Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Gripping and using a Viking sword Reply to topic
This is a Spotlight Topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  Next 
Author Message
Joe Maccarrone




Location: Burien, WA USA
Joined: 19 Sep 2003

Posts: 190

PostPosted: Thu 28 Jul, 2005 2:28 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Patrick Kelly wrote:
Was the spear the main weapon because of some perceived superiority, or because it was the cheapest weapon available enmasse?

We cannot confine the sword to one limited area of use, not should we view the sword as a secondary weapon. By this I'm refering to the increasing viewpoint that seems to view the term secondary to mean that the sword was an inferior and seldom used weapon. Regardless of era, the sword was part of a weapons system. It would be used when circumstances dictated. It was niether inferior nor superior to any other weapon.


Well said, sir.

I believe the spear was the most common weapon not because it was most effective, but because it was cheap to make and well-suited to mass combat.
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Wallgren




Location: Bjästa, Sweden
Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 1:50 am    Post subject: Re: Maybe I'm missing something, but...         Reply with quote

Kirk Lee Spencer wrote:

It makes perfect sense that the spear (with its reach) was the primary weapon in a shield wall. However that does not preclude the conjecture that different grips may be used to fight with a slashing sword around a shield in open order combat... Unless we see the Vikings throw away their shields when the shield was breaks up and they reach for their swords. (sounds like something hollywood would do for effect, but not very likely with a single hand sword and your life on the line Big Grin )


Actually, as a little comment here. I have trained and sparred a bit the last months with the lokal Viking Reenactment grope called "Österhus Vänner " and found out that at least I prefer to loose my shield after the shieldwall has dispersed of any reason. Even against an advesary with a shield this is an advatage for me because in this situation I can get in close on the shieldside of the advesary and keep his sword or axe away with my own blade, and get into grappling. Always a great trick! I think that the large roundshields are quite unpractical in man on man fighting, though they fill theire use in formationfighting. A smaller version (60cm in diameter) that one in the group have is much more useful in man on man bouts. But I don´t know about any evidence of shields like that from the timeperiod. Please enlighten me if there is such a archiological evidence.

My two cents...

Martin

Swordsman, Archer and Dad
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Juan Carlos Llaurado




Location: Madrid, Spain
Joined: 02 Dec 2003

Posts: 8

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 2:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hello

From the amazingly informative and interesting posts seen here i must confess i´m really enjoying this thread.
So thank you very much to you all for sharing.

Quote:
Actually, as a little comment here. I have trained and sparred a bit the last months with the lokal Viking Reenactment grope called "Österhus Vänner " and found out that at least I prefer to loose my shield after the shieldwall has dispersed of any reason. Even against an advesary with a shield this is an advatage for me because in this situation I can get in close on the shieldside of the advesary and keep his sword or axe away with my own blade, and get into grappling. Always a great trick! I think that the large roundshields are quite unpractical in man on man fighting, though they fill theire use in formationfighting. A smaller version (60cm in diameter) that one in the group have is much more useful in man on man bouts. But I don´t know about any evidence of shields like that from the timeperiod. Please enlighten me if there is such a archiological evidence.


In my humble, and possibly uninformed opinion, if the shield wearer is an expert one, as any seasoned warrior should be, as soon as you get close to his shield you´ll be knocked off with it, unless you catch him by surprise. Shields were not only defensive, but could as well be used as weapons, so a combination of shield/sword could be told as of a double weapon. If you engage a foe and you don´t have a shield (he´s got one), your opponent might send you a cut or a stab with the sword (real or feint), forcing you to parry it, only to find you have been fooled and get a good knock from the shield. And i have experience on this (i got the knock).

Regarding the previous posts on considering (or not) the sword as a secondary weapon, what i tend to think is that they were not secondary in importance, but on usage, they were usually drawn once the spears and axes or maces were wasted. Could be a matter of wasting the cheaper weapons before, or could be something else related maybe to how a mass battle evolved from close formations to open engagements.

cheers
Juan Carlos
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Wallgren




Location: Bjästa, Sweden
Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 620

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 2:37 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Juan Carlos Llaurado wrote:

In my humble, and possibly uninformed opinion, if the shield wearer is an expert one, as any seasoned warrior should be, as soon as you get close to his shield you´ll be knocked off with it, unless you catch him by surprise. Shields were not only defensive, but could as well be used as weapons, so a combination of shield/sword could be told as of a double weapon.


The knocking of with the shield is eisier said then done in my experience, the possibillitys to grab the shield and get the other fighter of balance is fairly easy. Of course the shield is a offensiv weapon but a large shield is harder to use in that way.

Quote:
If you engage a foe and you don´t have a shield (he´s got one), your opponent might send you a cut or a stab with the sword (real or feint), forcing you to parry it, only to find you have been fooled and get a good knock from the shield. And i have experience on this (i got the knock).


Well if you let him do that. Then again I deploy the teachings handed down to us by Hanko Döbringer in this (and yes I know that is 1390 but the princips is very much older according to Hanko himself) and will keep the inisiative and will press him. If he lashes out I don´t parry but set aside and counter stab or strike or possible grab his wrist. Wirh a smaller shiled though the possibillitys to use it as a weapon and be active with it is greater. Still your agility and your sight is impeded from the shield . My Experience is that I rather drop the shield in those situations if it is a large one (90cm +)

But that personal preferences though... (and yes I´ve reseved the knock to ... but only once in 30 times...)

My point is, In line fighting the large shield and a spear is preferble as weaponary but it is crusial to hold the line, but in man to man fighting a small shield or no shield and sword is in my oppinion a better alternativ.

In a way you could say that the sword is a secondary weapon in Linefighting.

Thankyou for a great diskussion...

Martin



Big Grin

Swordsman, Archer and Dad
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Charles G.





Joined: 01 Mar 2004

Posts: 16

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 9:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Patrick Kelly wrote:

Nor can we ignore the fact that swords of the viking age were used in contexts other than a full-scale battle. Swords were often, perhaps more frequently, used in the context of personal combat such as the holmganga.


Exactly my point. Well stated.

Patrick Kelly wrote:

There are also plenty of references in the sagas and the Anglo-Saxon chronicle of individuals being struck down by sword blows in the press of battle. Was the spear the main weapon because of some perceived superiority, or because it was the cheapest weapon available enmasse?


Define "press of battle." That can mean an awful lot of things. Does it truly mean a tightly packed shield wall?

Certainly the spear was cheaper, hands down, and this is a perfectly plausible explanation. I would submit, though, that the longer reach and jabbing capability of the spear was of significantly greater use in a shield wall than a shearing sword, which would be awkward to use at best (not "useless", just awkward and not as good a tool for that particular job). This is speculation on my part, never having had the opportunity to fight within a tight shield wall, but I do not think it wrong.

Patrick Kelly wrote:

We cannot confine the sword to one limited area of use, not should we view the sword as a secondary weapon. By this I'm refering to the increasing viewpoint that seems to view the term secondary to mean that the sword was an inferior and seldom used weapon. Regardless of era, the sword was part of a weapons system. It would be used when circumstances dictated. It was niether inferior nor superior to any other weapon.


Regarding your definition of "secondary" I should point out that it is yours, and not mine, and that you are reading a meaning into that word that I did not intend. I never said the sword was inferior, nor even seldom used; I was only suggesting that it fit into a more narrow tactical niche, given the nature of mass combat in that time period. And further that there are circumstances where a spear might make more sense than a sword, and vice versa.

Certainly the spear, sword, shield, and man formed a system - in fact, I believe I just got through saying that!

Disagree with the last bit: sometimes a given weapon can be inferior, but this is usually driven by circumstance. The long shearing sword proved inferior to the short gladius when used by an organized legion - this is well documented. On the other hand it might have done better under different circumstances - Teutoburg forest comes to mind, where the legions were strung out on a march in rough terrain and unable to organize themselves properly. In short, it depends.
View user's profile
Patrick Kelly




Location: Wichita, Kansas
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 5,739

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 11:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

First Charles, if you're going to participate in our forums word your responses so they are not quite so confrontational. It will avoid possible problems. Everything depends upon verbiage in this environment.

Quote:
Regarding your definition of "secondary" I should point out that it is yours, and not mine, and that you are reading a meaning into that word that I did not intend.


I never stated that was your point, nor did I "read anything" into your statement. This is a common viewpoint that has been forming within our community for some time. That is why I mentioned it as an "increasing viewpoint", instead of "Charles' opinion that........" Taking what is written at face value is always better than reading between the lines.

I have used a sword in a shield wall formation in re-enactment combat, as well as a spear. One will work better than the other in certain circumstances. It really depends on where you find yourself in the formation and what the other side is trying to do to you at the time.

Quote:
Disagree with the last bit: sometimes a given weapon can be inferior, but this is usually driven by circumstance


I believe that's what I said. The weapon itself is neither superior or inferior. It may be lacking for the situation at hand but that doesn't necessarily mean the weapon itself is inferior, but rather the way it's being employed.

Quote:
The long shearing sword proved inferior to the short gladius when used by an organized legion - this is well documented.


Not really, that's an oversimplification of the issue. If cultures that used the shield wall tactic, such as the nordic countries and the Saxons, had found the longer single-handed sword to be lacking in their prefered method of warfare logic dictates that they would have used something else rather than rely on a single weapon such as the spear. The long two-handed war axe was also used within those formations (as documented by accounts of the battle of Hastings for example) and it was longer and seemingly more akward than the sword.

The roman legions didn't succeed because their style of sword was superior to their opponents. They succeeded because they possesed superior organization both on and off the battlefield. The romans possesed superior unit tactics and communication, while their germanic opponents often possesed neither. Yes, there are accounts of the longer sword being ineffectual in battle against the romans, but that's more an issue of the roman legions possesing a systematic method of combat wherein they were able to optimize the strengths of their equipment and minimize it's weaknesses. It really had nothing to do with the length of the sword blade itself. That organized part is the key, not the sword. The romans would have probably been victorious regardless of which type of sword they used due to their superior discipline. Your example of the Teutoburg forest is an excellent instance where the enemy used the circumstance and terrain, as well as a knowledge of roman tactics, to their advantage. That victory had nothing to do with the types of weapons employed.

I think we're both trying to make the same point here. Big Grin

My only responses to you regard your assertion that the sword was an akward weapon to use in a sheild wall. I have not found this to be the case given the right circumstance. On the increasingly tired debate of which gripping technique was used with a viking sword: I continue to maintain that both were used in conjunction with one another depending upon the users intent. This may very well have been something that they took for granted and didn't feel the need to discuss. Unlike we moderns who seem to want to catagorize and overanalyze everything.

"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Joachim Nilsson





Joined: 29 Sep 2003

Posts: 510

PostPosted: Fri 29 Jul, 2005 8:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Martin Wallgren wrote:

The knocking of with the shield is eisier said then done in my experience, the possibillitys to grab the shield and get the other fighter of balance is fairly easy. Of course the shield is a offensiv weapon but a large shield is harder to use in that way.

Well if you let him do that. Then again I deploy the teachings handed down to us by Hanko Döbringer in this (and yes I know that is 1390 but the princips is very much older according to Hanko himself) and will keep the inisiative and will press him. If he lashes out I don´t parry but set aside and counter stab or strike or possible grab his wrist. Wirh a smaller shiled though the possibillitys to use it as a weapon and be active with it is greater. Still your agility and your sight is impeded from the shield . My Experience is that I rather drop the shield in those situations if it is a large one (90cm +)

But that personal preferences though... (and yes I´ve reseved the knock to ... but only once in 30 times...)

My point is, In line fighting the large shield and a spear is preferble as weaponary but it is crusial to hold the line, but in man to man fighting a small shield or no shield and sword is in my oppinion a better alternativ.

In a way you could say that the sword is a secondary weapon in Linefighting.

Thankyou for a great diskussion...

Martin



Big Grin


Martin, I'd be careful to make any assumptions whatsoever regarding the offensive usefulness of the shield -or lack thereof- based of fighting experience accumulated against showfighters with little, or no experience in either grappling or the proper use of a shield if I were you... Especially when proper weapon attacks can't be utilized due to the use of steel blunts...

Didn't you read all those articles Mikael sent you this spring regarding viking shields?
View user's profile
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 12:31 pm    Post subject: About that handshake grip...         Reply with quote

Okay I had a viking sword pass show up last night and I was fooling with it a bit. It reminded me I've been meaning to ask a question... Is there any documented evidence of the "handshake" style grip being used?

.... nevermind looks like I've some reading to do...

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Fri 11 Nov, 2005 12:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

As always an informative thread presents itself...


*note to self always use the search function...

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Mike Luke




Location: Nevada
Joined: 21 Mar 2004

Posts: 19

PostPosted: Sat 12 Nov, 2005 1:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I’m going to chime in on this one. I couldn’t agree more with Peter. There is nothing intuitive about how to hold swords of this type. When I first received my Gotland I set about cutting some mats with it. Using the “Hammer” grip, I soon stripped back a 1/2 “ x 1 1/2 “ flap of skin on my palm from the pommel Eek!. It quickly became apparent the sword took exception to being held in this manner. When I changed to the grip, that peter suggested the sword became quite “alive” it Big Grin and it responded without hesitation . It also held the flap of skin in place so I could continue cutting. I find the Vinland (my newest addition) also responds in the same manner.
I think the “Hammer” grip at best is left to situations where you have a limited range of motion and even then if you over extend you run the risk of the sword levering it’s self out of your hand.
Peter, your drawing is perfict.

There is no man worth a leke,
Be he sturdy, be he meke,
But he bear a basilard.
View user's profile Send private message
John Cooksey




Location: NW Ark
Joined: 15 Nov 2003

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Sun 13 Nov, 2005 7:15 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This has been a really great thread. It's rare to see one going on so long, with such a wide variety of strongly-backed theories.

Regarding sword grips in general, I have always preferred what Peter Johnsson describes as the handshake grip. I bought a Del Tin 2103 many years ago, and it quickly taught me the right way to grip it, even before I had ever heard anyone describe the proper grip for a Viking-era sword.
I have also found that this type of relatively loose grip works best with any weapon with a wide pommel, such as a Mainz gladius.

When I don't use the "handshake grip", I use the "italian grip ", which in my mind should be called the Sassanian grip, where the forefinger is looped over the guard.

Regarding medieval antisepsis, most ancient cultures were familiar with the antiseptic qualities of wine and vinegar, which are tremendous. Properly cleaned and treated, even a severe wound is survivable without the use of modern antibiotics.
Just look at the large body of evidence for trepanning, and other evidence of survived cuts found in the North American archaeological record.

Thanks, everyone, for the fascinating discussion.
View user's profile Send private message
Hank Reinhardt
Industry Professional



Location: oxford,ga.
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue 15 Nov, 2005 4:52 pm    Post subject: gripping a viking sword         Reply with quote

I think you are all too much into an "either or" situation here. A square hilt that will jab into your wrist can be easily handled by letting the pommel slip past your wrist. Takes only a minor amount of getting use to. Some are so small that it is almost impossible to grip it in any other way than to take the whole hilt into your hand. Each individual would have a shape that he might prefer, but end up with something else. A gift, a grave theft, or just what he might find when he needs it. I cannot stree too much that all of this stuff is so much one of a kind, and individual preference. Let me give an example. I like to shoot. I shoot a .45 a lot, and now it is considered proper to shoot with two hands. yet I grew up shooting one handed, and my score on the combat range was just as good as the guys shooting two handed, Its what the individual gets use to and what he prefers.
Hank Reinhardt
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Tue 15 Nov, 2005 6:45 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Some swords don't give you much choice as to using a sideways palm grip: I'm thinking about some Bronze age or early Iron age antenna swords were the antennas are many inches wide.

I agree with Mr. Reinhardt ( Not comfortable saying " Hank " during a first exchange of views. Big Grin ) that the hand can quickly adapt to different grip styles and sizes, unless the design is really bad: Shifting grip from hammer to handshake can become fluid and automatic and it's not this or that grip but both changing as needed.

These wide Viking pommels make a loose and relaxed grip possible as they serve as " stop " keeping the sword from sliding out.

I assume that a loose grip would be good for fast fluid cuts: Could be wrong, please confirm or correct me, if I'm wrong.

Would one tighten ones grip just at the moment of contact or would one try to keep the hand relaxed concentrating on keeping the edge well aligned for a maximum efficiency cut ?

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
Hank Reinhardt
Industry Professional



Location: oxford,ga.
Joined: 10 Nov 2005
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 138

PostPosted: Tue 15 Nov, 2005 7:01 pm    Post subject: Viking Grip         Reply with quote

With a one handed sword I always tighten my grip as I strike. I frequently also snap my wrist, this gives a little extra momentum and helps the cut. A trick I learned from the Ghurkas. Met some while I was at the firing range in Todendorf in '57. Showed me how to cut effectively with a kukri. Please, Hank is much better than Mr. Reinhardt...sounds so damn old...Hank
Hank Reinhardt
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Jean Thibodeau




Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Joined: 15 Mar 2004
Likes: 50 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Tue 15 Nov, 2005 7:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pleased to call you Hank: Just wanted to break the ice on that for myself and everybody else. Cool

I'm a young 55 myself soon to be 56. Eek! I always feel strange if someone calls me SIR because in my mind I'm still a kid who likes to play with his toys !

You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
View user's profile Send private message
John Cooksey




Location: NW Ark
Joined: 15 Nov 2003

Posts: 291

PostPosted: Wed 16 Nov, 2005 6:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have always found that snapping the wrist at the end of a one-handed cut, especially with a shorter blade, does work well.

Grip versatility is a wonderful thing (great thing about axes and spears), and I use a lot of transitions on longer-hilted weapons, but there is just no way that I can sandwich my fat paw between the upper and lower guards on a typically short Viking-style hilt. My fingers are short, but my hand is very wide, making it mechanically impossible for me to use a short-gripped Viking-style weapon, with what we have been describing as a hammer-grip, with any degree of agility or comfort.
Yes, the Vikings had tough hands from handling oars and lines all day for months at a time, but then so too do some of us farm boys and girls. I think that the human hand and wrist do have mechanical properties that go beyond/supercede sheer toughness.
For me, at least, that's why slipping the pommel just feels so damn natural.
With different hand sizes and shapes, other people's mileage may vary. :-)
So, like a lot of other things, I reckon it just comes down to individual tastes, preferences, and the fact that . . . . size does matter. :-)
Can I say that on a public forum? . . . . . . .
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Wed 16 Nov, 2005 6:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The thing I'm not clear on is why didn't the scandinavians just design their swords with grips sized such that they din't have to move from the "hammer" to the "handshake" and back? Or was this changing of the grip common to all time periods? I've never heard that claim.... Is there something technically superior about using a "handshake" grip when using a cutting sword? If so why don't other predominatly cutting swords also exhibit inordinately small grips, the type XIII or XIV for example?
TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Northern VA,USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,194

PostPosted: Wed 16 Nov, 2005 7:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Russ Ellis wrote:
Or was this changing of the grip common to all time periods?


Well, this isn't quite the same thing, but in 14th-16th century German longsword there are certain techniques that require you to place your thumb on the blade, which inherently causes your grip to slightly change. The hilt will slightly rotate in your hands. Point being that changing your grip isn't as unnatural as it sounds, and leads to a lot of versatility.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shane Allee
Industry Professional



Location: South Bend, IN
Joined: 29 Aug 2003

Posts: 506

PostPosted: Wed 16 Nov, 2005 8:04 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My own opinion on this is that the shorter grip and handshake method goes back earlier than just the Scandinavians. I shortened Nate's La Tene grip down for him to where it was too short for me, but it didn't really matter since I pretty much always handled it this way anyway. If you look at the La Tene lobed style hilts, many of them when viewed from the side could have had swelling in the lobes very similar to what we see in Viking age swords. As well in the last month or so I have been faced with a large number of La Tene blades that have very short tangs. Most of these have been coming in around five inches, which doesn't give you much room to work with these organic hilts. Of course the first things I have to shrink with these is the grip, and your getting a three inch grip or less then. With both groups though we are looking at fairly wide bladed cutting swords.

Another opinion that I have been expressing lately is that the handshake grip could be very useful when used from horseback or chariot. For me at least it seems that you do little in the way of turning your wrist to line up a cut, it just seems to line up in a more nature way. Plus it seems to transition from one side to the other easier.

For me though it is just much easier to have proper edge alignment with these wide cutting blades using the handshake grip.

Shane
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Eric Myers




Location: Sacramento, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003

Posts: 214

PostPosted: Wed 16 Nov, 2005 8:13 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Russ Ellis wrote:
The thing I'm not clear on is why didn't the scandinavians just design their swords with grips sized such that they din't have to move from the "hammer" to the "handshake" and back? Or was this changing of the grip common to all time periods? I've never heard that claim.... Is there something technically superior about using a "handshake" grip when using a cutting sword? If so why don't other predominatly cutting swords also exhibit inordinately small grips, the type XIII or XIV for example?


Are there any swords or styles that don't require grip changes? Not trying to be snide, it's an honest question. I fenced with the modern foil/epee/sabre for many years (no pistol grips though) before starting historical WMA 8 years ago, and I've just always assumed you need to be comfortable changing your grip no matter what you are using. Offhand, the only manual I recall specifically stating that however, is Swetnam.

So, does anyone out there never change their grip?

Eric Myers
Sacramento Sword School
ViaHup.com - Wiki di Scherma Italiana
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Gripping and using a Viking sword
Page 6 of 14 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 12, 13, 14  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