-editor of the work I quoted, Leonid Tarrasuk, was a former Keeper of European and American Arms and Armour at the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad. At the time he edited the encyclopedia, he was a Research Associate in the Department of Arms and Armour at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. He also wrote several monographs and articles.
I don't profess to be an expert in the field by any means, most of us here are hobbyists. I feel uncomfortable stating that a citation from a work by acknowledged experts is bogus. Perhaps it is; even experts can make mistakes, but it is possible that they had access to information that we do not. I presented it as a possibility, and a citation from a source.
Sorry to stray a bit from the topic of this thread, but I thought I would give some details about the source I used.
I hope this clarified things.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Richard Fay"]Hello again!
| Sergio Duarte wrote: |
Of course, the stone-headed maces might just have been throwing-weapons as well. The Bayeux Tapestry (admittedly a medieval source, and not ancient) depicts what may be a mace, club, or some similar object flying through the air toward the Norman horsemen.
|
Maybe you are right about them being throwing weapons. It seems egyptians used throwing sticks for hunting and I think also for war but I am not sure about this. About the Bayeux tapestry it is interesting to note that bishop Odo http://www.nndb.com/people/010/000102701/ is wielding something that resembles much more a club than a mace so the flying object can be a throwing weapon something like the francisca of the franks. There is another norman knight with a strange object on is hand that might be a club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:William_Du...atilda.png
Once again it does not look like a mace.
Found another interesting picture here http://www.regia.org/warfare/bow.htm William with a mace and Odo with a club. The image is very small but the mace seems similar to the flying object mentioned above.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
| Sergio Duarte wrote: |
About the Bayeux tapestry it is interesting to note that bishop Odo is wielding something that resembles much more a club than a mace so the flying object can be a throwing weapon something like the francisca of the franks. There is another norman knight with a strange object on is hand that might be a club
Once again it does not look like a mace. |
Hi Sergio!
You're right, the object carried by both Duke William of Normandy and Bishop Odo does not look like a mace. It's usually interpreted as a rough club or baton, called a "baculum". It's thought to perhaps be a symbol of rank, and it supposedly echoes the vine staff or rod of the Roman centurion. Notice that the Bayeux Tapestry depicts the Norman leaders as carrying such objects.
I skimmed through the book Rome and Her Enemies: An Empire Created and Destroyed by War, edited by Jane Penrose (an abridged compilation of several Osprey titles), and the only reference to maces in that work was the mention of maces being used by the Parthian heavy cavalry. Rome fought the Parthian Empire in the early days of Imperial Rome. The work stated that the secondary weapons of the heavy Parthian cavalry included a long sword, axe, mace, and dagger. I must admit that I have not found anything to support the statement in The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons that the Romans handed out maces to their allies. I would suspect that, even if they did, it was not a common occurrence.
Maces were possibly used, rarely, in the "Norman" era. Here's what Christopher Gravett says in Norman Knight 950-1204 AD:
| Christopher Gravett wrote: |
Maces were far less commonly used than the sword, and appear to have consisted of a wooden haft fitted with an iron or bronze head moulded with pointed projections. One depiction on the Bayeux Tapestry suggests a flanged metal head, though this would be a very early date for this type. |
And here's what David Nicolle said about some possible maces in the Bayeux Tapestry, in his work Arms & Armour of the Crusading Era 1050-1350 Western Europe and the Crusader States:
| David Nicolle wrote: |
Maces appear only rarely, once a knobbed or flanged variety in the hands of a senior Norman and also being thrown by the Anglo-Saxons at the Normans. Maces of Mediterranean form could well have reached Normandy from Norman Italy and Sicily, but the supposed Anglo-Saxon maces are harder to explain. The type appears again in the hands of fleeing Anglo-Saxons at the very end of the Tapestry. Its form recalls small-headed bronze maces of Eastern Europe and the Baltic region. Such weapons probably reached England via Scandinavia.
The wooden club or baculus must not be confused with a mace. It was almost certainly not a weapon, as it is inconceivable that the most senior figures in the Norman army chose to arm themselves with a wooden cudgel, but may have been a symbolic weapon or staff of office, prehaps descended from a pagan symbol used by the Normans' Norse ancestors. |
Of course, care must be taken when interpreting the Bayeux Tapestry; it is a rather styilized work, and the weapons and armour lack detail. Still, there is an object shown in mid-flight which could be a thrown mace. It's head looks too globose to be an axe. I've scanned in the section showing the object. Note the airborne object with the globose head and shorter and thicker haft than the spears. It could be a mace. It's hard to say for sure, but that is one possibility.
 Attachment: 53.35 KB
Possible mace from the Bayeux Tapestry.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I did not know that about the baculus. Very curious information. thank you.
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello again!
I've found a bit more information about the baculus. This is the definition of baculus from The Complete Encyclopedia of Arms & Weapons:
| Leonid Tarassuk and Claude Blair wrote: |
baculus A Latin Term for a heavy hardwood club or staff with protruding knots, and in some cases sheathed with metal, to be used as a mace. In civilian life the term was also used to describe the wayfarer's staff and the ordinary walking stick. |
I've also found the images from the Bayeux Tapestry that show a Norman horseman carrying a possible mace, next to one carrying a baculus. In the image below, note the difference between the possible mace with a distinctive lobed or flanged globose head, and the rough baculus.
I've also included the image from the end of the tapestry showing Anglo-Saxons with possible maces. I don't know how much this part might have been restored; that's another problem when using the Bayeux Tapestry as a source, but the objects carried by the fleeing Anglo-Saxons could be maces.
Attachment: 46.52 KB
Norman horsemen carrying a possible mace and a baculus, from the Bayeux Tapestry.
Attachment: 47.13 KB
Fleeing Anglo-Saxons possibly carrying maces, from the Bayeux Tapestry.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Jan, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is not directly related to the topic we are dealing with but I will mention it. On Osprey's "Pictish warrior" on plate A there is something I was not able to get more info on. I will quote "...such remarkable language was also used to describe the hasta ingensand hasta enorma (enormous lance) in the german arsenal of the same era, referring to 2.5 metre-long (7ft) fire-hardened oak halberds, some of wich have been excavated in Lower Saxony. The illustrated weapon (7) is a hypothetical fire-hardened wooden sword that may have been the Caledonian equivalent."
I will try to scan the picture latter and post it here. I was not able to find any information on these halberds and since I don't have the volume on germans I have no idea what the author is talking about. Anyone has ever heard of these weapons? Are there ani pictures or photos?
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Fay
|
| Posted: Sun 21 Jan, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: Bronze Age Maces |
|
|
Hello all!
I know I'm dredging up an old thread, but I found an interesting picture of bronze maces in Warlords: Ancient, Celtic, Medieval by Tim Newark. They are German, but they might qualify as maces from Biblical times. They are definitely ancient, from 1250-750 BC.
Here's what the caption said about these:
| Tim Newark wrote: |
Bronze ornamented mace-heads from southern Germany, now in the State Prehistorical Collection, Munich. Urnfield culture, late Bronze Age, 1250-750 BC. |
Some of these had rather small heads, one had a head of a more typical "mace-head" size.
Stay safe!
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did! I'm going to recite poetry!"
Prince Andrew of Armar
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sergio Duarte
Location: Lisbon Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Mon 22 Jan, 2007 4:56 am Post subject: Re: Bronze Age Maces |
|
|
| Richard Fay wrote: | Hello all!
I know I'm dredging up an old thread, but I found an interesting picture of bronze maces in Warlords: Ancient, Celtic, Medieval by Tim Newark. They are German, but they might qualify as maces from Biblical times. They are definitely ancient, from 1250-750 BC.
Here's what the caption said about these:
| Tim Newark wrote: |
Bronze ornamented mace-heads from southern Germany, now in the State Prehistorical Collection, Munich. Urnfield culture, late Bronze Age, 1250-750 BC. |
Some of these had rather small heads, one had a head of a more typical "mace-head" size.
Stay safe! |
Greetings
Could you describe their shape?
With biblical I meant from the near east but thank you anyway I like maces:)
I could spare you but I'd rather spear you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic