| 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 |
Michael Edelson
|
 Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Travis Canaday wrote: | | What about Hende Trucken? It sounds like Hugh is describing something to that effect. What is your theory about why not to cut to the arms other than with a krumphau? |
The circumstances for when hende trucken is used are specifically described and do not fit what we are discussing here.
My theory on why you do not attack the hands from below when someone is attacking you is that the sword will likely finish its arc and kill you. What goes up...
| Quote: | | As for the Danzig quotation, I don't read anything into it about cutting past the target, just merely stating the importance of stepping when one cuts. |
Yes, but he also says why it is important to step. Then there is the ton of other evidence for full cuts.
There is talk of "cutting past the target". This is innaccurate and confusing. To cut through something, you must cut past it. Otherwise you're just touching it. Even a small strike to the head cuts past the head, otherwise you're just free playing and scoring touches.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
   |
 |
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | The circumstances for when hende trucken is used are specifically described and do not fit what we are discussing here.
My theory on why you do not attack the hands from below when someone is attacking you is that the sword will likely finish its arc and kill you. What goes up... |
Maybe it doesn't fit here. It is hard for me to picture exactly what Hugh was describing, but it sounded like situation were hende trucken would work. I see your point about the other person's cut still coming down, but that is why you press the hands up and over with a step. We're probably just discussing different scenarios. Sword discussions are so much more easier in person with sword in hand.
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
| Quote: | | As for the Danzig quotation, I don't read anything into it about cutting past the target, just merely stating the importance of stepping when one cuts. |
Yes, but he also says why it is important to step. Then there is the ton of other evidence for full cuts.
There is talk of "cutting past the target". This is innaccurate and confusing. To cut through something, you must cut past it. Otherwise you're just touching it. Even a small strike to the head cuts past the head, otherwise you're just free playing and scoring touches. |
Fair enough. I just meant it doesn't sound like Danzig is advocating cutting so that the ort ends up pointing towards the ground. "Above the left foot" can mean your hilt is there with the ort still threatening. If you don't step with the cut there is less reach, and therefore the sword wouldn't be over the left foot. I agree with you about the importance of a full cut. Maybe I'm picturing things differently in my head. I can be a bit dense.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Nov, 2009 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is difficult to discuss complex matters online. Hugh and I got turned around on a bunch of issues more than once.
If I've come accross as being obnoxious to anyone, it was unintentional and I apologize. Well maybe a couple of times it was intentional. 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Without getting into the minutia of terminology and definitions if one's cut is on target, and makes it to contact/cutting, following through the target seems like a safe thing to do as the opponent's defense has failed and one wants to make maximum damage so that the opponent doesn't have the opportunity to reply with a cut of his own before he bleeds out ! ( The cut not being stopped or being rendered ineffective by being slowed by clothing ? ).
If one's cut misses, is voided, deflected, parried then being able to stop it's trajectory at any point during the swing would be useful ! No matter how full the cut it should be under control where it can be aborted midway to bring one's point back into play and be menacing to the opponent.
A question rather than a statement: Can one do a full cut with total control and stop in longpoint or follow through depending on context.  If one misses and ends up in nebenhut by accident ( error ) or by plan also under control and be ready to take advantage of what one can do from nebenhut. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael,
Unless it shows Wechselhau and the Zornhut. There's nothing whatsoever to indicate these two figures are intended to be sequential. And if they are meant to be sequential, there's nothing to show he's not demonstrating the entire Wechselhau. In fact, there's nothing to suggest either of us is right--we just don't have enough information to warrant making a call one way or the other.
These plates actually confuse me quite a bit. In two of the plates he shows the guard you rightly call Zornhut rather than vom Tag, and this is contrary to his other material, which doesn't show such an extreme guard. Its similarity to the Zornhut of Meyer makes me think he's showing Schulfechten here. We think of Talhoffer as an Ernstfechten guy (at least I do), but the Döbringer Hausbuch suggests Ernstfechten and Schulfechten may have been practiced by the same people. In that case, these pictures may well show a huge, wide cut of the sort used in Schulfechten.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | A question rather than a statement: Can one do a full cut with total control and stop in longpoint or follow through depending on context. If one misses and ends up in nebenhut by accident ( error ) or by plan also under control and be ready to take advantage of what one can do from nebenhut. |
I suppose it's technically possible, but to do so defeats the entire purpose of the wide, long cut being discussed. As Michael pointed out, he does it because he wants to be able to cut through heavy clothing, etc., so it must be a committed cut. It is very difficult to change gears with such an action in mid swing. Even if someone could pull this off, most people's points will be on the ground before they even have time to think about stopping midway.
On the other hand, it is *easy* to decide you want to drop from Long Point down to the ground when you only cut to that point if, for example, you want to do a Wechselhau.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | A question rather than a statement: Can one do a full cut with total control and stop in longpoint or follow through depending on context. If one misses and ends up in nebenhut by accident ( error ) or by plan also under control and be ready to take advantage of what one can do from nebenhut. |
It seems pretty clear that a competent swordsman would be familiar with both full and half-cuts, keeping in mind that a full cut is easier to do than a half cut in my experience. The first part of the cut will always look the same so ideally, the adversary wouldn't know what's coming, and you could adapt to his reactions and switch to one or the other form. It's a good goal to train for.
But there is a problem of reaction time here, or more accurately of inertia combined with reaction time. Following beyond longpoint is not a decision that you can take as you reach longpoint, because by the time your decision is made and action taken your sword will have gone further. The goal of the opponent is to void as late as possible, ideally after the decision point when the attacker decides to stop or let the cut pass through. If this succeeds, you'll hit the brakes but still cut beyond longpoint even if not full to nebenhut, and this provides a sufficient opening to thrust with opposition for example. With shorter swords it's easier to stop, but the problem still exists. The more energy you put in the sword, the harder it will be to stop it, so it's hard to cut powerfully and controlled.
You can also always do a half-cut and then choose to follow through or not, but this does not bring you any advantage over a half-cut. The point of a full cut is that it arrives on target with all the energy available, not already almost stopped and then pushed through. Since cuts are made with the weak pushing the blade into the target after impact is not very advantageous anyway...
Another issue that I would like to see more discussion of, and that is important to this control problem, is synchronicity between the foot and cut. If the sword reaches the target before the landing of the advancing foot (I mean significantly before) it's more difficult to stop the cut short and adapt, also the finish of the step brings the body further forward which could be problematic during a full cut. This seems to occur very easily with the quick tip-first strikes, unless the step is shortened significantly. Thibault shows cuts with two-handers where the front foot always lands at the moment of impact (that is, the sword and foot reach the longpoint position simultaneously over a big step) and then the sword keeps moving some more without advance of either foot or body. What are your opinions as German longsworders about this topic?
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Clarke
Location: Perth, Western Australia Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | In that case, these pictures may well show a huge, wide cut of the sort used in Schulfechten. |
Sorry if I've missed this earlier Hugh, but can you tell me where you get the idea that Schulfechten = huge wide cuts?
Regards,
Matt
http://laches.wordpress.com
http://fechtkunst.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Clarke wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | In that case, these pictures may well show a huge, wide cut of the sort used in Schulfechten. |
Sorry if I've missed this earlier Hugh, but can you tell me where you get the idea that Schulfechten = huge wide cuts? |
Schulfechten doesn't always equal huge, wide cuts; after all, Meyer taught the use of "half cuts," too. But we know that huge, wide cuts are a characteristic of Schulfechten because Döbringer tells us so:
"For you should strike or thrust in the shortest and nearest way possible. For in this righteous fighting do not make wide or ungainly displacements or fight in large movements by which people restrict themselves. Many Masters of play fighting [Leychmeistere] say that they themselves have thought out a new art of fighting that they improve from day to day. But I would like to see one who could think up a fighting move or a strike which does not come from Liechtenauer’s art. Often they want to alter or give a new name to a technique, all out of their own heads and think up wide reaching fighting and displacements and often make two or three strikes when one would be enough or stepping through and thrust, and for this they receive praise from the ignorant. With their bad displacements and wide fighting they try to look dangerous with wide and long strikes that are slow [emphasis mine--HTK] and with these they perform strikes that miss and create openings in themselves. They have no proper reach in their fighting and that belongs not to real fighting but only to Schulfechten [emphasis mine--HTK] and the exercises for their own sake." (Hs 3227a ff. 14r-v)
So he says clearly that "wide and long strikes" belong only to "Schulfechten," and that Ernstfechten (which he doesn't name, but which term we will use to distinguish it from Schulfechten) involves cuts and thrusts done with as direct a motion as possible in a straight line--as if a string were tied from your edge or point directly to your target:
"And this art is quite earnest and righteous, and it goes from the nearest in search of the closest and goes straight and right when you wish to strike or thrust so that when you want to attack someone it is as if you had a cord tied to the point or edge of your sword and this leads the point or edge to an opening." (Hs 3227a fol. 13v)
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Clarke
Location: Perth, Western Australia Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Schulfechten doesn't always equal huge, wide cuts; after all, Meyer taught the use of "half cuts," too. But we know that huge, wide cuts are a characteristic of Schulfechten because Döbringer tells us so:
|
Ok cheers.
Now sorry again everyone, if this has already been covered (only had time to skim theads), but what exactly is 'Schulfechten'?
Are we told anywhere what it is?
Regards,
Matt
http://laches.wordpress.com
http://fechtkunst.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Clarke
Location: Perth, Western Australia Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
"For you should strike or thrust in the shortest and nearest way possible. For in this righteous fighting do not make wide or ungainly displacements or fight in large movements by which people restrict themselves. Many Masters of play fighting [Leychmeistere] say that they themselves have thought out a new art of fighting that they improve from day to day. But I would like to see one who could think up a fighting move or a strike which does not come from Liechtenauer’s art. Often they want to alter or give a new name to a technique, all out of their own heads and think up wide reaching fighting and displacements and often make two or three strikes when one would be enough or stepping through and thrust, and for this they receive praise from the ignorant. With their bad displacements and wide fighting they try to look dangerous with wide and long strikes that are slow [emphasis mine--HTK] and with these they perform strikes that miss and create openings in themselves. They have no proper reach in their fighting and that belongs not to real fighting but only to Schulfechten [emphasis mine--HTK] and the exercises for their own sake." (Hs 3227a ff. 14r-v)
|
Actually, looking at this again, I'm wondering if the 'schulfechten' comment only applies to the sentence it is in. That is- 'no proper reach' belongs to schulfechten - as 'friendly bouting' without modern PPE may mean you have to pull short you thrusts etc. Any comments on that?
'and the exercises for their own sake' gets me thinking along that line too. What exercises? The plays in the book? Practice them a little short and less powerful as you are not actually trying to kill them whilst training?
Regards,
Matt
http://laches.wordpress.com
http://fechtkunst.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Truthfully, I find people far too quick to assume things are "schulfechten" just because they are not part of the mainstream ideas. There is no reason to believe Talhoffer is showing anything besides fighting in earnest in any of his works (considering how many are illustrated with a sword through a person, and in some editions, with blood spurting out). To assume a point back version is only for schulfechten is to assume Fiore's posta di donna is meant purely for sport.
I've also heard a lot of people immediately assume that a technique was only for schulfechten just because it actually required a decent amount of technical ability and/or wasn't something a person could right away without good training (which is kind of a funny argument to me). I'm of the opinion that if there's no mention of a technique being used for sport, and the treatise seems to be focused on actual combat, then there's little reason to assume that the technique isn't for actual combat.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Clarke wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: |
"For you should strike or thrust in the shortest and nearest way possible. For in this righteous fighting do not make wide or ungainly displacements or fight in large movements by which people restrict themselves. Many Masters of play fighting [Leychmeistere] say that they themselves have thought out a new art of fighting that they improve from day to day. But I would like to see one who could think up a fighting move or a strike which does not come from Liechtenauer’s art. Often they want to alter or give a new name to a technique, all out of their own heads and think up wide reaching fighting and displacements and often make two or three strikes when one would be enough or stepping through and thrust, and for this they receive praise from the ignorant. With their bad displacements and wide fighting they try to look dangerous with wide and long strikes that are slow [emphasis mine--HTK] and with these they perform strikes that miss and create openings in themselves. They have no proper reach in their fighting and that belongs not to real fighting but only to Schulfechten [emphasis mine--HTK] and the exercises for their own sake." (Hs 3227a ff. 14r-v)
|
Actually, looking at this again, I'm wondering if the 'schulfechten' comment only applies to the sentence it is in. That is- 'no proper reach' belongs to schulfechten - as 'friendly bouting' without modern PPE may mean you have to pull short you thrusts etc. Any comments on that?
'and the exercises for their own sake' gets me thinking along that line too. What exercises? The plays in the book? Practice them a little short and less powerful as you are not actually trying to kill them whilst training? |
The Schulfechten applies to all of it. That's why I included the entire quote. The very first sentence talks about wide displacements and fighting in large movements. He's *clearly* and unquestionably talking about the same thing all the way through. Exercise for their own sake probably refers to demonstrations--fancy tricks like the ones Lecküchner shows for the messer. So he's connecting that with Schulfechten--not very surprising.
As for Schulfechten, that is "school fighting", and it refers to a form of combat done with blunted and rebated swords and utilizing safety rules that limit the most dangerous techniques (e.g., thrusting and eye gouging) to allow competitive free play with a minimum of really serious injuries and deaths (although sutures and bone setting were, apparently, not uncommon afterward). You can read more about it in a superb article here:
http://ejmas.com/jwma/articles/2003/jwmaart_amberger_0303.htm
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | Truthfully, I find people far too quick to assume things are "schulfechten" just because they are not part of the mainstream ideas. There is no reason to believe Talhoffer is showing anything besides fighting in earnest in any of his works (considering how many are illustrated with a sword through a person, and in some editions, with blood spurting out). To assume a point back version is only for schulfechten is to assume Fiore's posta di donna is meant purely for sport.
I've also heard a lot of people immediately assume that a technique was only for schulfechten just because it actually required a decent amount of technical ability and/or wasn't something a person could right away without good training (which is kind of a funny argument to me). I'm of the opinion that if there's no mention of a technique being used for sport, and the treatise seems to be focused on actual combat, then there's little reason to assume that the technique isn't for actual combat. |
Perhaps, but since we don't see these "wide and long" cuts in Ernstfechten sources, and in fact we have a source that clearly and unequivocally says that they're only used in Schulfechten, and since we *do* see them in Schulfechten sources (e.g., Meyer), I think it's very safe to assume that when we see someone cutting from all the way behind his back all the way to the ground it's pretty clearly Schulfechten. And remember, there's no reason to believe that's what we're seeing in the Talhoffer 1443 plate; it could *just* as easily be a Wechselhau or Nebenhut.
And your comment about the Italian guard isn't relevent: What Fiore does isn't related to what we see in a German source by any provable connection. Lots of martial systems in the world use huge, wide cuts: that merely proves that they can be done, not that a certain group did them. Fiore could use that guard in serious fighting and the Germans only in Schulfechten.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | And your comment about the Italian guard isn't relevent: What Fiore does isn't related to what we see in a German source by any provable connection. Lots of martial systems in the world use huge, wide cuts: that merely proves that they can be done, not that a certain group did them. Fiore could use that guard in serious fighting and the Germans only in Schulfechten. |
I'd find pretty unlikely that two systems developed in very similar contexts for similar weapons in the same age would differ so much on the full-cut vs. half-cut usefulness. If it's had been that trivial for Germans to counter the full cut I'm sure Italians would have adopted the methods too.
Aside from that, isn't it a good idea to practice the full cut just to train in countering it?
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spot on Vincent. The idea of even discussing 'Germans' and 'Italians' is anachronistic. Both masters' bios indicate study abroad, and the traffic between the two regions - *southern* Germany and *northern* Italy was regular. And, as I've said many times before, were it not the particulars (driven almost exclusively by measure preferences) of the longsword, we'd never talk of these as separate systems - everything else is too similar.
Fiore describes full cuts, some of which start behind his back. As his text makes perfectly clear, his is not a school fencing curriculum.
@Hugh: As Bill Grandy, myself, and others have said, it's perfectly possible to make a full stroke that is neither wide nor long. A full cut is not evidence of school fencing. Every other fight system with two-handed weapons uses them, for it would really make our man Liechtenauer look ridiculous if he didn't. Beyond that, they're simply shown in the system - ie., Talhoffer's beheading stroke - undoubtedly a full blow.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
 |
|
|
Matt Clarke
Location: Perth, Western Australia Joined: 12 Nov 2006
Posts: 34
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 8:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't the whole 'point offline- full cut' precedent set with the krumphau plays? We are told to strike their blade (against prior instructions to hit the man not the blade) and to cut down into Schrankhut. Schrankut being a guard with the point at the ground and to the side.
Regards,
Matt
http://laches.wordpress.com
http://fechtkunst.wordpress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Matt Clarke wrote: | | Isn't the whole 'point offline- full cut' precedent set with the krumphau plays? We are told to strike their blade (against prior instructions to hit the man not the blade) and to cut down into Schrankhut. Schrankut being a guard with the point at the ground and to the side. |
I do not believe we're supposed to do the Krumphau all the way down to Schrankhut: There's simply no reason to. I believe we're being told to cut *toward* Schrankhut. To make such a huge, overblown cut is to invite a Durchwechseln, and it's not necessary, because just stopping your opponent's attack doesn't require it. Moreover, it just takes too long to do: You snap into your opponents blade and then cut up with your short edge or else Winden am Schwert--and if you elect to do the Winden, you can't have cut down to the ground, or if you want to cut with your short edge, the cut take a *long* time to do--too long to work because you're opponent's not just going to stand there. Moreover, the Paulus Kal picture of the Krump certainly doesn't show any such thing.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | I'd find pretty unlikely that two systems developed in very similar contexts for similar weapons in the same age would differ so much on the full-cut vs. half-cut usefulness. If it's had been that trivial for Germans to counter the full cut I'm sure Italians would have adopted the methods too.
Aside from that, isn't it a good idea to practice the full cut just to train in countering it? |
Hello Vincent,
Have you compared the techniques of Katori Shinto Ryu and Maniwa Nen? They were created in almost the same period and in the very same country, and yet some of the techniques are completely different, and each does things the other school says shouldn't be done. Sure there are some gross similarities, but the techniques just look very different. You can have two fighters in *any* system right next door to each other, one of whom says to do things one way and the other says not to.
And no, you don't need to practice a thing seriously in order to learn to counter it. I don't practice the Mittelhau because it's never mentioned in any of the longsword sources we use, and yet I practice techniques against it.
At Christian: It's not "anachronistic" to talk about the Italian and German shools being different; it's shortsighted not to look deeply enough to see the differences. Show me a Duplieren in Fiore; show me the Abschneiden with the short edge. There are *lots* of techniques that differ between the two schools, and even the root concepts are different, with Fiore being much more focused on wrestling at the sword than the German school, for example. We have to go past the fact that they're both fruits and recognize that one's an apple and the other's an orange.
As for what that picture in Talhoffer shows, I don't know because he didn't give us enough information to make sense of it. I do know that the wide cuts are contrary to the sense I read in the other manuals, and all the evidence I've read from people in this discussion so far is highly ambiguous and can easily be read differently, where the one source we do have that speaks plainly on the issue says such things have no place in fighting in earnest. That makes figuring this out very easy.
I have, however, been considering backing off of the point in one way: Michael said something that I've been thinking about a lot: The idea of using a wide stroke for a finishing cut. In other words, you've done something awful to your opponent (e.g., an Abschneiden), and he's incapable of making a serious defense so he is--at least temporarily--defenseless. In that one case, I could see the idea of using a big, powerful cut to make a clean, sure kill, as Michael suggested. After all, if your opponent has been rendered hors de combat there's no reason to worry abut keeping your point on line. Mind you, I don't see any instructions to do this in any source, but at least it doesn't seem contrary to the base principles of the art, and it would explain that anomalous picture in Talhoffer.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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