Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next 
Author Message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 6:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
Quote:
Yes, but he was also using a set of weapons unfamilar to Silver, who might have said "The spear and hoplong have the vantage' had he known about them and how to use them.


People certainly didn't use ancient Greek weapons in 16th-century England, but I'm sure Silver had some idea of how they fought back then. Educated people of the day knew the classics quite well.

I doubt his understanding was as complete as yours or mine.

There was no archaeology in the period, and detailed descriptions of Peloponnesian-war era equipment are few and far between. More importantly, the interest in that period concerning Classics was not on the warrior but on the artist and philosopher. I would think that Thucydides and Xenophon would be quite low on Silver's reading list for Classical literature.

Quote:
And anything having the vantage against the short staff would turn Silver's ranking on it's head. It idea that it would be a set of weapons quite similar to the sword and target is ridiculous. It's just as likely that Silver would have considered the katana superior to everything else.


Well, I personally think Silver isn't worth his weight in woodchips when it comes to 'ranking' weapons, and use of different weapons against one another. Specifically, I'm referring to the staff and the bill, upon which he bestows a kind of superior status which, in my opinion, they do not deserve. His esteem for these weapons seems to stem from national prejudice.

Benjamin H. Abbott wrote:
It's round and it's a target. In fact, if I did a little digging, I could probably find a 16th-century source calling Greek shields targets. As I said, Matthew Sutcliffe called Roman shields targets and suggesting going back to that style.

I would suggest we do a little more defining of 'target' so that we're all on the same page, rather than going back to (often inconsistent) period terminologies. Looking at Marozzo's Opera Nova we see that the target a small, centre-gripped shield. The Argive shield of the Spartan, on the other hand, is strapped to the arm, and specifically designed for fighting in the phalanx, whereas the target is meant to be used for a duelling situation, or perhaps civilian self-defence. These shields are (as far as shields go) hugely different in their design and purpose.


Now, let us suppose that the strapping on the hoplon was moved, so that it was more suited for individual combat. Let us also suppose that there are sabatons for the Spartan. In this circumstance, I would be hard pressed to choose a down-and-out winner, as the advantages of the Samurai's equipment have been mostly negated. Granted, tempered steel is superior to work-hardened bronze, and the Samurai's armour gives more coverage, but the new-and-improved hoplon, basically a Hellenic targe (not target) gives the Spartan an advantage. If the Spartan were able to close with the Samurai, the latter might have some distinct problems with the presence of the shield.. But it's really a toss-up, I think.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 8:26 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, but it's a much larger and heavier shield then you tended to see in Silver's age.


Yes, which suggests Silver would have given a lighter target the vantage in singe combat. See his remarks about the sword & target vs. sword & buckler. Coverage and weight don't come free. They have their disadvantages as well.

It wasn't that much larger, though. Renaissance targets could to get up to 30 inches in diameter, if not more.

Quote:
I doubt it


I agree. That was my way of saying, "There's no way in hell Silver would have given the Greek spear and shield the vantage against the short staff."

Quote:
Well, I personally think Silver isn't worth his weight in woodchips when it comes to 'ranking' weapons, and use of different weapons against one another.


We'll have to agree to disagree completely, then.

Quote:
Specifically, I'm referring to the staff and the bill, upon which he bestows a kind of superior status which, in my opinion, they do not deserve. His esteem for these weapons seems to stem from national prejudice.


No, it stems from clear martial logic. The staff has both great reach and power. These are huge advantages in an open fight. Moreover, staves and similar weapons are respected in many cultures. And Silver grouped the glaive and the partisan along with short staff. These are not English national weapons. Nor is the Welsh hook.

Quote:
whereas the target is meant to be used for a duelling situation, or perhaps civilian self-defence.


No, that's wrong. The target was still used in the field during his time. He even gives it the nod over the buckler for this purpose.
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 1:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Benjamin H. Abbott"]
Quote:

No, it stems from clear martial logic. The staff has both great reach and power. These are huge advantages in an open fight. Moreover, staves and similar weapons are respected in many cultures. And Silver grouped the glaive and the partisan along with short staff. These are not English national weapons. Nor is the Welsh hook.
.


Yes, but the Spartan is able to present a solid wall of bronze. Shield under a very solid helmet, and is most experinced with fighting staff weapons with that solid wall of bronze. The Samurai whilst also exeprinced with staff weapons, has never used them against that soild a front. Remember that the bronze helmet tended to be very heavily constructed.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 2:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Remember that the bronze helmet tended to be very heavily constructed.


Not really. Bronze helmets tend to be thinner than those of steel due to the density of bronze. So while the bronze itself is heavier, the thinness of the helmet tends to balance out that weight.

Oh, and a quick amendment should be made. It seems that Peloponnesian War-era hoplite swords and spearpoints were steel (called 'iron' by sources, but wrought iron would never make a suitable weapon)
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 2:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Alexander Hinman"]
George Hill wrote:

Oh, and a quick amendment should be made. It seems that Peloponnesian War-era hoplite swords and spearpoints were steel (called 'iron' by sources, but wrought iron would never make a suitable weapon)


Alex, the ancients didn't entirely understand where iron ended and steel began, so they sometimes call steel as iron.

Also, Steel IS mostly iron. Ferric compounds and all, but I'm sure you know that.

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Max von Bargen




Location: Stanford, CA
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 144

PostPosted: Fri 20 Oct, 2006 6:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

George Hill wrote:
Alexander Hinman wrote:
George Hill wrote:

Oh, and a quick amendment should be made. It seems that Peloponnesian War-era hoplite swords and spearpoints were steel (called 'iron' by sources, but wrought iron would never make a suitable weapon)


Alex, the ancients didn't entirely understand where iron ended and steel began, so they sometimes call steel as iron.

Also, Steel IS mostly iron. Ferric compounds and all, but I'm sure you know that.


Absolutely right. However, the tiny little bits of other stuff like carbon that make up steel make a difference for the purposes of constructing a weapon, and I think that was what Alex was saying.
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sat 21 Oct, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Yes, but the Spartan is able to present a solid wall of bronze.


Above the waist, yes. He is not nearly as well protected below the waist, which is a considerable liability against a foe with longer reach.

And the Spartan would have even more trouble against the Japanese warrior's armor. If he managed to rush in, it'd likely become a grappling match.
View user's profile Send private message
Katie Neal





Joined: 17 Jul 2006

Posts: 38

PostPosted: Sat 21 Oct, 2006 11:13 pm    Post subject: lol sooooo we've decided on the Spartan!         Reply with quote

lol.. sooooo we've decided on the Spartan????
View user's profile Send private message
Alexander Hinman




Location: washington, dc
Joined: 08 Oct 2005
Reading list: 50 books

Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sun 22 Oct, 2006 4:13 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I may not be picking up on your sarcasm, Katie, but we've actually generally decided in the opposite direction, and some of us are trying to think of circumstances (primarly in terms of equipment, but also in training) that would improve the Spartan's position against the Samurai.

Benjamin: I wouldn't leave it to straight up grappling, especially given the presence of the three-foot in diameter shield.

If you fixed the Spartan's shield so that it was strapped like a targe, rather than an argive shield, and gave him a pair of hoplite sabatons (and they did exist!) then this match, in my opinion, would even up fairly quickly. His thighs are protected by the shield, his shins by the greaves, and his feet by the sabatons. The main problem area is fixed.

Of course, if it comes down to swordsmanship, the Spartan might very well be toast (I'm not sure how good of a judgement we can make on this, though someone else might know)

An aside: Does anyone know if the overhand thrust was any stronger or weaker than the underhand?
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 23 Oct, 2006 10:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
I wouldn't leave it to straight up grappling, especially given the presence of the three-foot in diameter shield.


Who would that help, though? My guess is that the Samurai could rather easily bind up the shield with his body, given him two free hands against the Spartan's one. I don't really know. I've never read anything about grappling with shields.

Quote:
An aside: Does anyone know if the overhand thrust was any stronger or weaker than the underhand?


Overhand thrusts are stronger with knives, at least according to a modern study. I doubt it be quite the same with spears, though.

How sturdy were Japanese spears? If they can be used for powerful blows, I still think the Samurai would have an advantage. As Silver notes, staff blows are hard to ward. The armor involved helps to counter that, but blows could be used to create an opening.

On the other hand, Spartans were famous for rigorous physical and martial training, while this could be any Samurai. That, perhaps, gives the Spartan an advantage.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Larson





Joined: 01 Nov 2008

Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat 01 Nov, 2008 12:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

One thing many of you have forgotten is that the Spartan fights with sword and shield as one, as if it were an extension of his own body. The shield itself was a weapon in the Spartan hands, rolls, tucks, and spins in combination with the brute strength and training of these soldiers would play an enormous advantage over the Samurai. Yes the phalanx formation was a very well used and an extensively used tactic in the Spartan army; but, what is a soldier if he is not taught to fight with these weapons as an individual? In the heat of battle a solitary soldier will be separated from his brethren at some point in time, thus he would have to know how to defend himself as well as press the opposition.

The shield yes heavy, the body and head armor may yes be thin or absent all together; but the understood fact that mobility of an un-armored warrior is much higher than that of a cumbersome armored foe is still a decisive issue. The Greeks knew all too well that if the body movement is restricted he is automatically at a disadvantage.

I myself train in the art of using a sword, spear, and shield, and if there is one thing I have learned its that they become a part of you. The shield becomes a battering ram, a slashing/smashing type melee weapon. The spear with a trust can easily find its mark or if deflected, with a swift spinning attack with the advent of quick footing in of sliding and pivoting; can create much momentum in a slashing force that can, if the tip does not meet with the target, the actual force of the shaft can break or shatter bone even with the armor of a Samurai, simply because of the speed that is gained through the spinning motion. The spear can be thrown with a force equivalent to a bullet in short distances with the weight of the spear itself and the extensive training of the soldier. The Short sword has the advantage of being much more swift and if properly trained can quickly make short work of enemies. In combination of Spartan shield and short sword, the Samurai only has but single seconds to find a weak spot in whatever attack the Spartan may make. The Spartan also has a numerous amount of different attack techniques, with/without the shield.

As for the long sword of the Samurai, a two or one handed attacking motion does have power as well in slashing and spinning motions but loses its killing ability when a shield comes into play, because of the inability to trust without breaking the blade at the tang. The two handed staff/spear that they used can be used much faster than the one handed motion commonly used by Spartan warriors, but both soldiers were trained to use the two handed technique no matter the length of the staff/spear. As well as both were trained "anything and everything is a weapon" in the heat of fierce combat.

And as for feet, come on people....they BOTH wear sandals! The only difference between the two individual's footwear is that the Samurai had sock like cloth if in fact he IS wearing armor. The feet of both warriors are exposed and are a definite target for either one to exploit. Bare feet were as well known to give the soldier more nimble and swift mobility because of the natural ability of the foot to grip. Sandals of both factions were thin and flexible for this reason, but as well durable enough for combat.

I cannot say which one would win, because the Spartans and samurai were both masters in their own martial art fighting styles.

The Greek fighting art of Pankration or Panmachia was an amazing backbone for their polemiki tehni fighting style that incorporated the ability to counter either multiple or single foes as being an individual. Even so much of the ancient Greek martial arts played an influence into Asian martial arts due to the conquests of Alexander the Great.

Samurai, following the use of Karate, ju-jitsu, and many other techniques that involved "open-hand" fighting, were actually influenced styles that originated from Chinese, Korean, and Thai martial arts, which in turn as well had influence by Greek warriors in the many conquests they carried out. All in it as well each group mastered their techniques to suit their own styles, body types, and various situations they may face.

The only way to solve this would be to go back in time pluck one from each era and let them face off, but seeing as this is not possible we are still here in this carried on debate that could go on and on. so.....lol Starbucks anyone?...

I am a Knight of Jesus, a Soldier of God
Faith, Love, Honor, Trust
With these attributes I cannot fall
For if war arrises, I will be standing tall
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Eric W. Norenberg





Joined: 18 Jul 2008

Posts: 271

PostPosted: Sat 01 Nov, 2008 2:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hill's first post rings true
The Spartans were ferocious
but wield not the haiku.

(I'm very sorry. I will show more restraint in the future.)

-Eric.
View user's profile Send private message
Jean Thibodeau




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

Spotlight topics: 5
Posts: 8,310

PostPosted: Sat 01 Nov, 2008 6:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Larson wrote:

As for the long sword of the Samurai, a two or one handed attacking motion does have power as well in slashing and spinning motions but loses its killing ability when a shield comes into play, because of the inability to trust without breaking the blade at the tang.


The tang of a katana won't likely break because of a thrust and I wonder where you got the idea that it would ?
Not arguing just curious about your source for this bit of information ?

One would probably not try to thrust through the shield anyway but try to get around it, there can be a whole lot of discussion of the merits ot a long sword versust a sword ( shorter ) and shield but breaking of the longsword or a katana is not a likely deciding factor.

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




Location: Brooklyn, NY
Joined: 20 May 2004

Posts: 599

PostPosted: Sat 01 Nov, 2008 8:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

My money is on the Spartans in both individual combat and melee. The main advantage would be their use of a large shield and their phalanx fighting style. The only advantage I see for the Samurai is their use of Cavalry. The Spartans proved on two separate occasions that they could neutralize the effectiveness of Persian cavalry by meeting them on more favorable terrain that does not allow the large maneuvering space required by horses.

Something to also understand about this matchup is the Spartans always cheat when fighting. They only owe honer to the Spartan Way of Life. Samurai have a different honer system. Part of the Spartan training system was to under-feed boys. They were expected to steal in order complete their diet. If they were caught, they were beaten. They wanted the best cheating army possible.

Another famous story was about a boy who had a baby fox in his barracks. When his commander approached, he hid the fox under his shirt. The commander asked what he had under his shirt and he replied "nothing". The fox meanwhile was chewing into his stomach and he refused to make a sound or reveal it. The boy died from the wound. This story was told to other boys as an example of how tough they should be in the face of pain.

A poplar misconception of Spartans is that they were suicidal fanatics in battle. The example of Thermopylae is given because they had a chance to escape with the other 6,000 Greeks that were there. It is assumed they their code was never to retreat. Not necessarily true. Their code was never to abandon their shield or their place in the Phalanx. King Leonidas could have lived to fight them another day at another place. The real answer is that the Spartans were deeply religious. The Oracle at Delphi had said that "Sparta will only stay free if one of its Kings dies". King Leonidis was trying to force the prophecy in a more favorable direction for Sparta.

The purpose of the Spartan Way of Life was to keep its large slave population in check. They adopted this lifestyle after an almost successful slave uprising sometime before 600 bc. The Spartan army was always very small and could not afford to lose any men needlessly. So it is not likely that they were suicidal in battle. They fought to win, not die.

No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Max Chouinard




Location: Quebec, Qc
Joined: 23 Apr 2008

Posts: 108

PostPosted: Sat 01 Nov, 2008 11:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Now people, this debate (if there really is a debate) is again revealing all the preconcieved notions we have about each ethnic group. That is:

-Spartans are the perfect warriors, trained to be litteral killing machines: The basic difference with other city state was that sparta had professional warriors instead of training it's citizens to fight when the need be. What was a samurai but a trained warrior elite?
-Spartans (and westerners in general) fight dirty and cheat, while the samurai have a terribly rigid code of honour: That's really an ironic idea since the most terrible defeat in Spartan history (Leuctra) was won by the Thebans because they essentially "cheated" on the very well determined and traditionnal order of battle, while the Spartans stuck to it and never really recovered from this loss. honor was a very serious affair in Sparta, and they were known for it (see the writings of Xenophon). I might add that, while the Spartans are considered a good example of how training is important for an army, they also represent the pitfalls of overzealous conservatism in warfare, ultimately rendering an army obsolete. The battle of Sekigahara on the other hand (the final pivotal point of the Japanese warring states period) was won by the Tokugawa mostly because of treason in the other faction, a very common thing back then.
-Samurai fight with swords only: They used swords as much as medieval knights would, that is, not much. They preffered arrows, guns (wonder why that wasn't brought in the debate.... Wink ), spears, halberds and many other weapons before resorting to a sword.
-Samurai armor is made of bamboo: Samurai armor is made of steel, sometimes leather if steel wasn't affordable, but never wood. It is made to protect from thrust, as I said piercing weapons were the norm, not slashing. And while a chu-kissaki katana may not be a very good thruster against an armored foe, an o kissaki or shobu zukuri (both more obtute points) would be much more effective. Tests done with mail and padded garments by Michael Edelson have shown the traditionnal katana to be a very good thruster, even compared to modern european replicas of longswords. And I don't need to say that spears and arrows are overall good thrusters...

I say it again, such debate are fruitless and time spent reading or writing them would be much better served reading a serious book about the cultures involved.

Maxime Chouinard

Antrim Bata

Quebec City Kenjutsu

I don't do longsword


Last edited by Max Chouinard on Sun 02 Nov, 2008 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Nick Trueman





Joined: 27 Mar 2006

Posts: 246

PostPosted: Sun 02 Nov, 2008 1:25 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

And the winner is -

The tiger tank, it crushed them by accident on the way to the Russian front Wink


n
View user's profile Send private message
Kyro R. Lantsberger





Joined: 21 Apr 2006

Posts: 39

PostPosted: Sun 02 Nov, 2008 12:53 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I see that this was an old thread that was resurrected after a bit. I like these for fun, but in the end they are very difficult to answer. Far too many variables......bronze vs. steel for one. Archetype vs. reality is another. I think someone did make the point that on actual feudal battlefields the Samurai were actually a mounted archery force. The widespread worship of the Katana and swordsmanship does not come until later as far as I understand.

These threads can be fun, though. There are LOTS of very deeply studied people on this forum, and nearly an equal number of snide tricksters, which makes an interesting combination.
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Joined: 08 Dec 2004

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 3,636

PostPosted: Mon 03 Nov, 2008 1:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Classical Sparta had iron/steel weapons. They did call it the IRON AGE for a reason. It is irrelevant in any case. Properly cast and work hardened bronze performs just as well or even better than many iron weapons and armour. It isn't until quench-hardened steel is mastered that there is any noticable difference and that was rare in both cultures.
View user's profile Send private message
Gene Green





Joined: 13 Mar 2007

Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon 03 Nov, 2008 8:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

This is like that "Alien vs Predator" movie - the whole setup is just plain silly. Sort of like my son asking me if a dinosaur would win a battle with a whale. Wink

Still, I just can't resist throwing in my c.02 - esp. since I know so little about subject - makes it so much more fun you know !

I think people tend to view both warriors as that cumulative image created by public culture - mutant ninja, eh, samurai vs 300.

I really don't know how good the Spartans were in individual combat, but I would assume they didn't only learn to fight in formation. I'd imagine in any warrior culture there'd be serious training in one-on-one fighting techniques.

It seems a Spartan would need to close the distance really fast, using his shield both for protection and as a battering ram, so that his opponent would be forced to fight in close quarters where he'd be at disadvantage with his longish weapon and no shield (wasn't the whole tactic of Roman legions built around same lines ?) So if this was not an individual fight but a formation battle I'd bet on Spartans. After all, Macedonians used very similar weapons and tactics to conquer half of known world against very various opponents.

One on one, I think Samurai would have a bit of advantage, being more agile. OTOH, the Spartans were famous for their very rigorous physical training, including running around with lots of weight, so perhaps this advantage is not so great.

I would be interested to hear from somebody with experience in fighting with a large shield. I think it's more of an offensive weapon than pure defensive one. I would imagine an aggressive use of shield would make it difficult for an opponent to go for a leg shot.
View user's profile Send private message
Zlatko Vlašic




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Feb 2007

Posts: 32

PostPosted: Tue 04 Nov, 2008 2:43 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I for one would be much more interested in seeing a unarmoured one on one combat between a Spartan and a Samurai.

The armoured combat, interesting as it may be, seems to be pitting two different system against each other - one is a system designed around a close teamwork of individuals working in unison (Spartan phalanx) and the other is a very individualstic form of fighting. And while a Spartan could certainly hold his own in a one on one match up, it is his equipment that betrays him when it comes to this....it is simply not designed with single combat in mind.

Which in the end leaves too many grey areas to be a basis of a solid debate.


But unarmoured combat...that's a different matter altogether:)

What we have here are probably the only two socities until the 20th century that consistently and systematicaly trained their warriors in brutal hand to hand fighting styles that were the precursors to modern MMA.

In other words, the old japanese ju jitsu vs the Pankration.

Both were brutal, both included numerous dirty techniques that are banned from even the most lenient sporting events (small joint manipulations, eye gouging, groin attacks etc). Joint locks, throws, kicks, punches, sweeps......you name it, they have everything.

And since no equipment is involved, what this comes down to is the skill of the fighter, nothing else....as basic and stripped down as it can get

Now this is something I'd like to see, much more that katana vs. spear fantasy duel.

Sorry for the OT, but martial arts are my thing Happy

"To you, Baldrick, Renaissance is just something that happened to other people."

Edmund Blackadder
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Spartan vs Samurai. Who would win?
Page 2 of 8 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  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