|
You guys should listen to this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UK16e-Emrms
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
I've got some questions for the swordchat crew: 1. Kopeshes! I'm fascinated by them. Did they come from sickles, since they look all curvy and stuff? 2. Kopeshes! How were they used? They look so different from all the 'standard' swords that I imagine there's got be a function in addition to slashing and thrusting. Wikipedia mentioned they could be used to hook shields, but what then? Punch the guy with your other fist? 3. Kopeshes! What became of them? Different types of swords got modified this way and that and turned into entirely different things, but I can't find much on the kopesh. Did they fall out of favor completely? 4. Yatagans! They don't have guards. What do guards on a sword do (beside the obvious, protect the hand), and why would a sword not have one? Also, how were they used?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Didn't the hilarious War of 1812 stall for the British in the North because they lost two pretty decent Commanders to Rifle fire because they led from the front? The War of 1812 is just a funny war in general. Like the Siege of Detroit. On the British side, you have the buddy-cop duo of General Isaac Brock and Tecumseh, who though they only were together a short time instantly liked each other because they were both macho badasses. "Brock and Tecumseh met for the first and only time shortly after Brock arrived at Amherstburg. Legend has it that Tecumseh turned to his warriors and said, 'Here is a man!' Brock certainly wrote shortly afterwards, '... a more sagacious and a more gallant Warrior does not I believe exist.'" On the American side, you have General William Hull, a celebrated veteran of the Revolutionary War but now fat and long retired, who once the shelling starts sits in his room getting drunk and (figuratively) pissing himself in fear before surrendering the fort without a fight. In part, of course, this is because Brock plays good cop bad cop with missives like this: quote:The force at my disposal authorizes me to require of you the immediate surrender of Fort Detroit. It is far from my intention to join in a war of extermination, but you must be aware, that the numerous body of Indians who have attached themselves to my troops, will be beyond control the moment the contest commences… Both Brock and Tecumseh were killed by 1813, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:I think people often mistake the purpose of armor. Armor isn't intended to render one immune to arrows, spears, swords, or bullets. It's intended to provide a degree of protection. It's entirely possible that no historical mail could stand up to a bodkin arrow fired from a 120 lb draw longbow at 50 feet and striking at a flat trajectory, but that's not really the point. The point of armor is to reduce the danger an enemy can pose, not eliminate it entirely. In the context of arrows, it's enough that mail gives good protection against glancing shots or shots at longer range, either of which could really ruin your day if you're unarmored. You shouldn't be skeptical. There's loads of documentary evidence of mail resisting spear thrusts, and even impacts from men on horseback like the one mentioned in the article. Consider this case from Joinville where he himself is struck hard by a spear, Jean de Joinville posted:... as I made another pass [a Saracen knight] thrust his lance between my two shoulders, pinning me down on my horse's neck so hard that I could not draw the sword I had at my belt. I had to draw the sword strapped to my horse, and when the knight saw that I had drawn the sword he released the lance and left me. Additionally, unhorsing was a common occurrence in high-medieval combat, and not all of those blows would meet the shield, but deaths from the first lance blow alone were not usual. Suger, for example, notes that many knights were unhorsed at the disastrous siege of Breteuil, but also comments that their hauberks protected them and allowed many to be captured. I have a massive issue with reconstructive testing because the armour and weapon used are almost never period-correct. The links are often too small and made of mild steel, the rivets improperly set, the aketon (padding) made of incorrect materials or inadequately thick, &c. there's a huge list of problems with current reconstructive tests, and there's so many small things that make testing different, I'd be really cautious of trusting it. Moreover, mail itself changed in form over the centuries, the most common acknowledged difference being a transition from round links to flat, but there are others. quote:I'd hate to be impaled in any time period, but I think the medieval period would be the worst. I'm shocked that Philip of that anecdote survived, though I have to wonder if it was simply a flesh wound and a badly damaged hauberk that gave rise to a small legend. Why would the Middle Ages be particularly bad? Do you think the state of surgery was much better before? It wasn't, and, at the high end, wouldn't improve too markedly until you get powered machines and good anaesthetics. ArchangeI posted:Keep in mind that during the Middle Ages, armies fought because of a personal relationship between Lord and Vassal. If you wanted to keep your army in the field, you had to be there because that was part of the deal. But for most of history, Command & Control weren't really things that happened during the battle. You deployed your army, made sure that everyone had a basic idea of what you wanted to do, and then you let it play out. This isn't really true. Speaking for the middle ages, the presence and placement of standards was of immense importance. Gutierre Diaz de Gamez, for example, provides a small treatise on the role of the standard in his El Victorial, which I've transcribed below. He actually includes a mini-treatise on the standard and its role in combat. Gutierre Diaz de Gamez posted:Well do soldiers know that all have their eyes on the banner, enemies as well as friends; and if its men see it retreat in the battle, they lose heart, while the enemies courage waxes; and if they see it stand firm or go forward, they do the same. But neither because the standard-bearer is granted such and honour, and has been chosen out of the whole army to fill this office, nor because all look to him and have their eyes upon him, must it happen that pride and vanity wax within him, and that he ascribes to himself a greater part than has been assigned to him, that he march more in the van than has been ordered, or that he think that his charge has been given to him as being the most valiant man in the army. He must tell himself that many other and better men are round him and that it is they that do the work. Let him not wish to distinguish himself and excel another in honour, so that in the end he endangers the honour of his master and those who follow him; neither let him keep himself so far behind that the rest advance and he remains in the rear; for a candle gives more light when it is borne before than behind, and the standard is like a torch set in a room to give light to all men; if by some accident it is put out, all remain in darkness and unseeing and are beaten. And so for such an office should there be chosen a man of great sense, who has already been seen in great affairs, who has good renown and who on other occasions has given a good account of himself. Such a work should be given neither to a presumptuous man, nor to a hasty man, for he who is not master of himself cannot lead others. And some to whom this office has been entrusted have brought their masters and those who follow them into evil straits, since the lord has bidden his men follow the banner. Great reason is there to reproach that lord who sets his men under such a standard-bearer, for honour so works upon gentlefolk that it drives them into certain danger. So it is fitting that the standard-bearer should conform to the will of his lord and should not do more than he is ordered. On a different note, Joinville describes himself directing the fire of crossbowmen toward specific targets, and also describes King Louis conferring with his advisers in the middle of the Battle of Mansurah. Because command broke down to a fairly low level (the conrois, which, is a group of knights of unknown size) you could actually have fairly complex manoeuvres carried out, like the feigned retreats at Hastings. Your point about basic format is correct, however. Complex manoeuvres require a level of familiarity and trust between men which, with the multicultural and sometimes far-flung nature of medieval armies, would be a challenge most of the time. That said, use of reserves was usual, and you also have the use of complex formations like the "wheel" of foot soldiers that William the Breton describes in his Philippiad, which protected knights who could rest behind them then charge out to fight, almost like a wagon-less wagenburg. This of course all ignores that pitched battle was not a very common form of combat. Assault of fortified places and skirmish were much more common. flatbus posted:4. Yatagans! They don't have guards. What do guards on a sword do (beside the obvious, protect the hand), and why would a sword not have one? Also, how were they used? I honestly can't answer any of your khopesh questions, I'm afraid, but a sword's guard was useful for helping you punch someone in the face and helped keep your hand from slipping up on a thrust. Because with cavalry swords you're usually moving and attacking, the need to defend the hand is less important. But really, especially in the case of the shashka which could thrust as well as cut, I don't know why you wouldn't want a guard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
Davincie posted:While the romantic picture likes to paint them in front of the lines leading the men in reality most commanders stayed behind and barely had any control. If they were especially competent they might find a hill to sit on and order reserves around. Even the famous cavalry charges that cost quite a few lives did not happen nearly as often as depictions would make you think. Commanders definitely were near battles though, since them being there played a huge part in actually keeping armies loyal and creating propaganda opportunities. Also things like training, planning, discipline, and logistics were probably extremely important things that commanders had plenty of control over. Sort of like the role of coaches in large field sports. Though obviously I'm speaking in the most generic sense here and not in any specific historical context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Godspeed you! holy roman emperor Lift your skinny pikes like antennas to heaven
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also things like training, planning, discipline, and logistics were probably extremely important things that commanders had plenty of control over. Sort of like the role of coaches in large field sports. Though obviously I'm speaking in the most generic sense here and not in any specific historical context. Oh yeah obviously, I imagine everyone knows of Frederick the Soldier King who was personally involved in the training of his men here. Though as always with war, you can plan a lot but inevitably those plans become impossible to follow. These are the sort of places a personal touch of a commander can make a lot of difference though. You just have to look at the lovely way Lord Cardigan handled logistics (and other crucial things like communicating and running the right direction) to see the effect a commander can have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Why would the Middle Ages be particularly bad? Do you think the state of surgery was much better before? It wasn't, and, at the high end, wouldn't improve too markedly until you get powered machines and good anaesthetics. Not that there aren't loads of other periods I'd want to get impaled in less than the Middle Ages, but the state of surgery absolutely was much better before, both in the Classical world and during the height of Islam. Obviously it varied, and obviously there's too much emphasis on how poo poo everything was back then in our pop culture, but the counter-revisionism isn't always correct either. And germ theory, antibiotics and more than rudimentary sewage disposal were all way way way more important in the advance of medicine (and surgery) than anesthetics. flatbus posted:I've got some questions for the swordchat crew: 1. Who's to say they weren't inspired by sickles, but they were really more of a derivation of ancient axes. Sickles have inward facing blades where khopeshes have outward facing ones, mind. 2. Khopeshes were used in a variety of forms over more than a thousand years, so I think it's safe to say "it varied". Not all of them could hook shields; some had a hook protruding under the cutting edge which made that possible, but others didn't. Presumably you'd then thrust into the guy, although again, it would vary; some of them had thrusting points but some were pretty drat flat. I guess getting whacked by a flat edge still hurts though. 3. I think it was a very efficient way to make a bronze weapon, but once you started to get into iron, less so? They stopped being used right around the end of the bronze age, which means either that, or, equally plausible, some weapon the sea people brought along (the sea people invaded Egypt during the Bronze Age Collapse) was deemed like way more rad and started getting used instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
The buildings in the Dresden altstadt were painstakingly restored from the 1960s until 2005, and you can tell the difference between replacement blocks of stone, which are clean pale sandstone, and the original blocks, blackened by fire. Some buildings have a patchwork look, or have one or two light areas starting out of a darker field where a balustrade or a window vanished, too blasted to repair. I feel weighed down when I walk around these buildings. The memory'll always be with them, in the dark stone. Which means I know what all my friends are getting for Christmas, whether they want some or not. http://www.frauenkirchensteine.de/?page_id=59 Edit: Like much of the material recovered from the wreckage of the old city center, this chocolate is organic.  HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Is it okay if I ask if anyone can identify some insignia I have? Little background, I got these from the mother of one of my mother's coworkers, who knew that I love history, particularly WWII history. She gave these to me a year or so before she passed, but I really have only the slightest idea what any of them are. The four patches look to me like they're from the modern Russian military, perhaps branches of their army. The badge on the lower left looks like it has something to do with Cold War-era bomber pilots. The medallion in the upper right has to do with the Socialist revolution in '17 in Russia, methinks. But the one I'm most interested in is the one in the middle left: the metal thing with the Nazi symbol. All my Googling has turned up jack poo poo. So any help on figuring out what these things are? I'd love to know if anyone can help.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
The one on the upper right appears to be an East German medal commemorating the 60th anniversary of October Revolution, so you got that right. The one on the lower left says "AEROFLOT" and seems to have the winged hammer and sickle that is the symbol of those airlines even today, so I don't think it has anything to do with bomber pilots. No idea on the rest, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
The black/yellow patches with the red stars are indeed branch insignia, top one is a pipeline units one, bottom center looks like construction units, and the bottom right one is of course a tank forces one. e: I know gently caress all about nazi heraldry so I wouldn't be able to tell you about the center left thingy, but the top left artillery (?) patch looks A. western, B. upside down, and C. decidedly cold war (like everything else for that matter). I also think the 60th birthday of the revolution medal should be turned 90 degrees counterclockwise 
Koesj fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Koesj posted:e: I know gently caress all about nazi heraldry so I wouldn't be able to tell you about the center left thingy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minesweeper_War_Badge
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Minesweeper War Badge. Now THAT is nifty! Thanks! This whole time, I thought it was a tropical plant sticking up out of water when it turns out it's a water explosion. As to orientation, I just laid it all on my scanner and took a scan of it 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Koesj posted:The black/yellow patches with the red stars are indeed branch insignia, top one is a pipeline units one The center top one is road construction - two wheels on bottom and a steering wheel at top. Pipeline badge has no wings (Mercury, patron of travelers?), either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Why was the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium not repudiated after the First World War? Belgium not being able to coordinate with the allies until after a declaration of war against her was a major hindrance so why not remove it when the Germans are incapable of preventing it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Why was the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium not repudiated after the First World War? Belgium not being able to coordinate with the allies until after a declaration of war against her was a major hindrance so why not remove it when the Germans are incapable of preventing it? Why would you do that? The Germans have an army limited to 100.000 soldiers and no airforce.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
I dunno, it just strikes me as one of the things France would have pushed for during the peace conference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
I doesn't directly gently caress over the Germans, so no, they didn't think to ask for that. EDIT: I feel dumb posting this without any sources. I'm sure someone smarter has something better to say about this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
I can't remember if it was this thread or another one where someone posted the US army pamphlet from WWII debunking gripes about the French. In it they keep mentioning the French government paying 850 francs per month to every American soldier stationed in France, when French soldiers were only paid 800 francs per month. I have googled this but can't find anyone else talking about it. Was that really a thing that happened and is it documented anywhere? The pamphlet I am talking about it here: http://www.112gripes.com/96.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
What was the advantage to the uk in guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium or Poland?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What was the advantage to the uk in guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium or Poland? British strategy in Europe has always been to a) maintain the balance of power and b) keep the channel coast neutral or friendly. Poland was because of the former, Belgium because of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What was the advantage to the uk in guaranteeing the neutrality of Belgium or Poland? War was an unpopular move for a British government to make so they needed a solid and acceptable reason to go to war. Nazi Germany wasn't exactly disliked in pre-war Britain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Why was the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium not repudiated after the First World War? Belgium not being able to coordinate with the allies until after a declaration of war against her was a major hindrance so why not remove it when the Germans are incapable of preventing it? Britain entered the war ostensibly to protect the neutrality of Belgium. Going back on that is unthinkable politically. Further, both Britain and France did not trust each other that much and did not want the other to gain an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Britain entered the war ostensibly to protect the neutrality of Belgium. Going back on that is unthinkable politically. Further, both Britain and France did not trust each other that much and did not want the other to gain an advantage. The supposed distrust between Britain and France has been largely overstated. The two had differing goals occasionally, but for the most part they agreed on European policy decisions with a few notable exceptions in the interwar period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:I can't remember if it was this thread or another one where someone posted the US army pamphlet from WWII debunking gripes about the French. In it they keep mentioning the French government paying 850 francs per month to every American soldier stationed in France, when French soldiers were only paid 800 francs per month. I have googled this but can't find anyone else talking about it. Was that really a thing that happened and is it documented anywhere? US soldiers in both World Wars had higher base pay than virtually every other allied military. This disparity became even greater when you added in bonuses like flight pay. So much so that a common gripe against US troops based in the UK was that "the Yanks are oversexed, overpaid, and over here."
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:US soldiers in both World Wars had higher base pay than virtually every other allied military. This disparity became even greater when you added in bonuses like flight pay. So much so that a common gripe against US troops based in the UK was that "the Yanks are oversexed, overpaid, and over here." Also Britain had been under wartime rationing for a long time and US supplies for things like restricted foods were probably quite valuable on the black market.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Also Britain had been under wartime rationing for a long time and US supplies for things like restricted foods were probably quite valuable on the black market. Yup, if you had American cigarettes, some Hershey's bars and a, uh, borrowed silk parachute you stood a high chance of getting some action with the local females. Silk was rationed so hard it was being confiscated, and no woman wants to wear the same underwear for years on end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 06:01
|
|
|
I looked it back up because it never actually made sense to me this way, but my memory turned out to be correct and the events themselves nonsensical. Belgium was effectively non-neutral through the 1920s, but began to pull out of the Allies in the early 30s, and by 1936 had made a formal declaration of neutrality and ceased open cooperation with France. This was mostly a Belgian initiative and so you might say that the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium was resurrected by the Belgian government just in time to gently caress up defensive planning for WWII.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
So 20+ years after the opening of the Soviet archives are there still lots of things still to be uncovered, translated, regarding WWII or do we have as good a grasp on things as we're gonna get?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Bewbies, I loved your effort posts about planes. I'd love to hear about all the stuff like self-sealing tanks, ammo counters, sights and the like; how did all those develop through the years? When did fixed landing gear disappear? Did WW1 fighter pilots even get parachutes/straps?  What about drugs? I read that the Germans gave their fighter pilots amphetamines so they could fly more missions. Did any other nation do that too? What about the soldiers on the ground? A friend of mine is studying Medicine and some professors have told him the Americans gave drugs to their foot soldiers to improve their performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
Azran posted:Bewbies, I loved your effort posts about planes. I'd love to hear about all the stuff like self-sealing tanks, ammo counters, sights and the like; how did all those develop through the years? When did fixed landing gear disappear? Did WW1 fighter pilots even get parachutes/straps? Every combatant nation handed out drugs of various kinds like candy to just about anyone, pilots especially but not exclusively. The US and UK issued a chemical variant of amphetamine under the name Benzedrine, while the Germans and Japanese just gave good old methamphetamine. A quick look doesn't reveal much data on usage, but I see a paper quoting a USAAF survey that gave 15% of fighter pilots using Benzedrine both 'regularly' and more or less whenever they felt like they needed it. The same paper observes a military hospital shortly after the war dealing with a serious amphetamine addiction among its inmates, where a third of the users picked it up during the war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
I have a rather non specific question. I'm watching old episodes of Poirot which takes place in 1935. Practically every guy in the show is referred to by his rank (Captain Hasting, Major Sadler, Commander Chantry, General Forbes etc.) Was it common practice in England after the Great War for people to address former (or current) officers by their ranks rather than their usual honorific or is it just a tv thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
wikipe tama posted:I have a rather non specific question. I'm watching old episodes of Poirot which takes place in 1935. Practically every guy in the show is referred to by his rank (Captain Hasting, Major Sadler, Commander Chantry, General Forbes etc.) Was it common practice in England after the Great War for people to address former (or current) officers by their ranks rather than their usual honorific or is it just a tv thing? I'm not versed on British Military Tradition, but the practice of referring to people (officers) by their former rank was quite commonplace among the 'well heeled' in British society, obviously decreasingly so as the Empire died her death and the 'common man' because a fixture at sandhurst, but I've certainly come across the practice at least as late as the 70s. So it was definitely a done thing but most definitely exaggerated by Poirot (or maybe not consider most of the cases involve the 'upper classes'). I suppose I should probably introduce myself, considering I signed up because threads like this are what I'm all about. I was until recently a postgraduate student of Strategy and Intelligence, specialising in Counter Insurgency and Revolutionary Guerrilla warfare/ Ethics of Intelligence in Democracies. Looking forward to adding to and taking from the discussion. I suppose I'd be able to add to conversations about such things, but how much I have no idea. Smeggins (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 12:29
|
|
|
Dear Smeggins, Signing your posts will get you mocked at around here, friendly warning. -goons
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 12:58
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Dear Smeggins, I thought it might, and only did it this one time by means of an introduction, oh well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Why was the idea of a permanently neutral Belgium not repudiated after the First World War? Belgium not being able to coordinate with the allies until after a declaration of war against her was a major hindrance so why not remove it when the Germans are incapable of preventing it? Do you see viable alternatives? Everyone wanted to adjust to peace and there was no longer a threat, so holding an eternal grudge against the defeated Germany by forming a sort of proto-NATO (totes not intended against Russia anymore!) would have been unseemly. There's no way of knowing which way the political winds would blow ten or twenty years later - in an alternate history, maybe France actually ended under fascist rule while German republic prevailed. AdmiralSmeggins posted:I thought it might, and only did it this one time by means of an introduction, oh well. Ah, but you failed even in doing so. Should have gone with quote:Yours truly,
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So 20+ years after the opening of the Soviet archives are there still lots of things still to be uncovered, translated, regarding WWII or do we have as good a grasp on things as we're gonna get? Primary source historical research is one of the slowest disciplines in the world. AdmiralSmeggins posted:I suppose I should probably introduce myself, considering I signed up because threads like this are what I'm all about.  Just kidding, of course. Welcome.
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:I've been in Dresden for a month and a half, and in that time I have been able to read and completely record about ten muster rolls. I've improved my speed from one roll a week to one roll a day, which is a big step for me, but I have not yet gone through a single bound volume of records. And I don't know if any of this work will be relevant to the final form of my dissertation. And there are probably a lot more surviving Soviet documents than there are Early Modern Saxon ones.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:And there are probably a lot more surviving Soviet documents than there are Early Modern Saxon ones. They're probably typed, though, which means nobody has to take paleography courses before they begin. (Fun fact: my paleography course ended in the 14/1500s. There are no courses for the Early Modern period. Like my advisors did when they were young, I am expected to teach myself.) Edit: I went up to my room to get my notebooks, and the number is nine. Nine rolls exactly. I'll never come home. 
HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 14:29
|
|