| Author |
Message |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
 Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 9:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Gentlemen,
Do not talk down to each other. Statements like:
| Quote: | | I'm very surprised you don't know that |
and the snottiness they drip with add nothing to the discussion and serve only to undermine someone else. For the last time: this garbage is not welcome here.
Discuss your disagreeing points all you wish, but stay civil and don't make these disagreements personal. I'm quite tired of having to police this thread.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
    |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | It is quite posible to divide the sword and shield when using large shields, under a given set of cirumstances.
First of all, you need to provide a effective "passive defence" with your shield. In unarmoured combat this is hard to do with a shield that is smaller than 80-90 cm in height, as your opponent can drop under your shield . |
I quite agree, but I would add that you have to be careful how you pick up your shield as even a large shield can leave an opening when it's raised, and we know that block was used because of the Lancelot picture (and many others like it) I posted earlier in this thread. Someone who feints high to draw your shield up creates an opening that would allow him to go under even a fairly large shield.
| Quote: | | Second, you need to make your opponent miss his intended target, which you most efficiently do by moving behind the shield, much as stephen describes, but with a more closed guard, and moving towards the opponent. |
Another way is move behind your *opponent's* shield using the footwork I described in one of my earlier posts; that's one of the reasons I like a flicking block using just my arm.
| Quote: | | At the same time, strike at your opponent so that the path of your sword covers you. Typically a blow to the side of the head with the blade sloping downwards, or a thrust executed in the same fashion. |
Or, again, do so using the cover of your opponent's shield. Good footwork makes it surprisingly easy to put your your opponent's shield between yourself and him.
| Quote: | With large shields, unlike bucklers or longswords, you can not hit the opponent from any position of the sword. There is a gap of time (or Tempo, as it seems the terminology goes) where one moves the sword to a position where one can efficiently attack.
However, smaller shield, like the rotella does not have this advantage to the same degree; They are easier to fall under, and are thus more reliant on footwork and active defence.
Armoured fighters are also effectively imune to drawcuts, and thus can ignore this threat to a large degree; thus, as armour becomes more common, heaters shrink. |
Exactly right.
Actually, I have a theory that when the armor becomes good enough the smaller shields become sort of like moveable visors. Most serious (i.e, life or death) foot combat was done without visors simply because visors prevent you from seeing most of the low-line attacks and keep you from seeing certain kinds of attacks made at you (this didn't apply until armor was good enough that most attacks to the body were really thrusts to gaps in the plate). As armor became more comprehensive you could trust it to stop almost all attacks except to your head and face and thrusts to gaps in your plate, which I suspect (but can't prove) is why late-period sword & shield pictures show such a high shield position.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Martin Wilkinson
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh, are you telling us that you strike plate armor with your swords?
Because that's what it sounds like, and my understanding of armoured combat, as limited as it is, is that you aim for the gaps in the plate, not swing your sword at his armour, hoping to have a concussive effect. If that's what you want to do, why not use a mace, rather than damage a sword?
"A bullet you see may go anywhere, but steel's, almost bound to go somewhere."
Schola Gladiatoria
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wilkinson wrote: | Hugh, are you telling us that you strike plate armor with your swords?
Because that's what it sounds like, and my understanding of armoured combat, as limited as it is, is that you aim for the gaps in the plate, not swing your sword at his armour, hoping to have a concussive effect. If that's what you want to do, why not use a mace, rather than damage a sword? |
Sure I am. Helms are plate, are they not? And the iconography is *full* of pictures showing helm strikes with one-handed swords. Contrary to what those pictures show you're almost never going to cut through the metal of the helmet into the head, but you can certainly stun someone, or even knock him unconscious. I agree a mass weapon would be more effective for that, but regardless, we see *lots* of it being done with swords. (Incidentally, it seems clear to me that when you do see helms being cut open in the iconography that is only meant to show a "telling" blow--otherwise there'd be no way for the viewer to know whether he was seeing a blow that crushed someone or one that had no effect because of the armor, virtue of the wearer, etc. Steve Muhlberger, a professor of history at Nipissing University who specializes in deeds of arms told me he thinks that might explain this artistic phenomenon.)
That's the funny thing about combat in the late 14th century: It's weird. It doesn't follow the "rules" we learn about in the later Fechtbücher, nor does it follow what we think we know about earlier combats with much less effective armor. We know that shields aren't of much use in foot combat once the combatants are armed "cap a pie", and sure enough they soon get rid of them for most things on foot (although they remain a lot longer when mounted). And yet we still see them used in foot combats even into the very late 14th century (and even later with spears, as in Gladiatoria and Codex Wallerstein part B); look at the picture I posted earlier. If you read a post I made just a few minutes ago I argue that shields by that point are mostly face protection, but even that goes away by the early 15th century and they still fight without visors all the time in serious combat.
I do *not* think you use a sword against the body of someone wearing a breastplate, nor against the parts of the legs covered by plate (although Morazzo says to use a back-edge blow cut to the back of the thigh in armored combat, he's talking about the part not covered by the cuisse). You *may* use swords against the lower cannon of the vambrace, but I have no evidence for this, just experience that says that blows to the forearm can be pretty serious even when struck with a light stick and even through good plate. We know that arms were a primary target earlier because of the Bertrand de Born poem that talks about "hacking heads and arms", but it would be dangerous to extend that to the plate period without more evidence. I do think the fingers are a good target for blows, and most 15th-century books on armored combat agree.
So, do we strike to plate? Sure--in certain spots and in certain periods. Most other places you're spot on: we thrust at the gaps between plates. That's why 14th-century arming swords (type XV) were made so pointy.
One side note: We also have to talk about the *kind* of combat. The Fechtbücher tell us that men who swing their swords edge on in armored combat (speaking of the longsword) "know nothing of the art", but we have to remember that they're largely speaking of serious, life or death struggles (i.e., judicial combat). In "friendly" deeds of arms it was quite common to swing sword edges at one another. In Froissart we read of the deed of arms at Vannes in the late 14th century in which two men took up swords (longswords in this case, not swords & shield) and swung them at one another so that in "six blows they broke four swords", and the author makes it clear these were swinging blows with the edge. I'll also attach a picture here of people using swinging swords to attack in armor.
Why did they do this? Two very closely-related reasons: First, in friendly deeds it was pretty common to leave your visor down even on foot because that was your weakest target, and they didn't want anyone to die. But when you do that you can't see the good targets for thrusting, and you can't see your opponent's attacks. Second, because they didn't really want anyone to get hurt. Read Froissarts accounts of friendly deeds and you'll see how upset people become when someone gets hurt and how pleased they are when a bout is flashy but no injuries occur. Spears are an exception to this, but recent research (Steve Muhlberger and Will McLean) has shown that in friendly deeds spears were aimed at the center of the chest and used for a "pushing" contest.
So the answer to your question really is "sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't". Does that help?
 Attachment: 115.16 KB
15th-century longswords being used for swigning blows in a friendly deed of arms
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh;
I'm quite aware of the posibilities you mention.
However, the high blocks, like the one in the picture, are very seldom called for, and are most often better parried with the sword, or with the top of the shield.
When they occur (which they do, with some regularity) it's most often as a emergency measure because your sword is bussy elsewhere; they have to many weak points to be textbook tactic, but can save your hide if you are lucky.
When it comes to non-fechtbuch illustrations as a source for actuall combat techniqes, I remain sceptical. There is no kind of guarantee that the artist has the knowledge, or the inclination to draw a correct techniqe. Some might have, but we have no way of knowing which.
when it comes to the issues of armoured vs unarmoured fighiting, a coulpe of things come to mind. First of all, armoured fighiting is more up close and brutal. Since a single blow will not end the fight, the important thing is to place you enemy in a situation where you can hurt him, and he can't hurt you, typically by wrestling, binds, or similar measures.
Trading blows at a distance is simply not efficient enough.
So, how do shields fit in this picture?
Basically, the make it harder for the enemy to get to the point where he can hurt you. In this game, hiting someone hard in the head will not be a battle ending technique, but rather a diversion so that you can get your opponent of his feet and stab him in some soft spot. (Or keep pummeling his head untill he stops moving...)
In the words of the german school, it is determined in the Krieg.
As such, the defensive strategies outlined by Stephen might work in the aproach to the krieg. (which is where you want to be) Once there, however, the game changes drastically, and the concepts of unarmoured shieldfighting go out the window.
There is a decisive shift in sword design around turn of the 14th century, which bascially marks the transition from hard swings over and arond shields (like the ones Hugh are taliking about) to close combat stabbing swords.
In the age of mail a hard swing to the side of the neck or head might do some genuine damage, and to a unarmoured opponent, it wold be fatal.
However, with heavier armour, it is simply not worth gamling on that single hard blow stopping a opponent that is closing for the Krieg.
If it fails, you are in a very nasty situation, with a opponent lined up to tip you over and kill you.
Better then to play the same game, hit lighter blows, and search for opportunities to close for yourself
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | Hugh;
I'm quite aware of the posibilities you mention.
However, the high blocks, like the one in the picture, are very seldom called for, and are most often better parried with the sword, or with the top of the shield.
When they occur (which they do, with some regularity) it's most often as a emergency measure because your sword is bussy elsewhere; they have to many weak points to be textbook tactic, but can save your hide if you are lucky.
When it comes to non-fechtbuch illustrations as a source for actuall combat techniqes, I remain sceptical. There is no kind of guarantee that the artist has the knowledge, or the inclination to draw a correct techniqe. Some might have, but we have no way of knowing which. |
You're spot on there, but I look to the non-fechtbuch art not so much to see specific techniques but rather to see things that the intended viewers might not have found jarring. For example, when I found pictures of 15th-century men at arms fighting with cutting blows of their longswords my first thought (after I learned about the Fechtbücher) was that the artist just didn't know any better. But I kept seeing it, so I looked into it... and I found out that it really was done that way, at least some of the time (see the comments about friendly deeds of arms above). Believe me, I agree that the scepticism you mention is *certainly* called for, but I also think that art is sometimes a very important clue toward finding new things out, too--and sometimes our only clue about subjects the Fechtbücher don't cover, like armored sword & shield.
And I agree about the lifting block, but we see it so often in the art I can't help but think it was pretty common, as poor a technique as that seems to us.
As for parrying with the sword, I wonder about that. In sword and buckler combat you parry with the sword because the buckler is really more of a hand shield (at least until you get to Silver's day, if Paul Wagner's book is correct, and even then the sword was still used to block a lot as I understand it). But I wonder if it isn't better to try to block with your shield as much as possible so that you can be striking with your sword in single time. Again, as I said before, no manual even remotely covers this so it's all pure speculation, but I do notice that most sword shots in the iconography are blocked with the shield, not the sword, and that might (see above re: iconography!) be significant.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Going back to the original topic, Silver wrote that a strong staff blow could wound through a ward, including one made by a target. So even if the shield wasn't damaged, the man behind it might be.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Sure I am. Helms are plate, are they not? And the iconography is *full* of pictures showing helm strikes with one-handed swords. Contrary to what those pictures show you're almost never going to cut through the metal of the helmet into the head, but you can certainly stun someone, or even knock him unconscious. I agree a mass weapon would be more effective for that, but regardless, we see *lots* of it being done with swords. (Incidentally, it seems clear to me that when you do see helms being cut open in the iconography that is only meant to show a "telling" blow--otherwise there'd be no way for the viewer to know whether he was seeing a blow that crushed someone or one that had no effect because of the armor, virtue of the wearer, etc. Steve Muhlberger, a professor of history at Nipissing University who specializes in deeds of arms told me he thinks that might explain this artistic phenomenon.) |
There is a danger in looking at the iconografy as you say, because the interpretations can go wild. What you se in the picture you posted can be totally diffrenent from what I see.
For example In the picture of Harnishfechten in your latest post I see the man on the left doing the right thing, the other guy is swinging wild with a longsword . Step in and put your own sword in his eyes. If his strike comes anyway just step in with your right leg and Pummel him in the eyes. If you miss just press on and throw him to the ground. That is what I see in the picture, I don´t say it´s the correct interpretation...
On the concussion issue. It must be a verry heavy and rigid sword to make that much power. A 2.5 pound onehanded flexing sword of the 13th century would have to hit exactly in a straigt angle to acheive it, and would ruin its edge badly.
Just two cents from me....
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
Last edited by Martin Wallgren on Tue 06 Feb, 2007 11:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | There is a danger in looking at the iconografy as you say, because the interpretations can go wild. What you se in the picture you posted can be totally diffrenent from what I see.
For example In the picture of Harnishfechten in your latest post I see the man on the left doing the right thing, the other guy is swinging wild with a longsword . Step in and put your own sword in his eyes. If his strike comes anyway just step in with your right leg and halfsword him in the eyes. If you miss just press on and throw him to the ground. That is what I see in the picture, I don´t say it´s the correct interpretation... |
I wouldn't go that far. All I'm willing to say that I see is two guys fighting with longswords and at least one of them is preparing to swing his sword. Add to that the recorded examples of guys fighting with swinging blows and a trend becomes apparent. And there are lots more pictures than this! I'll add another one here--note the guige haniging around the bottom right figure's neck--he clearly doesn't have his hand on the shield because it's projecting below the edge of the shield, and note the others are both swinging and thrusting their longswords with not a trace of halfswording.
| Quote: | | On the concussion issue. It must be a verry heavy and rigid sword to make that much power. A 2.5 pound onehanded flexing sword of the 13th century would have to hit exactly in a straigt angle to acheive it, and would ruin its edge badly. |
I'm with you, but the imagery is so consistent and so prevelent in the iconography that we can't but assume it to be correct: These swords were used to create consussive wounds through metal helmets.
Attachment: 70.65 KB
French from 1410-20.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I wouldn't go that far. All I'm willing to say that I see is two guys fighting with longswords and at least one of them is preparing to swing his sword. Add to that the recorded examples of guys fighting with swinging blows and a trend becomes apparent. And there are lots more pictures than this! I'll add another one here--note the guige haniging around the bottom right figure's neck--he clearly doesn't have his hand on the shield because it's projecting below the edge of the shield, and note the others are both swinging and thrusting their longswords with not a trace of halfswording. |
That is just what I mean. You don´t interpret any trace of halfswording, I do. To stand in the fplug on your right side (also i have a feeling the right foot indicates a movement to the right) is one of the first stands you learn if you want to go into krieg wich is where you want to fight in harnishfechten as Elling pointed out. To defend against a Pfüffel (a swinging less skilled opponent) is to put the ort in his face, it gives you alot of openings.
| Quote: | | I'm with you, but the imagery is so consistent and so prevelent in the iconography that we can't but assume it to be correct: These swords were used to create consussive wounds through metal helmets. |
Well, so is blocking with your edge in a static pose and standing in a "who is the strongest" competision, edge on edge in modern Hollywood productions. I don´t make it the most effective way to hurt your opponent.
We know too little about the artists way of working. Could it be that the artist painted out of memory, imagination or with models? where the models fighting men?
We don´t know what the artist want to tell us. Do the swinging of the swords indicate deflections to set up for thrusts in weak areas of the armour? All the wounds in the last painting are in weak areas exept a headwound that seems to be on the side of the head. Still pictures are tricky. They are frosen in time and hard to interpret. I can of course be wrong but until proven different I would say that in earnest combat I would choose another tactic.
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Feb, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just noticed another strange thing. Both the left person in the first pic. we discus and the second from the left on the last picture seems to be left handed, or has chosen to hold the sword with the left hand closest to the cross in thrusting. Is this common in the pictures you have studied?
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Feb, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Just noticed another strange thing. Both the left person in the first pic. we discus and the second from the left on the last picture seems to be left handed, or has chosen to hold the sword with the left hand closest to the cross in thrusting. Is this common in the pictures you have studied? |
I actually see it more than I would have expected. If you look at the last picture I posted, the group combat from France, you will see that the second figure from the left appears to be left handed. Who knows what that means?
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Carl Holz
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Feb, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Going back to the original topic, Silver wrote that a strong staff blow could wound through a ward, including one made by a target. So even if the shield wasn't damaged, the man behind it might be. |
yes, but I suppose the question would be how much. a bruise is alot different than a broken bone. and, it would of course depend on how you blocked the blow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wilkinson
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| F. Carl Holz wrote: | | Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Going back to the original topic, Silver wrote that a strong staff blow could wound through a ward, including one made by a target. So even if the shield wasn't damaged, the man behind it might be. |
yes, but I suppose the question would be how much. a bruise is alot different than a broken bone. and, it would of course depend on how you blocked the blow. |
I'm not sure Silver would have counted a bruise as a wound. Surely he means something alittle more substanstial than a bruise, i don't know what, but to me a bruise doesn't sound like a wound.
To me wound implies serious damage.
"A bullet you see may go anywhere, but steel's, almost bound to go somewhere."
Schola Gladiatoria
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bedell
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Just noticed another strange thing. Both the left person in the first pic. we discus and the second from the left on the last picture seems to be left handed, or has chosen to hold the sword with the left hand closest to the cross in thrusting. Is this common in the pictures you have studied? |
Perhaps it doesn't mean they are left handed, it could be a preferred style of thrusting...
I haven't studied this very much but when thrusting the left hand could grip the handle to guide the point and the right hand (assuming that it is the strong hand) could be placed on the pommel to push the entire mass of the sword from behind in an attempt to add more power. I believe this would be more effective seeing as how it allows you to push straight-on instead of at an angle as you would do if you had your hand on the grip. This would be useful if thrusting at plate as the figures seem to be doing. I'm not sure how much repositioning of the hands you would have to do to switch between a normal grip and this thrusting grip  . Just a thought (albeit not a great one  )...any opinions?
-James
The pen may be mighter, but the sword is much more fun.
|
|
 |
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Surely he means something alittle more substanstial than a bruise, i don't know what, but to me a bruise doesn't sound like a wound. |
Yeah, Silver wrote:
"Again, if he carries his ward lower, thereby to be in equal space for readiness to break both blow & thrust, then in that place his ward is too low, and too weak to defend the blow of the staff. Fir the blow being strongly made at the head upon that ward, will beat down the ward and his head together, and put him in great danger of his life."
Of course, a higher ward would be able to defend against even a strong blow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Bedell wrote: | Perhaps it doesn't mean they are left handed, it could be a preferred style of thrusting...
I haven't studied this very much but when thrusting the left hand could grip the handle to guide the point and the right hand (assuming that it is the strong hand) could be placed on the pommel to push the entire mass of the sword from behind in an attempt to add more power. I believe this would be more effective seeing as how it allows you to push straight-on instead of at an angle as you would do if you had your hand on the grip. This would be useful if thrusting at plate as the figures seem to be doing. I'm not sure how much repositioning of the hands you would have to do to switch between a normal grip and this thrusting grip . Just a thought (albeit not a great one )...any opinions? |
Typically, in period you'd grasp your blade in your left hand to aid in the accuracy of the thrust (I'll attach a picture as an example), you wouldn't switch grips. I don't think that would really get you much.
As for being left handed, in Le Jeu de La Hache, the anonymous author includes an entire section of techniques for use against a left-hander. Likewise, in Talhoffer 1467 Fechtbuch a number of the combatants are using their pollaxes left handed. I've never seen evidence in a Fechbücher for using a *sword* left handed, but if you'd use a pollaxe that way it doesn't seem that big of a stretch to me.
Attachment: 45.24 KB
The King of France (on the left) is halfswording
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bedell
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Hugh! I have never seen that technique before, it is quite interesting!
My other post was mere speculation, as I said I do not study the longsword (yet). I thought switching grips would not be a viable tactic but i figured I would throw that thought out there. Thanks for your input Hugh, I'm glad someone with more knowledge could help set me aright.
-James
The pen may be mighter, but the sword is much more fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Feb, 2007 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Bedell wrote: | Thanks Hugh! I have never seen that technique before, it is quite interesting!
My other post was mere speculation, as I said I do not study the longsword (yet). I thought switching grips would not be a viable tactic but i figured I would throw that thought out there. Thanks for your input Hugh, I'm glad someone with more knowledge could help set me aright. |
You're welcome, James. Actually, when you start studying longsword you're going to find that halfsword appears to have been quite common both in armor and out, and that it was almost the only way the Masters recommended fighting in armored combat with a sword. In the non-fechtbuch iconography, however, it's fairly rare; I've only found a dozen or so instances myself in comparison with literally hundreds of examples of edge-on-edge fighting.
You can see armored halfswording here:
http://www.thehaca.com/Manuals/Gladiatoria/Gladiatorie_part2.htm
And unarmored halfswording here:
http://www.thehaca.com/talhoffer/t42.htm
I hope you find that of interest!
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Bedell
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Feb, 2007 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
Those links were great! Thanks a lot, I really appreciate your help!
I have heard of halfswording but have only seen a few pictures of it, I think it is much more popular than I had once thought.
Thanks again Hugh!
-James
The pen may be mighter, but the sword is much more fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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