| Author |
Message |
|
Pieter B.
|
 Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 9:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Vasilly T wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Perhaps the wounds shown are correct but the weapons that cause them are incorrectly depicted as swords. |
What brought you to this conclusion? From the conclusions we were able to gather in that thread, I see no reason to suspect those weren't swords that caused those wounds. |
Well until a certain point in history it was common to depict man-at-arms and kings fighting with swords even though they probably fought with pollaxes or similar weapons in the actual battle depicted.
In this lecture Dr. Fabrice Cognot mentions it.
https://youtu.be/ZYehfLbDGLc?t=997
While the mac battle does show axes being used it is almost never the biblical hero himself.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vasilly T wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Perhaps the wounds shown are correct but the weapons that cause them are incorrectly depicted as swords. |
What brought you to this conclusion? From the conclusions we were able to gather in that thread, I see no reason to suspect those weren't swords that caused those wounds. |
The thing is, people have done tests using close to historically constructed maille mounted to thing silimar in reaction to a human body with a poleaxe and it still doesn't show wounds silimar to be shown in the Mac Bilbe. Also, the morgan bilble was made and modified through different periods. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 The poleaxe head manage to break links, but not lacerate the target underneath, just induce a deadly amount to bone breakage and poleaxes are designed with enough robustness to withstand striking plate armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | Vasilly T wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Perhaps the wounds shown are correct but the weapons that cause them are incorrectly depicted as swords. |
What brought you to this conclusion? From the conclusions we were able to gather in that thread, I see no reason to suspect those weren't swords that caused those wounds. |
The thing is, people have done tests using close to historically constructed maille mounted to thing silimar in reaction to a human body with a poleaxe and it still doesn't show wounds silimar to be shown in the Mac Bilbe. Also, the morgan bilble was made and modified through different periods. http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131 The poleaxe head manage to break links, but not lacerate the target underneath, just induce a deadly amount to bone breakage and poleaxes are designed with enough robustness to withstand striking plate armor. |
We were talking about the helmets that are cleaved through, though in later period manuscripts the cut to the head are shown not to be as deep as in the mac bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Vasilly T wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | | Perhaps the wounds shown are correct but the weapons that cause them are incorrectly depicted as swords. |
What brought you to this conclusion? From the conclusions we were able to gather in that thread, I see no reason to suspect those weren't swords that caused those wounds. |
Well until a certain point in history it was common to depict man-at-arms and kings fighting with swords even though they probably fought with pollaxes or similar weapons in the actual battle depicted.
In this lecture Dr. Fabrice Cognot mentions it.
https://youtu.be/ZYehfLbDGLc?t=997
While the mac battle does show axes being used it is almost never the biblical hero himself. |
My question still stands, what caused people to believe that even though depicted warriors use all kinds of weapons, swords weren't actually used?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
If a poleaxe head can't reliable cleave through mail and into a person, what make you think that it can reliably cleave into a helmet and deep enough to bite into a human skull?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: | | If a poleaxe head can't reliable cleave through mail and into a person, what make you think that it can reliably cleave into a helmet and deep enough to bite into a human skull? |
Well the skull sits closer to the skin surface and helmet to begin with. Plate is rigid unlike mail so it will only dent for a while before being sheared in two. Mail + padding does not present a solid layer that will resist blows but instead absorbs them, unless the force is so great it will shatter bones.
This thread might be a long read but it might offer some insight.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32155
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Fri 10 Jul, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | | Philip Dyer wrote: | | If a poleaxe head can't single hit cleave through mail and into a person, what make you think that it can reliably cleave into a helmet and deep enough to bite into a human skull? |
Well the skull sits closer to the skin surface and helmet to begin with. Plate is rigid unlike mail so it will only dent for a while before being sheared in two. Mail + padding does not present a solid layer that will resist blows but instead absorbs them, unless the force is so great it will shatter bones.
This thread might be a long read but it might offer some insight.
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32155 |
I've read the thread and commented in it and I repsectuflly disagree with your notion. late can be made to present a defective surface, which all helmets have to some degree which the execution of completely flat top one, making landing a blow with sufficient to comprise the material or shock the wearer inside even more difficult because if doesn't land perfectly, weapon wants to turn instead of imparting energy/do damage. Also, because mail is not solid, it has the habit of catching things until it breaks, meaning in allot less forgiving in the first place. Also, the more head heavy the weapon is, the more it wants to amplify edge alignment that isn't into skating off. Also, your studies showed that they were strung repeatedly in similar area of the skull, where as the mail was strung once with the poleaxe and caused a tear.. Second, one of your studies showed that the most common to hit was the back of the head, the Upsala study. Third, multiple people in that thread have stated that helemts are one of the easiest things to discard. Also, the head instead is almost always exposed because your can't competely protect the head without risking obsuring vision, thus the target most likely to take multpile hits. Also, the left artial bone emcopasses the left top of the skull, the left side, and left to of the rear, so the location of of the cut strike by themselves doesn't really tell us much. But, that is for another thread, what make you think that manuscript illustrated misrepresent weapons used by people but don't misrepresent wounds? I couldn't make out what the presenter was saying even with my speakers and volume on max. Do you have a pdf file?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
To Philip Dyer
I'd also like to add that scarcity of body wounds suggests that protecting head gear was most likely removed either by the wearers themselves or by the enemy.
I also remembered this depiction of melee by Froissart, very rich in details: http://i.imgur.com/VcQng2p.jpg
Notice that a lot of grappling involved, where combatants pull on the helmets or other protective gear to deliver a death blow, also some dead men lying around without helmets, and even a helmet lying on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well we already discussed it in the other thread. There are essentially two possibilities, the wounds were inflicted when they were wearing a helmet or when they weren't wearing one. We know that people walked around with healed headwounds from the 7th century to the 15th century. Now I believe it's possible certain polearms are able to damage helmets sufficiently to wound the person wearing it. These wounds could also have been inflicted when they weren't wearing helmets but the relative number of healed head injuries and perimortem non lethal blows make a number of explanations for that unlikely.
Then there are the perhaps somewhat dubious illustrations of battles. Pretty much all the Swiss sources I looked at show halberds penetrating helmets to a small degree, some show less than an inch of penetration while others show a gash multiple inches, some soldiers are depicted as fighting or fleeing with head wounds while others are dead. Then there are a lot of works from the Low countries that include both drawings and tapestries which show similar things. Some men are dead and have head wounds while others are still fighting. Either this really happened or it's a universal art trend in Europe.
The Uppsala battle appears to be a relatively one sided slaughter and almost no person with previous head injuries (veterans?) appears. The other two/three battles are different.
The helmets could indeed be discarded but a number of reasons to do that seem unlikely to have been the cause of the headwounds.
People could have taken off their helmets when fleeing and were then hit by cavalrymen. Could indeed be possible but, at least in my mind, this does not seem 'that' likely when you look at the relative number of people that have healed head wounds and the place were lethal head wounds were found. Horizontal across the back of the head and downward blows on the crest of the skull seems more likely injury patterns if that was the case. The location and the fact that many apparently survived it leads me to believe these wounds were sustained during the actual fighting.
Then there is the size of the healed head wounds which at Dornach were 3 cm on average and not penetrating the skull. If someone strikes me with a halberd at even moderate force and I end up with a small 3 cm gash across my unprotected head then I would count myself really really lucky.
The presenter http://hroarr.com/fabrice-cognot-bladesmith/ showed an illustration of the King of France fighting/being captured at the battle of Poitiers.
While he is depicted as using a sword and shield he actually used a pollaxe in that battle. But artistic or cultural reasons lead to him being depicted as fighting with a sword, this trend later changed when it was fine to depict men such as him with axes and weapons such as that. The mac bible predates that picture by a century (give or take a few decades) and it is possible the same rules might have applied then. Perhaps especially so because it depicts Christian superhero's. The illustrator might have personally seen battlefield scenes or knew what type of trauma was common but chose to depict axes and maces as swords (though axes are sometimes depicted). The wounds do seem a little extreme though and the fact that they're biblical hero's might be the reason for that.
The artists inability to illustrate how deep the wounds actually were or the perspective could also have led to a slightly over exaggerated wounds.
As far as I can tell this scene represents a few fleeing horsemen on the right side, note that they are wounded and appear very much alive. That said the wound itself shows a man with his head cloven from crown to halfway his forehead. That's not survivable as far as I know.
Look at the fleeing people and the wounds they have.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m..._large.jpg
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/m..._large.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: | These wounds could also have been inflicted when they weren't wearing helmets but the relative number of healed head injuries and perimortem non lethal blows make a number of explanations for that unlikely.
Then there is the size of the healed head wounds which at Dornach were 3 cm on average and not penetrating the skull. If someone strikes me with a halberd at even moderate force and I end up with a small 3 cm gash across my unprotected head then I would count myself really really lucky.
|
Why do you automatically assume those wounds were inflicted by halberds? You've posted an interesting link in your own thread: hroarr.com/the-use-of-the-saber-in-the-army-of-napoleon-part-iv-wounds-caused-by-the-saber/
Here we can see that people survived multiple saber strikes to an unprotected head. I don't get why you fail to apply the same situation to the case of healed head injuries.
| Pieter B. wrote: | | While he is depicted as using a sword and shield he actually used a pollaxe in that battle. |
You've stated that as a fact several times already, but our question is why do you believe it's a fact? What makes you think he actually used a pollaxe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vasilly T wrote: | | Pieter B. wrote: | These wounds could also have been inflicted when they weren't wearing helmets but the relative number of healed head injuries and perimortem non lethal blows make a number of explanations for that unlikely.
Then there is the size of the healed head wounds which at Dornach were 3 cm on average and not penetrating the skull. If someone strikes me with a halberd at even moderate force and I end up with a small 3 cm gash across my unprotected head then I would count myself really really lucky.
|
Why do you automatically assume those wounds were inflicted by halberds? You've posted an interesting link in your own thread: hroarr.com/the-use-of-the-saber-in-the-army-of-napoleon-part-iv-wounds-caused-by-the-saber/
Here we can see that people survived multiple saber strikes to an unprotected head. I don't get why you fail to apply the same situation to the case of healed head injuries.
| Pieter B. wrote: | | While he is depicted as using a sword and shield he actually used a pollaxe in that battle. |
You've stated that as a fact several times already, but our question is why do you believe it's a fact? What makes you think he actually used a pollaxe? |
That's a good point. Well I reasoned that a halberd blow to an unprotected skull would likely result in severe and probably lethal wounds so the survivable wounds were likely the result of head protection. I did not consider that those healed wounds might well be the result of sword blows to an unprotected head. That said Napoleonic soldiers did have some form of head protection as stated in the article.
Furthermore it brings the question back to the whole: "How did someone with an unprotected head get hit in the skull with a sword once at close range while surviving the battle".
It's a tricky question since Sword and Halberd wounds were identical according to the paper so they could not distinguish wounds.
As for your other questions. Because a preeminent historian said so, essentially. I'd have to ask him how he came to conclusion but I would say that it's rather unlikely the French king wearing the best armor of his day would pick a shield and sword to fight a battle.
I realize this answers might not be satisfactory but I am searching for the "truth" as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, medieval soldiers most certainly did wear some kind of arming cap under their helmet, so I guess it's comparable to what soldiers of Napoleonic era were wearing as a head protection.
| Quote: | As for your other questions. Because a preeminent historian said so, essentially. I'd have to ask him how he came to conclusion but I would say that it's rather unlikely the French king wearing the best armor of his day would pick a shield and sword to fight a battle.
I realize this answers might not be satisfactory but I am searching for the "truth" as well. |
Aw, that's disappointing indeed. Thanks for the answer anyway. We do must ask for the original sources and question authorities, because far too many historians got things wrong in the past to take their word for truth without questioning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vasilly T wrote: | Well, medieval soldiers most certainly did wear some kind of arming cap under their helmet, so I guess it's comparable to what soldiers of Napoleonic era were wearing as a head protection.
| Quote: | As for your other questions. Because a preeminent historian said so, essentially. I'd have to ask him how he came to conclusion but I would say that it's rather unlikely the French king wearing the best armor of his day would pick a shield and sword to fight a battle.
I realize this answers might not be satisfactory but I am searching for the "truth" as well. |
Aw, that's disappointing indeed. Thanks for the answer anyway. We do must ask for the original sources and question authorities, because far too many historians got things wrong in the past to take their word for truth without questioning. |
Yeah I've been trying to question some established facts.
For a long time I held plate armor to be invulnerable to cutting weapons. This sounds reasonable but it raises quite a few questions: Why does artwork depict a lot of mean with small gashes in their helmet? Why would people use one handed cavalry axes in the plate armor period if neither sword nor axe could penetrate it? Why do so many people die from head wounds and why have so many apparently survived it? Especially some later artwork shows differing degrees of head wounding.
Some pictures of battlefields in the Swiss Chronicles do also show discarded helms like you said. Sometimes you see 3 guys fleeing with a head wound but not helmet, one discarded helmet and four guys with a helmet and wound fleeing.
Quite a lot of non-dead people with head wounds do appear on the battlefield in these pictures.
http://i.imgur.com/vOQ5DK4.png
http://i.imgur.com/ZaiLYcz.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vasilly T
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pieter B. wrote: |
For a long time I held plate armor to be invulnerable to cutting weapons. This sounds reasonable but it raises quite a few questions: Why does artwork depict a lot of mean with small gashes in their helmet? Why would people use one handed cavalry axes in the plate armor period if neither sword nor axe could penetrate it? Why do so many people die from head wounds and why have so many apparently survived it? Especially some later artwork shows differing degrees of head wounding.
Some pictures of battlefields in the Swiss Chronicles do also show discarded helms like you said. Sometimes you see 3 guys fleeing with a head wound but not helmet, one discarded helmet and four guys with a helmet and wound fleeing.
Quite a lot of non-dead people with head wounds do appear on the battlefield in these pictures. |
That might be an over-exaggeration by the authors of the illustrations. Not all of them depict slashing plate armour. Froissart for example doesn't.
But as I've already said in your thread, in order to make solid conclusions on that topic a test involving armour made out of medieval steel is needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sat 11 Jul, 2015 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think physical evidence in the form of skulls and pictorial evidence seemingly depicting similar wounds is enough to form a hypothesis worth of being tested. Though I am grossly unqualified to do so I hope someone else is willing put it to the test, the large amount of variables involved could mean this is PhD work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Jul, 2015 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Moffett wrote: |
That may be true, though having spent years on looking at 100 Year Wars recruitment I think Mike is over exaggerating this. The bulk of archers were levied for much of the period and there is 0 about huntsmen in any of the docs I have read and I have looked over most the royal records from Henry III to Henry VIII.
RPM |
It took some time but I managed to find the source Mike cites.
| Quote: | In the light of this, it is hardly surprising that the crown was particularly keen
to secure the services of those among the civilian population who might be
regarded as ‘professional’ archers. Time and again we find the orders to
commissioners of array stressing the importance of selecting foresters and
parkers for service in the king’s army. For example, a few weeks after Crécy, the
Prince of Wales instructed each of his chief parkers at Berkhamsted, Byfleet and
Watlington to choose ‘six good companion-archers, the best [they] can find’ for
service in France.318 What such men brought to the army was a level of skill
with the bow, a capacity for marksmanship, beyond that which might be
expected from an ordinary villager. Our sources suggest that they were not
particularly numerous in the army: few of the pardon recipients are specifically
designated ‘parkers’ or ‘foresters’, though, of course, the onomastic evidence
may not be a wholly reliable guide in this respect.319 This much is clear: such
men as the father and son, William and John Smart, parkers from St Osyth in
Essex, who received pardons for service under Sir Robert Morley, or Henry
Parker, who headed a company of ten archers raised from Rutland in October
1346,320 were elite practitioners with the longbow, much sought after by
captains and commissioners of array wishing to stiffen their companies with
toxophilite expertise. Perhaps we should regard such men as the ‘Robin Hoods’
of mid-fourteenth-century England, their life experiences almost certainly fuelling
the tales of the forest-bound, outlaw hero that were gaining popularity at
this time.321 It would seem that there is indeed an affinity between some at least
of our Crécy archers and Chaucer’s Knight’s Yeoman, for as the great writer
noted of his subject: ‘A forster was he, soothly, as I gesse.’
318 Black Prince Register, i, p. 18. Royal orders to select foresters and parkers: C61/49, m.
23 (1337); Rotuli Scotiae, i, p. 501 (1337); Treaty Rolls, 1337–39, no. 123 (1338); C76/15,
mm. 27d, 29d (1340). Cf. Goodman, John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power, p. 218.
319 CPR, 1345–8, pp. 492 and 505 (parkers); 487, 497 and 505 (foresters).
320 E101/584/5, m. 2.
|
This bit of text can be interpreted in many ways and two of the likely ones are that either they were sought for high marksmanship or simple because they were trained at shooting high poundage bows while ordinary archers were not or not at the same level as foresters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Hardy
|
| Posted: Sun 19 Jul, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
During WW1, the first British sniper units were recruited mainly from Scottish ghillies who were already professionals at use of cover while stalking and at estimating ranges and shooting accurately under all conditions. I expect the medieval foresters brought the same sort of experience to the archery table.
| Pieter B. wrote: |
This bit of text can be interpreted in many ways and two of the likely ones are that either they were sought for high marksmanship or simple because they were trained at shooting high poundage bows while ordinary archers were not or not at the same level as foresters. |
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Mon 20 Jul, 2015 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pieter,
Yeah I think he is taking this far too far for marksmanship from the documents he states. Take a look for yourself.
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/patentrolls/search.html
Type commission in and take a look for the hundreds of them that come up.
Few have anything like what he is talking about. They are masses of literally hundreds if not thousands of villagers. I think his interpretation is highly exaggerated. They clearly are required to try, array and such but that is not expert or professional marksman by any interpretation. How many expert or professional are you going to get when you are required to field 500-2000 men as often was the case for the commissioners. That does not mean they are not getting decent archers but I think his interpretation is way off mark. I suspect most were simply decent archers and expected to shoot accurately in a direction along with the other 2-10k archers.
No doubt some men were professional, semi-professional or good and trying to become so. The array could be a great way to move into a retinue as the arrayers often are some of the top citizens, knights or the like in a county. If you wanted a way out of what you did, perhaps a better job might be an outlet for those more daring and willing to literally risk it all. But I suspect most were just fulfilling their required duty to King and country.
John,
That is interesting and there are times that the king requires more of some regions over others, perhaps for that reason but for most of the campaigns it is simply array notices to a huge number of counties. No likely that specialized for the Commission of array for the most part.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pieter B.
|
| Posted: Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I tried to find the documents the authors cited but had little luck. Now I really wonder the author(s) state that the royal order for recruitment of foresters went out time and time again.
I have some more questions on the battle of Agincourt. A few times I have read that the men-at-arms were placed in the middle with archers on the Flanks. Why does the French chronicler Enguerrand de Monstrelet say something different?
https://books.google.nl/books?id=lxnrEjbCfvwC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=enguerrand+de+monstrelet+chroniques+1415&source=bl&ots=hlI9tE3vYs&sig=gNaiDbquj6LyOfUBekqX8WIBX-s&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBmoVChMI8-zS0PfsxgIVDirbCh2-_wtW#v=onepage&q=thomas&f=false
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/SOURCES/agincourt.htm
| Quote: | | who placed the archers in front, and the men-at-arms behind them. He then formed two wings of men-at-arms and archers, and posted the horses with the baggage in the rear. Each archer planted before himself a stake sharpened at both ends. |
Maybe I am reading a source that has been proven to be false many decades ago but this makes a lot more sense than archers creating a funneling effect.
Then there is more concerning the wounding effect of arrows.
| Quote: | | The English loudly sounded their trumpets as they approached, and the French stooped to prevent the arrows hitting them on the visors of their helmets; |
| Quote: | | et les Francois commencent à incliner leurs chefs, afin que les traits n'entrassent en leurs visières de leurs basinet |
Which sounds a lot like what Humpfrey Barwick stated in 1594 almost 180 years later.
| Quote: | "When I do march directly upon them and seeing them coming, I do stoop a little with
my head to that end my burgonet shall save my face, and seeing the same arrows
lighting upon my headpiece or upon my breast, pauldrons or vambraces, and so seeing
the same to be of no more force nor hurtful, then do I with less fear than before boldly
advance forward to counter with them." |
It seems both the French and mister Barwick were concerned about arrows hitting them in the face.
The account then goes on the state how the van of the French was thrown in disorder which the English exploited by throwing down their bows and attacking them with swords, mallets and bills.
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Moffett
|
| Posted: Wed 22 Jul, 2015 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pieter,
I tried to find anything like that and can up empty handed. I have no idea where he got that but that is nto in the commissions of arrays I have seen and I spent a very health part of my PhD reading over them all from 1300-1500....
As to how they were setup this has been debated for some type Burne I thinkis the first to come up with the block of MAA and archers on the wings.
Another choice is that each battle had this setup
Or that all the group was mixed somehow.
I think it likely varies. Some of the later Burgundian accounts seem to indicate archers were to learnt o fight with bows from behind the MAA!
Barwick and Smith both exaggerate the weakness or value of archery so you need to be careful. Just like today they seem to have gotten a bit emotional in their debate. I think the reality is you have a much higher chance if dying or bad wounds where you have no armour so that is sensible. Monstrelet mentions shields as well which makes the hundreds of shield you see in the accounts going to war make sense.
RPM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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