Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longswords in the hands of common soldiers? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jan, 2011 3:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Fabrice Cognot wrote:
Archers of the Burgundian armies had two-handed swords as their standard weapon (in addition to the bow, of course.....) :.


So did the mounted archers of the French Ordonnance companies that preceded and inspired them. Seeing as these archers were originally meant to be mounted infantrymen modeled after the best-equipped sort of English longbowmen (who were often just a little bit short of being men-at-arms, and indeed a fair number were promoted to men-at-arms after long and faithful service), there may be some grounds for a conjecture that some of the English archers carried longswords too.
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Bohnham





Joined: 20 May 2010

Posts: 98

PostPosted: Tue 04 Jan, 2011 9:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I still think that if I were a medieval man who made his living fighting and killing, I'd probably have a pretty fair idea how to use a long sword, it's not after all some lost Jedi magical art, it was just one more edged weapon in an age of edged weapons.

Based on my personal experience, when I first picked up a langenschwert, my previous martial arts training transfered very nicely to that weapon in that there are only so many ways a human body can wield a sword. Reading some of the fechtbuchen and watching contemporary instructional videos on the European sword techniques merely added some polish and techniques specific to the length of the weapon and its double edged configuration. Musashi himself in the Book of Five Rings describes half swording with the Katana, for instance, so I think anybody reasonably well trained and versed in martial techniques could have picked up a langenschwert and been reasonably proficient with some practice. Add in some time comparing notes with fellow warriors who were familiar with that type sword and or just watching others spar or tourney fight with them, and I think he would have done quite well with the thing. Once you understand and can use such concepts as fencing distance, timing and foot work, it really doesn't matter if you are wielding a longsword, falchion, mace, or wakizashi as the body will respond as its been trained. Combine that with a determined combat mind set and it once again proves that it's not weapons that are dangerous, it's the hand that holds them.

So I still think it very reasonable to include such a sword in man-at-arms kit, besides the things are just plain cool to have.

"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201

a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine

"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 11 Jan, 2011 7:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Larry Bohnham wrote:
So I still think it very reasonable to include such a sword in man-at-arms kit,


The problem being that men-at-arms were not "common soldiers" by any stretch of the imagination--by the time longswords became sufficiently common to be worth accounting for, the men-at-arms had been the elite minority in medieval European armies for a couple of centuries at least, and as such they're technically outside the scope of the original poster's query.
View user's profile Send private message
Larry Bohnham





Joined: 20 May 2010

Posts: 98

PostPosted: Thu 13 Jan, 2011 1:11 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I used men at arms as a catch all for non-nobility fighters, sorry if I misused the term, but my observations and suppositions still hold. I think any period arm would be just fine for a "soldat", whether he be a mercenary, "man at arms", archer, crossbowman, cannon cocker, or any other basic, non-elite nobility grunt. Fighting men then as now picked up stuff on the battle field or obtained non-issue weapons all the time. I'm sure that if they could get it and could use it, they kept it and took it to war.
"No athlete can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows; he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack under the fist of his adversary..."
Roger of Hoveden, d.1201

a furore Normannorum libera nos Domine

"Henry, get down off that horse with that sword, you'll put someone's eye out!" Mrs. Bolingbroke's advice to her son, Henry, on the eve of the battle of Agincourt
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 6:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Larry Bohnham wrote:
I used men at arms as a catch all for non-nobility fighters, sorry if I misused the term,


Indeed. Way back when the terms were in vogue, "men-at-arms" was the technical military term for the group of people we moderns would call "knights." Quite a lot of them were noble and even the non-noble ones were rather gentrified.


Quote:
Fighting men then as now picked up stuff on the battle field or obtained non-issue weapons all the time. I'm sure that if they could get it and could use it, they kept it and took it to war.


True, and indeed there are plausible ways to explain why the original poster's character/persona/whatever might be carrying a longsword instead of the one-handed sword that would have been more typical of the era, even for men-at-arms (read: knights). However, if he has any integrity, he should never forget to remind anybody who asks that what's he's doing is a bit atypical.
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Hinds




Location: Whitewater, Wisconsin USA
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 249

PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 7:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Quote:
Fighting men then as now picked up stuff on the battle field or obtained non-issue weapons all the time. I'm sure that if they could get it and could use it, they kept it and took it to war.


True, and indeed there are plausible ways to explain why the original poster's character/persona/whatever might be carrying a longsword instead of the one-handed sword that would have been more typical of the era, even for men-at-arms (read: knights). However, if he has any integrity, he should never forget to remind anybody who asks that what's he's doing is a bit atypical.


Don't worry about that, I'm sure I'll tell them at the same time I'm explaining I'm not a knight just because I have some armour. Razz Wink

Thank's for all the interesting post's guys, and for answering my question. It's been nice seeing this topic still being talked on after so long. Happy

"Young knight, learn to love God and revere women; thus your honor will grow. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honor in wars." -Johannes Liechtenauer

"...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one..." Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 9:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Larry Bohnham wrote:
I used men at arms as a catch all for non-nobility fighters, sorry if I misused the term,


Indeed. Way back when the terms were in vogue, "men-at-arms" was the technical military term for the group of people we moderns would call "knights." Quite a lot of them were noble and even the non-noble ones were rather gentrified.


Not all men at arms were Knights, but all Knights were men at arms... the term applies to the full suit of armour (for that period). As Lafayette implied, there were noble men at arms that were not Knights (not all nobles wanted the title or earned it) some were still squires, and then the rest of the men at arms would be drawn from the wealthy non-noble merchant class or successful farming Freemen,

One thing overlooked often in threads like this is that the local non knighted noble, lesser Knight, Knight, or Lord in charge of an area would supply arms to his troops when called up to serve the King. Medieval man did not swagger about with a sword strapped on unless they were called up and under arms or traveling in bandit country . While some counties were quite clear on the citizen solder and noble were expected to produce if mustered , period rolls often show how short of arms they could be when mustered.

I'm under the impression that most folks here don't have a clear view of how troops were raised, how they served, how they were paid and how they were armed in the time frames and countries that each person has an interest in here. In my case I have a clear view of England and Scotland of the 14th centuries. Also, I'm under the impression that some folks don't understand the major changes that took place in European society from the 13th-16th centuries. What is common by the 16th (study of the knightly longsword ) by the shopkeepers of the German city states was a skill set of the noble class of the 13th, 14th & 15th centuries. The daily wearing of a sword was quite uncommon until the Renaissance and the rise of rapier, and that the "medieval man who made his living fighting and killing" was most likely a criminal and not the tenant farmer or tradesman that made up the bulk of the medieval armies of the period. Even most knights made their living...

overseeing farms.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Douglas S





Joined: 18 Feb 2004

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:33 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

A little bit OT, but I hope germane to this discussion:

I often think of a sword as a sidearm, like a pistol. (Not sure if this is accurate for all lands and periods, so correct me if I'm wrong.)

So for those gentlemen whose primary job was maintaining order, primarily ensuring that a percentage of farm produce was conveyed to the noble's estates, the sword would have been an important tool for maintaining order. I submit that perhaps its importance in this regard was greater than its importance in wartime. (?)

So, similar to the handgun, those who are in charge of maintaining some sort of order might be compelled to keep others from getting easy access to any weapon that would allow rebellion.

Is that really far off the mark?
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 4:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Douglas S wrote:
So, similar to the handgun, those who are in charge of maintaining some sort of order might be compelled to keep others from getting easy access to any weapon that would allow rebellion.

Is that really far off the mark?


Yes, horribly off the mark.

I don't want to come off snarky but I must ask, do you have any real concept of the medieval feudal system beyond Hollywood and Victorian literature?

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Mark T




PostPosted: Tue 18 Jan, 2011 11:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Teague wrote:
I'm under the impression that most folks here don't have a clear view of how troops were raised, how they served, how they were paid and how they were armed in the time frames and countries that each person has an interest in here...


Teague: yep, something I'm still learning about, like many here - especially thanks to the help of more knowledgeable folks, like your good and patient self. Wink

Three sources I've seen recommended, which I'm looking forward to reading, are:

    One million mercenaries: Swiss soldiers in the armies of the world, John McCormack (London: Lee Cooper, 1993)
    Medieval mercenaries: The business of war, William Urban (London: Greenhill Books, 2006)
    Armies and warfare in the middle ages: The English experience, Michael Prestwich (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996)


These are time and place specific, of course. Anyone else have any other suggestions for those of us who are looking for an education better than 'Hollywood and Victorian literature', and which will be relevant to answering the OP's original question? Big Grin

Chief Librarian/Curator, Isaac Leibowitz Librarmoury

Schallern sind sehr sexy!
View user's profile Send private message
Douglas S





Joined: 18 Feb 2004

Posts: 177

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 12:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Teague wrote:
Douglas S wrote:
So, similar to the handgun, those who are in charge of maintaining some sort of order might be compelled to keep others from getting easy access to any weapon that would allow rebellion.

Is that really far off the mark?


Yes, horribly off the mark.

I don't want to come off snarky but I must ask, do you have any real concept of the medieval feudal system beyond Hollywood and Victorian literature?

Cheers,

David


Yes, but if you have some texts that would fill in my knowledge, this would be the place to share.
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 2:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Douglas S wrote:
David Teague wrote:
Douglas S wrote:
So, similar to the handgun, those who are in charge of maintaining some sort of order might be compelled to keep others from getting easy access to any weapon that would allow rebellion.

Is that really far off the mark?


Yes, horribly off the mark.

I don't want to come off snarky but I must ask, do you have any real concept of the medieval feudal system beyond Hollywood and Victorian literature?

Cheers,

David


Yes, but if you have some texts that would fill in my knowledge, this would be the place to share.


OK,

Try reading "Daily Life in Medieval Times" by Frances Gies. Book link

This is all three of his Life in Medieval Times works under one cover (LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL CASTLE, LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL CITY and LIFE IN A MEDIEVAL VILLAGE). This book alone with help enlighten one on how the feudal system worked for all three of the Estates of the realm and how they relied on each other.

1066: The Year of the Conquest by David Howarth will give you insight on how the "English" raised their troops and how those very laws stayed in effect in to the WotR.

Those would be a nice start to a basic understanding.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Thom R.




Location: Tucson
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Reading list: 30 books

Posts: 630

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 4:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Here is a good example of what David is talking about - the crown expedition into Leinster in Ireland in 1353. at the time the justiciar of Ireland was Thomas Rockeby. Rockeby, via proclamation, put together an army. All nobles of the realm were to assist Rockeby. James Butler Earl of Ormond, John de Carew, John Cusack, and William Bermingham joined the expedition. All other nobles within the pale at the time paid scutage to get out of service. In fact, the scutage paid for most of the expedition's expenses - so this in the end is not necessarily a bad thing. You can see the troops armed and brought to the army by Ormond, deCarew, Cusack and Bermingham (hobelars are lightly armed cavalry on smaller horses or "hobbys"). Men at arms were defined as either knights or liegemen who personally owned/possessed a combination of heavy horse (armoured or barded horse), and armour. The troop levels for each noble were determined by a nobelman's net worth. the more you were worth the more you were expected to be able to provide in terms of men and arms for service. To fill out his army Ormond also bought the service of men from the O'More, O'Toole and O'Kennedy clans. Out of a total of 600+ men - only two non noble, non liegemen of stature are mentioned, John Lykin and Roger Beveryk. It is sometimes difficult to understand from our modern middle class viewpoint, but there were not many "freemen" or much of a middle class in 1353.

One may also ponder why anyone would serve on expeditions like this - why did everyone not pay scutage? well beside the potential plunder to be gained, the basic system was a hierarchy - monarch and family - dukes - earls - viscounts - knights. money flowed up and favoritism flowed down. simplified version - to get up the ladder you needed more rents which meant more and better land and one of the main ways to get more land was via marriage or by royal charter. marriage was arranged. it was all part of the system.



When you read these rolls, you realize that most of the men-at-arms had swords, about half of the hobelars had swords(hobelars relied primarily on the lance and the horseman's axe seems to have been a common alternative to the sword), maybe some of the archers had swords but very few of the foot soldiers had swords - they relied on polearms. Also note how none of the Kennedy's and only a few of the O'Tooles and O'Mores had enough arms and armour to be classified as men-at-arms. Most of the gaels seemed to rely upon heavier quilted clothing for protection.
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Hinds




Location: Whitewater, Wisconsin USA
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 249

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Teague wrote:
One thing overlooked often in threads like this is that the local non knighted noble, lesser Knight, Knight, or Lord in charge of an area would supply arms to his troops when called up to serve the King. Medieval man did not swagger about with a sword strapped on unless they were called up and under arms or traveling in bandit country . While some counties were quite clear on the citizen solder and noble were expected to produce if mustered , period rolls often show how short of arms they could be when mustered.

I'm under the impression that most folks here don't have a clear view of how troops were raised, how they served, how they were paid and how they were armed in the time frames and countries that each person has an interest in here. In my case I have a clear view of England and Scotland of the 14th centuries. Also, I'm under the impression that some folks don't understand the major changes that took place in European society from the 13th-16th centuries. What is common by the 16th (study of the knightly longsword ) by the shopkeepers of the German city states was a skill set of the noble class of the 13th, 14th & 15th centuries. The daily wearing of a sword was quite uncommon until the Renaissance and the rise of rapier, and that the "medieval man who made his living fighting and killing" was most likely a criminal and not the tenant farmer or tradesman that made up the bulk of the medieval armies of the period. Even most knights made their living...

overseeing farms.


Just wanted to point out that during the 15th century lords would maintain "Feed men" who lived with the lord and ate at his table. These men often had a closer bond with their lord and were kept armed and at the ready to perform duties such as transporting prisoners, collecting taxes, escorting the lord when he traveled and acting as bodyguards. They also formed the core of the lords armed retinue, the rest being retainers that lived farther away and would only serve if called up. Those that lived a great distance were called "extraordinary retainers". So there were some men who were kept armed at least most of the time.

Just wanted to point that out since no one else had mentioned it. Happy

"Young knight, learn to love God and revere women; thus your honor will grow. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honor in wars." -Johannes Liechtenauer

"...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one..." Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 5:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Robert Hinds wrote:
David Teague wrote:
One thing overlooked often in threads like this is that the local non knighted noble, lesser Knight, Knight, or Lord in charge of an area would supply arms to his troops when called up to serve the King. Medieval man did not swagger about with a sword strapped on unless they were called up and under arms or traveling in bandit country . While some counties were quite clear on the citizen solder and noble were expected to produce if mustered , period rolls often show how short of arms they could be when mustered.

I'm under the impression that most folks here don't have a clear view of how troops were raised, how they served, how they were paid and how they were armed in the time frames and countries that each person has an interest in here. In my case I have a clear view of England and Scotland of the 14th centuries. Also, I'm under the impression that some folks don't understand the major changes that took place in European society from the 13th-16th centuries. What is common by the 16th (study of the knightly longsword ) by the shopkeepers of the German city states was a skill set of the noble class of the 13th, 14th & 15th centuries. The daily wearing of a sword was quite uncommon until the Renaissance and the rise of rapier, and that the "medieval man who made his living fighting and killing" was most likely a criminal and not the tenant farmer or tradesman that made up the bulk of the medieval armies of the period. Even most knights made their living...

overseeing farms.


Just wanted to point out that during the 15th century lords would maintain "Feed men" who lived with the lord and ate at his table. These men often had a closer bond with their lord and were kept armed and at the ready to perform duties such as transporting prisoners, collecting taxes, escorting the lord when he traveled and acting as bodyguards. They also formed the core of the lords armed retinue, the rest being retainers that lived farther away and would only serve if called up. Those that lived a great distance were called "extraordinary retainers". So there were some men who were kept armed at least most of the time.

Just wanted to point that out since no one else had mentioned it. Happy


Yes there were, but in the overall society their numbers were quite small. Those who served as retainers that needed to be armed were "under arms" by the laws of the land.

Also, you landed on the 15th century to find this practice. Again, major changes took place in European society from the 13th-16th centuries that changed the structure of society(the three of the Estates of the realm), how armies were raised and paid for, arms and armour, and how the wars were fought.

Cheers,

David

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 5:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

How might the term "men-at-arms" work for armies such as the Swiss of the late 15th and 16th centuries. When I see images, I invariably see plate on some of the figures. But I don't think of there being much nobility or retainers at all in their armies. Or with the landsknecht, would doppelsoldners be considere "men-at-arms?" Thoughts?
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Robert Hinds




Location: Whitewater, Wisconsin USA
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Likes: 4 pages

Posts: 249

PostPosted: Thu 20 Jan, 2011 5:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David Teague wrote:
Also, you landed on the 15th century to find this practice. Again, major changes took place in European society from the 13th-16th centuries that changed the structure of society(the three of the Estates of the realm), how armies were raised and paid for, arms and armour, and how the wars were fought.


I mentioned 15th century because that was the time period I originally posted about. It seems the discussion has broadened since then. Happy

Greg, to my understanding "Men-at-arms" at that time still referred to armoured mounted troops, but I could be wrong.

"Young knight, learn to love God and revere women; thus your honor will grow. Practice knighthood and learn the Art that dignifies you, and brings you honor in wars." -Johannes Liechtenauer

"...And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one..." Luke 22:36
View user's profile Send private message
David Teague




Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Joined: 25 Jan 2004

Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri 21 Jan, 2011 7:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nothing to do with the topic per se, but a wonderful slice of life over 12 months of a medieval village in the 14th century... note the lack of swords.. Big Grin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0AnUM1tt54&am...r_embedded

This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.

Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
View user's profile Send private message
Glennan Carnie




Location: UK
Joined: 23 Aug 2006

Posts: 289

PostPosted: Sat 22 Jan, 2011 3:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Probably my favourite two books on the subject:

The Time traveller's Guide to the Fourteenth Century by Ian Mortimer
Daily Life in Chaucer's England by Forgeng and McLean

Daily Life is rather more re-enactor oriented, but gives a good broad overview of all aspects of late medieval life.

I highly recommend either for providing a social context to any martial studies
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 26 Jan, 2011 1:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Greg Coffman wrote:
How might the term "men-at-arms" work for armies such as the Swiss of the late 15th and 16th centuries. When I see images, I invariably see plate on some of the figures. But I don't think of there being much nobility or retainers at all in their armies.


Then try looking up the primary sources or really detailed modern books on medieval Swiss warfare. For one thing, there was a sizeable population of armed gentry (i.e. men-at-arms) among the Swiss than it might seem at first glance. For another, if you had a full harness of plate but no horse, then no love--you still wouldn't qualify as a men-at-arms. And a closer look at many of the heavily-armoured people in those pictures would show that they didn't even quite have full armour--many lacked the legs that one would have expected of a man-at-arms. Let's not forget either that the cantons had baronial allies or patrons for many of their most significant wars. The name Rene of Lorraine should ring a bell (since the Swiss army that killed Charles the bold at Nancy was arguably his army, only with a rather big Swiss contingent occupying a position somewhere between allies and mercenaries).


Quote:
Or with the landsknecht, would doppelsoldners be considere "men-at-arms?"


No. Doppelsoldners were paid just twice the ordinary pike-carrier. Proper men-at-arms were paid a lot more--after all, they also had to pay for a lot of armour, horses, and servants that the Doppelsoldner couldn't be bothered with.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Longswords in the hands of common soldiers?
Page 2 of 4 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum