| Author |
Message |
|
Darren Tully
Location: Dublin, Ireland Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 49
|
 Posted: Tue 14 Oct, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think it's very plauseable that vikings used heather armour Modern day leather welding gauntlets are resistant to acidental cuts and piercings they have to be, a tiny hole can cause a serious burn when working with red hot metal
By the same token leather armour could have been useful for brushing off grazes and glancing hits if I couldnt aford
mail I'd go for leather it's better than nothing
|
|
  |
 |
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Oct, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
People can suppose anything they like. That way leads to highlander ninjas. There is no evidence for leather armour dispite there being piles of leather artefacts dating to the Viking period. Reenactors are supposed to represent the TYPICAL not the EXCEPTION. There is absolutely no justification for leather armour in a Viking context until some primary evidence shows up to support it. Currently the evidence suggests that a viking either worn mail or nothing. There was no "better than nothing". A helmet and shield was sufficient for the vast majority of combatants on any battlefield in any time period since the beginning of warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darren Tully
Location: Dublin, Ireland Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Oct, 2008 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay I used the wrong words there I was refereing to the padded leather garb but,by the same token you cant
say that they only used mail or nothing because out side of the sagas very little is recorded about their existence
we don't even know how they really fought and what type of the techniques they used in combat what we have is
speculation derived from trial and error and reverse engineering of the later treatises of combat. The Sax is used
extensively in the sagas yet nobody has figured it out how to wield it as a main weapon as allot of the heros in the
sagas do
Leather is one of the oldest protective materials known to man there is evidence to suggest that the vikings knew
of it's protective capabilities in combat as stated in In chapter 11 of Grettis saga
| Quote: | Þorgeir walked to the boat shed at Reykjarfjörðu before dawn to prepare for a day of fishing. Þorfinnr
came up behind him and drove his axe into Þorgeir's back so that it sank in between his shoulder blades.
Þorfinnr released the axe and ran away. What Þorfinnr didn't see was that Þorgeir had a leather flask full of
drink on his back, which took the full force of the axe blow. The flask was ruined, but Þorgeir was unharmed |
there is strong archaeological evidence to suggest that leather rims were used to reinforce the Gokstad shields
| Quote: | The shield was probably rimmed with leather or rawhide to keep the shield from splitting when hit on the edge.
The Gokstad shields have a series of small holes all around the periphery of the shields. They're about 20mm (3/4in)
in from the edge, spaced at 35mm intervals (1-3/8in). It is thought that the leather edging was held in place on these
shields either with iron nails, or with stitching that passed through these holes. |
Tests carried out on replicas show that the this makes the shields significantly more resistant to blows and further
testing leads archaeologists to think that knowing this they may have even had hide facings which add even more strength
Given this along with the art work displayed by other debaters think it is quite plausible that vikings did wear leather
clothes into battle
Last edited by Darren Tully on Wed 15 Oct, 2008 2:28 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Smith
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Oct, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chase S-R wrote: | | I agree with David, I do not believe their is conclusive proof one way or the other. I just do not believe someone can completely dissprove its existence. As for leather not being an armour merely because it was enchanted is I believe not true, I can think of a few sagas where maille is enchanted. |
I would like you to disprove anything, at all. There is no such thing as disproving anything, as it is a logical fallacy in the English language. What there is is proof and lack of proof, leading to varying levels of conjecture. Where people draw the line is up to them, but please don't discuss disproving anything. It is logically impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Tue 14 Oct, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A logical fallacy in the English language is a bit over the top, I think the thory that the earth is flat has been pretty well disproven.
History has a lot of maybes and surprises, which is what makes it interesting. Dan has a philosphy emphasizes extant evidence over literary reference and historical feasibility, and I tend to agree with him in this case. Leather jackets as armor are not backed up by any extant examples that I am aware of.
It's doesn't bother me that a lot of reenactors use them, though, if they feel it is a safety issue and if they do it in keeping with the viking zeitgeist. If no one had the instinct of self preservation or the spirit of improvisation, we'd not have armor (or technology for that matter) at all. It seems an uneccesarily dogmatic pronuncamento that no one could have possibly thought to guard thier skin with hide.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
 |
|
David Huggins
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: Viking padded leather garment |
|
|
Hi guys,
With all respect Dan, re-enactors do not neccesarily portray the typical warrior of there chosen period, many units portray elite warriors and combatants. Okay you can provenance the kit you are wearing but is it tyical of the warrior of your period? Perhaps as you say the typical for your period was just regular clothing shield and spear, I don't have enough knowledge to make a judgement on that question. 
Is it not curious that linen armour was worn by some when they had sound technology to produce matallic armour? Better then nothing?
There where codes of law as to what hide could be placed to face shields of that period in England, so one would assume a knowledge of the properties specific animals produced. Sheep leather was frowned upon as a shield facing.
As was mentioned earlier it is up to the individual, or his groups authenticty guidlines as to what kit should be allowed.
Change comes slowly in the re-enactment world and no amount of shouting ones own opinion will change it.
again with respect
Dave
and he who stands and sheds blood with us, shall be as a brother.
|
|
 |
|
Ville Vinje
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Smith wrote: | | Chase S-R wrote: | | I agree with David, I do not believe their is conclusive proof one way or the other. I just do not believe someone can completely dissprove its existence. As for leather not being an armour merely because it was enchanted is I believe not true, I can think of a few sagas where maille is enchanted. |
I would like you to disprove anything, at all. There is no such thing as disproving anything, as it is a logical fallacy in the English language. What there is is proof and lack of proof, leading to varying levels of conjecture. Where people draw the line is up to them, but please don't discuss disproving anything. It is logically impossible. |
I'm so happy someone else said this.
If more people understood this we would not have such strange kits out there. This is the way science works. We find proof or we don't. If we have no proof then we really can't say anything. Lack of proof just means....well lack of proof (as in: We haven't found any plastic swords in iron age scandinavia. We can not disprove the existence though.)
I myself use a padded linen gambeson under my chainmail when fighting. It is just practical for me. I am supposed to take some hits (audience don't like when no one wins) and don't want to get hurt. I would, however; never be so bold to say that I have a historical kit.
Use what kits you want but do not contribute to the stereotypical errors we see all to often.
|
|
|
|
|
James Barker
Location: Ashburn VA Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know why anyone thinks leather makes a good stand alone armor; it is just skin and a sword can cut right through it. There are plenty of references to leather armor in the middle ages before plate takes over but it is always worn over maille; I believe that much like quilted armor worn over maille leather took the brunt of the blow and prevented penetration of maille.
James Barker
Historic Life http://www.historiclife.com/index.html
Archer in La Belle Compagnie http://www.labelle.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darren Tully
Location: Dublin, Ireland Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well if someone could aford mail they'd use it but not all vikings were rich enough to aford it also they were mainly raiders not organized armies that would require good armour for a prolonged battle or campaign. I know from doing metal work in high school that thick leather can prevent you from getting cut and pricked by glancing slices from jagged metal so if you had a shield as you main defence a thick leather garb could protect you from getting nusance cuts if you got caught up in a tangle with your oponant were he wasnt able to weild his sword at full strength
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren Tully wrote: | | Well if someone could aford mail they'd use it |
That simply isn't true. There are accounts of quite wealthy Scandinavians who could easily have afforded mail preferring to fight simply with helmet and shield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darren Tully
Location: Dublin, Ireland Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | That simply isn't true. There are accounts of quite wealthy Scandinavians who could easily have afforded mail preferring to fight simply with helmet and shield. |
I think you got what I'm saying in the wrong context the point I was raising with James was that it's not nesisarily
whats best but what you can aford when it comes down ot war gear. If you did want to protect yourself with some
form of body armour and could aford it you'd most likely buy mail. If you couldnt aford mail your next best option
would be to buy some form clothing the could provide meager protectionof course if you didnt want your movement
restricted by protective clothing you'd opt for just a shield and helmet .
Last edited by Darren Tully on Thu 16 Oct, 2008 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carl Goff
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Darren Tully wrote: | | Well if someone could aford mail they'd use it |
That simply isn't true. There are accounts of quite wealthy Scandinavians who could easily have afforded mail preferring to fight simply with helmet and shield. |
Dan, could you cite these specific accounts so we can get a look at the context? Not trying to insult you, but it's certainly possible that their equipment might have depended on the situation --- for example, a naval conflict is a really bad place to wear a heavy mail shirt that'll drag you under if you go over the side. Equipment might even have depended on the intelligence/bravado of the person in question: wealth doesn't necessarily require common sense, and even smart people can be dangerously overconfident. (I've been guilty of the latter myself!)
You're not giving us all the details and that's making it tough to get a read on the situation.
Oh, East of sands and sunlit gulf, your blood is thin, your gods are few;
You could not break the Northern wolf and now the wolf has turned on you.
The fires that light the coasts of Spain fling shadows on the Eastern strand.
Master, your slave has come again with torch and axe in his right hand!
-Robert E. Howard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Gilleland
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I certainly am not claiming to be an expert on this subject, but would like to give some input, (and possibly be corrected if blatently wrong).
It seems to me that there must have been some kind of armour at any level. Even if it wasn't so much that it actually provided any protection. Thinking about how many people existed and the size and number of battles that raged on this planet, it would seem to me that we should be wading in armour from centuries past. But we aren't. We are lucky to even find references in sagas at times, or paintings, or records. It is very rare that we find actual relics that coincide with all of the records about them.
In the revolutionary war, I've heard acounts where soldiers would tear their clothing and tie it to their feet to try and protect themselves from stepping on rocks or getting hurt.
It makes sense to me that there is a good deal that we simply do not know about history. Many people hunted, and it seems that someone might say, "Hey, that skin is nice and thick... I wonder if I could make something out of it."
Not to say that it would be effective as armour, but it might give someone peace of mind and boost their morale. Fighting naked would make me feel very vulnerable, but if someone provided me with some stiff leather garments to wear, I would feel somewhat better, thinking that the leather will help against glancing blows, if not a direct strike.
Wool would be better in my mind than nothing, and leather, being stiffer and harder still would be a step above wool for me, and iron or steel would be a step beyond that.
Again, I am not an expert by any means, so please don't take what I say as fact.
Just trying to give some speculative input, and hopefully learn from everyone here!
Seek Honor before Wealth,
Truth before Honor,
God Before all
|
|
|
|
|
John Cooksey
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Oct, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not willing to step into any of these arguments, but I do think that we have two separate discussions going on in one thread.
1: the use of leather armor in a Viking-era (and specifically Scandinavian) context
2. the suitability of leather for armor, in general
I have absolutely nothing to contribute to the topic of leather armor in Viking-era Scandinavia, but I do know that leather was a popular and widely used material in other historical and geographical contexts, eg steppe nomads.
I didn't surrender, but they took my horse and made him surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
Chuck Russell
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Gilleland wrote: | I certainly am not claiming to be an expert on this subject, but would like to give some input, (and possibly be corrected if blatently wrong).
It seems to me that there must have been some kind of armour at any level. Even if it wasn't so much that it actually provided any protection. Thinking about how many people existed and the size and number of battles that raged on this planet, it would seem to me that we should be wading in armour from centuries past. But we aren't. We are lucky to even find references in sagas at times, or paintings, or records. It is very rare that we find actual relics that coincide with all of the records about them.
In the revolutionary war, I've heard acounts where soldiers would tear their clothing and tie it to their feet to try and protect themselves from stepping on rocks or getting hurt.
It makes sense to me that there is a good deal that we simply do not know about history. Many people hunted, and it seems that someone might say, "Hey, that skin is nice and thick... I wonder if I could make something out of it."
Not to say that it would be effective as armour, but it might give someone peace of mind and boost their morale. Fighting naked would make me feel very vulnerable, but if someone provided me with some stiff leather garments to wear, I would feel somewhat better, thinking that the leather will help against glancing blows, if not a direct strike.
Wool would be better in my mind than nothing, and leather, being stiffer and harder still would be a step above wool for me, and iron or steel would be a step beyond that.
Again, I am not an expert by any means, so please don't take what I say as fact.
Just trying to give some speculative input, and hopefully learn from everyone here! |
well history doesn't follow you though. we know that the roman legionaries wore segmentata, hamatas or scale shirts. nothing else. there were some Aux soldiers that wore nothing. late romans were lucky to have mail shirts... if they didn't they were light infantry and wore no body armour. the Greeks and Egyptians, if they weren't of the highest class they didn't have armour did they? the viking hursirs of Harold were called to be if they had what 5 mail shirts a piece and land? i can even go as far up as the War of the roses. Towns were called on to make jacks for soldiers. there are plenty of paintings showing infantry with no armour on at all. (take a look at the towton book for death wounds (shudder!!) I have never read in books , catalogs (besides the late 14thc book of the tourney leather arms), seen no paintings, or sculptures that show or call for leather armour. there maybe some speculation but it's just that speculation. There are so many things we know of that exist that need more detail or exploration that why try to debunk something that has no start of being. Please do not take my statements as harsh. i only post being light hearted. one can not put todays mind in yesterday's solider. hind sight is always 20/20 and what we expect out of life was not always so then.
|
|
 |
|
|
Darren Tully
Location: Dublin, Ireland Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 49
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Carl Goff wrote: | | a naval conflict is a really bad place to wear a heavy mail shirt that'll drag you under if you go over the side. Equipment might even have depended on the intelligence/bravado of the person in question: wealth doesn't necessarily require common sense, and even smart people can be dangerously overconfident. (I've been guilty of the latter myself |
Thats true in the acounts of the battle of Clontarf, Dublin April 24th 1014 AD it was said that the vikings of Dublin and the
Orkney Islands fighting alongside Máel Mórda king of Leinster (Eastern Ireland) were initially sucessful as their aromour
and heavy weapons were more effective than those of BrianBoru High King of Ireland's attacking Dublin. As the day wore
on the tide of the battle changed and Orkney Vikings having lost their leader Sigurd, fatigued and finding themselves
being out flankedattempted to retreat to their ships however the tide had come in and many were drowned dragged down
by their armour
this just goes to show situations can change in battle and what was once an advantage can quickely become a liability
expecting a completely land based battle many of the orkeny vikings decided to suit out in armour either they were over
confident in their army armies abilities or just unused to Dublin bay and unaware of ther tides and depths their they
ended up effectivly cutting off their means of escape and isome in their haste to flee sealed their own fates by not
removing their armour who knows what the motivations were it could have been panic maybe they thought they could
wade out to the ships or maybe they wanted to keep their expensive armour for a counter attack or future battles.
Looking at the contexts of this disaster I can understand Dave's point about not all vikings wanting to use armour I also
see it as another reason why vikings may have chosen to wear a lighter protective garb it could as Nathan said
| Quote: | | Not to say that it would be effective as armour, but it might give someone peace of mind and boost their morale |
| Cuck Russle wrote: | | well history doesn't follow you though. we know that the roman legionaries wore segmentata, hamatas or scale shirts. nothing else. there were some Aux soldiers that wore nothing. late romans were lucky to have mail shirts... if they didn't they were light infantry and wore no body armour |
The thing is Vikings didnt operate as organised armies like the ones you mentioned they were raiders mostly, sometimes
operating as mersonaries like the orkney vikings and in comparison to those armies they are not as well documented
The iconic viking axes are dervied from wood cutters axes and are far cheaper than a sword and were a very comon tool
looking at the fact that they improvised like this it wouldnt surprise me that some would use leather garments for light
protection
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clark Volmar
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here is something that I have read. I borrowed this excerpt from an article that discusses the etymology of the term *berserk*. In this article there are several mentions of warriors wearing animal skins (*ulfhedinn* or "wolf-coats"), etc. It's not by any means a definition of the "typical warrior", but it clearly defines the use of worn animal skins.
| Quote: | Others have contended that the term should be read "*bear*-sark," and
describes the animal-skin garb of their berserker. Grettirs Saga calls King
Harald's berserkers "Wolf-Skins," and in King Harald's Saga they are called
*ulfhedinn* or "wolf-coats," a term which appears in Vatnsdoela Saga and
Hrafnsmal (Hilda R. Ellis-Davidson,"Shape-Changing in the Old Norse Sagas, "
in Animals in Folklore. eds. J.R. Porter and W.M.S. Russell. Totowa NJ:
Rowman and Littlefield. 1978. pp. 132-133), as well as in Grettirs Saga
(Denton Fox and Hermann Palsson, trans. Grettir's Saga." Toronto: U of
Toronto P. 1961. p. 3). |
I'm uncertain how wide spread the practice was, but it seems that there are precedents, at least within the sagas, for warriors wearing animal hides. Now be this for effect...or be it for the protection they afford...or perhaps a little of both...is of course debatable. However, it doesnt seem with these cases to be an all or nothing scenario...Mail or nothing at all
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I intended to be. -- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Amt
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darren Tully wrote: | | this just goes to show situations can change in battle and what was once an advantage can quickely become a liability |
Not to sound facetious (oh, okay, not TOO facetious!), but that's called "losing". Doesn't matter if you're wearing mail or leather or concrete or carbon fiber composite, if you lose a battle and try to swim across the North Sea to escape, you're going to die. But no one goes into battle planning to lose (with rare exceptions!).
| Quote: | The thing is Vikings didnt operate as organised armies like the ones you mentioned they were raiders mostly, sometimes
operating as mersonaries like the orkney vikings and in comparison to those armies they are not as well documented |
Actually, they are pretty well documented. There are surviving records of the equipment required of Viking warriors, and of Carolingian militia, English fyrd, and others. The vast majority of men were required to bring only spear and shield. Only the wealthiest were required to be armored. There is never any mention of anything in between until the 12th century, when padded gambesons come into use. And as I understand it, Scandinavians were just as well organized as many other cultures of their time, with reqiurements for militia duty, etc. They fought just as many pitched battles as other folks.
There are numerous ancient cultures which have no trace or mention of any sort of leather armor, even if we have pretty good descriptions and other leather finds. The basic conclusion we have to reach from all this is that leather armor was very rare if known at all.
| Quote: | The iconic viking axes are dervied from wood cutters axes and are far cheaper than a sword and were a very comon tool looking at the fact that they improvised like this it wouldnt surprise me that some would use leather garments for light
protection |
Battle axes, large or small, were NOT improvised, but were highly refined weapons and often quite different from an axe made to cut wood (though certainly both could be used for either purpose, if necessary!). Usually cheaper than a sword, true, but still generally a secondary weapon to a spear.
I'm a little surprised that a few things haven't been pointed out, here, so far. First, we often hear about leather rims or facings on shields, but those were more likely to have been rawhide. It is vastly stronger than leather, and almost never survives in archeology. Doesn't make good clothing, though! Too darn stiff.
Second, for leather to be protective, it has to be either very thick or multiple layers, which quickly becomes bulky, heavy, and much more expensive than your "poor guy trying to improvise armor" can afford. And if it rains--or you get sloshed with a wave--it soaks up a ton of water...
To play the opposite side of the argument, though, the Roman historian Strabo describes the Sardinians of his day as wearing cuirasses made from the hides of the local "mouflon" sheep. This isn't a lot to go on, of course--tanned hide with the fleece still on for padding, maybe in layers? Just tanned sheep leather in layers? Sheep rawhide? There are hundreds of little bronze warrior figurines found in Sardinia, apparently all dating at least a few hundred years before Strabo, but many of them show a short cuirass with vertical lines which might be quilting.
In King Tut's tomb there was a shirt of rawhide scale armor, and one set of records from Bronze Age Mesopotamia lists 200 times as many rawhide scale shirts as bronze ones! Homer mentions hide or leather armor at least once, but gives no description. A piece of rawhide lamellar armor dating to about 250 AD was found at Dura Europas in Syria (Jordan?). Layered linen cuirasses are well known in Classical Greece and even back to Mycenaean times.
Note that in NONE of these cases is there any suggestion that this leather or hide armor was in any way improvised, or used by men who just couldn't afford metal armor.
Bottom line, defences of leather or hide were certainly known at certain times, in certain places. But carrying that over to speculation about Viking leather armor is just that--speculation. I'm firmly with the camp that preaches the purity of EVIDENCE. Stick to what we KNOW, and don't speculate if you really don't have to. Sure, we can waste hours or years talking about "what ifs" online, but when it comes down to what to make to show to the public, stick to the evidence.
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
Christopher Gregg
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking strictly from a living history point of view, when presenting our interpretations of whatever culture/time period we do to the public, it becomes our responsibility to act as sort of a, well, living museum, of sorts. After all, it's called living history for a reason - to present what is in effect a live-action museum display. And as such, we should present only of ourselves what a proper museum does - actual artefacts or replicas/recreations of historical finds pertaining to a particular culture/time frame. I realize many aspects of reeancting must be left to the slippery slope of conjecture, but perhaps when the facts are known and verified through historical evidence, we should try to display these most often, so that a factual representation can be always presented. Just my 2 cents worth.
Yours,
Christopher
Christopher Gregg
'S Rioghal Mo Dhream!
|
|
|
|
|
Mackenzie Cosens
Location: Vancouver Canada Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Oct, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Viking Leather Padded Garment |
|
|
| Zach Gordon wrote: | Hi y'all,
Im new im just getting into reenacting and ren faires. I wanted to get a padded leather garment for a viking suit. I want one that could be worn over or under chainmail (if i can afford it).
How historical is it?
How much/where2buy?
How hard to make (im not so good at sewing and stuff)? |
Hi Zach,
I don't know if you got your answer.
Here what I can say so far:
- The historicity of leather padded armour, in North West Europe from 7th to 11th Century, is contentious.
- Arming garments can be quite expensive example: linen 14C gambeson over $300us, leather garments more so. As for Viking padded leather, I could not say where to get them or how much they would cost.
- Sewing leather or padded garments takes special equipment, unless you want to destroy that sewing machine, or perseverance and some skill (from a guy who was silly enough to hand sew his gambeson). I think you would find it a lot of work and likely hard to get right.
If you want to be historically correct get yourself a proper linen under tunic and wool over tunic and save up your money for an nice shoes, sax, spear and helmet, in about that order. Oh! get a hat too, everybody needs a hat! With this list nobody should give your too hard a time. : )
But really the best answer is to ask the local group that you are interested in, what they accept as "good enough". Then spend a bit of time learning what direction you want to go. There are lots of different approaches to the game from pickle barrel plastic armour to right genetic variety of sheep for the hand spun and weaved cloth in your clothes. You Pick.
mackenzie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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