|
Sweet, I never finished reading the last thread. I'm glad I can actually keep up to date with this now.Rodrigo Diaz posted:There are also two aspects of the pilum that do not sit right with me. While its neck was apparently meant to bend, it was also apparently used to ward off cavalry. This latter aspect in particular makes no sense to me, as it would need to be able to survive more than a single impact to be used effectively as a melee weapon. It's very puzzling. I thought they carried two different kinds of pilum, and one had a stiff neck? Either way, would it actually make a difference against cavalry? Horses usually won't charge a line of spears regardless of whether those spears will buckle on impact or not.
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Also warfare isn't, and hasn't been for some time, an entirely masculine activity. Whoah can someone elaborate on this?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
I always lose my place when I try flipping back and fourth between post bookmarks so I never try posting and reading. And yeah, the amount people know about tank destroyers dumbfounded me, although I guess some of my history-related interests are even more obscure. Also I notice there's a surprising number of posters in this thread that aren't in the other history threads. What's up with that? Grand Fromage posted:This was the case in Tokyo museums too, they were all quite straightforward about this sort of thing. The main museum even had a whole display room about how Koreans basically brought civilization to Japan. How often does this come up in Korea? Koramei fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Some of them are or were in places I don't read (old GBS and D&D) and others are things I don't find that interesting (Mesoamerica). That still leaves a couple of threads! Elissimpark posted:This is from a few pages back, but what would actually happen at the end of a charge, once you'd ridden (or run, if infantry) all the way across the battlefield and got close to the other guys? Usually the cavalry would veer off to either side at the last moment- it was really like a game of chicken (sans the game part and with more horrificness). Probe for weakness, see if the infantry look like they're gonna hold and so on. I think cavalry will still usually have an edge in protracted melee unless they're grossly outnumbered, but it is not the situation they're looking to get into. If horses just crash into a formation that doesn't break, they will probably die. So will a bunch of the dudes in the formation, but I doubt the cavalry would call it an even trade. Koramei fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
^^^ I agree with you on the rest, but is the cut really more disabling? Unless you lop their fingers off or something, you're gonna feel the bite of a sword going through you more than a scratch on your flesh.Unluckyimmortal posted:Well, the thing is, if you're going to wear a sword as a fashion accessory or to win a fight versus one other guy, it's going to be long and skinny. If you're going to use it to cut brush or a bunch of limbs or pike heads off, it's going to be fatter and heavier and shorter. I don't know why so many people discount thin(ner- they're really not even that thin) swords. They are perfectly good at killing people. Slashes are more cinematically impressive, but in most cases, a thrust through your vital organs is actually more lethal. And even with comparatively heavier swords, going through someone's leg or whatever isn't easy. (and slicing someone's hand off is not that hard even with a thin sword) a travelling HEGEL posted:Hello friend. Thanks! I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about this stuff as either of you though. But I will have fun reading for sure! Koramei fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 16, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 21:57
|
|
I can tell you and I and Rodrigo Diaz are going to have some nice times.
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Yes. Wide bladed swords are significantly better at cutting than narrow-bladed ones, because you have more sectional density behind the edge, and for a given weight (and therefore a given momentum) you have a thinner profle and consequently less friction. With a good cut you are slicing muscle and, perhaps more importantly, tendons. Thin-bladed thrusting swords (i.e. late rapiers, which were nearly edgeless, and smallswords which were completely edgeless) could not do this nearly as effectively. Mea culpa on the hand thing but none of that really contradicts what I said.  Of course thrusting weapons aren't as good at cutting; they're still good at thrusting. And thrusting is fine at incapacitating. About the only severed tendons that will guarantee someone out of a fight are in the wrist, which a thin thrusting sword won't have trouble with- someone writhing around with their knee or ankle slit is still dangerous. And (most) cuts really aren't as serious. As I said, they will look terrifying, but a thrust that goes into your torso is massively more likely to be fatal, or at least could well drop a lung or something (which is agonizing and will put absolutely anybody out of a fight). Also, not really important, but surely a messer that isn't dull as hell must be able to make it through a wrist if he actually does a draw cut rather than just have it sit there? I'd be interested to see more limb-severing examples for sure. Unluckyimmortal posted:I don't discount them, I'm just saying that, as far as I'm aware, swords by that time period fall into basically two capacities: long and thin and intended for killing other men in single combat, or a bit shorter and fatter but useful from horseback, at cutting objects, and still quite effective at killing people, but not what you want to be wielding if you're going to engage another man in single combat as he wields a dueling sword. As far as pure damage goes, big-rear end slashing swords are probably the most catastrophically damaging to the human body, but hitting someone with a claymore is somewhat overkill if you don't mind their family having an open-casket funeral. I was more picking on that 'cause I see people all the time thinking the thinner swords are useless for everything and I'm sure there are plenty of lurkers (and future readers for when this thread too is 400 pages long); I probably shouldn't have implied you would rush into a nest of pikes and whatever with them (not that you'd wanna do that with a fatter sword either, really (or with anything ever, in my case!)), but they are capable of a lot more than being a fashion accessory. And this was the period of tercos and rodeleros isn't it? There is lots of middle ground between fencing foil and claymore. Also I think we've all been talking a bit at odds 'cause less than 1" at the hilt and edgeless is absolutely not what I meant. I think my fencing epee was the better part of that  edit: I have a tencency to do this a lot and it makes me come off as way more obnoxious than I mean to be so sorry about that 
Koramei fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Nov 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I've heard that was apocryphal... for the Iranians. I have read that one method the Germans used was to round up suspected Jews and Partisans and have them run across suspected minefields, and the Soviets used several of their penal battalions in a similar fashion. I'm sure Ensign Expendable is more knowledgeable on the topic than I am, however. Yeah any large scale state-sanctioned "they murder children" stories are usually bullshit, it's just a standard way to deride your enemies. It has totally been done (and is still done) though, particularly in poorer places like Burma and Congo, but even occasionally among our first-world fighting forces in isolated-but-not-infrequent-enough cases.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 05:03
|
|
|
It wasn't  That is basically what happened. Battles are not orderly things.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Old artillery was sometimes used in desperation well after WW2, especially by people that can't manufacture their own stuff and on under equipped fronts. But on the whole I think the metal would have been too valuable? People'd want to melt it down and make something more useful with it if they could.a travelling HEGEL posted:Not entirely. Look at this overview of the Battle of Breitenfeld: Tilly, Pappenheim, Gustavus Adolphus, and Horn are all making decisions and doing things. Even in a general melee like that? That couldn't have been common, surely? Incidentally I really love the picture on that section (someone posted it earlier in the thread too)  . I don't know if it was intentional but the clouds of smoke show so much more than just musketfire.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
 (click) Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
It's also a moot point for the Ghurkas 'cause India and Nepal were British during the world wars, regardless of how you define mercenary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
To bring it back to thin sword chat again I just saw this video and it is pertinent (to a week ago): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZLw-tlIOs he also disagrees with me on the hand thing And I haven't watched most of the videos yet (he has like a bazillion of them jeez) but this channel looks fairly good and way better than most weapon focused youtubes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:As for my particular issue, the best one I can think of is his insistence that spears (edit: single-handed spears that is) were used exclusively underhand unless you were throwing them, based on his experiences as a reenactor. Someone in the comments section pointed out that plenty of red figure pottery (the stereotypical Greek vase) has overhand spear use. He made a reply video where he insisted the only possible reason such a use was included is because these artists were trying to sell pots, and overhand spear use looked more dramatic. He then cherry-picked some examples of what he considers to be 'more realistic' depictions where, of course, the spears are underhand. It was really blatant confirmation bias. Don't underestimate people's willingness to bend reality for visual effect. Historically and today, I would very much hesitate to use art as a refutation without any other evidence (and I am an art student), especially when you're talking about stuff veering on abstract like red figure pottery. Not that I disagree with what you're saying. Lindybeige seems to have a couple of central ideas (e.g. people are cowards) and cherry picks to hell in support of them in all his videos. He makes good points every now and then so I wouldn't completely discount him, but people's willingness to accept what he says as sacrosanct is loving annoying and seems to be a rising trend lately. Although that seems to be a rising trend with lots of easy access history sources (including these SA threads, to be honest).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
^^^ I haven't been keeping a keen eye on everything in this thread, but I have seen some lovely books recommended by goons before, so it's good to always be discerning. I think they've usually been called out on it though. How on earth do you find those pictures so quickly, Rodrigo Diaz? I'm hopeless at delving for examples. But yeah, I didn't say that to disagree with you on the underarm/overarm thing (not that I know enough about it to disagree), I just wanted to talk about the art- and it is something I want people to keep in mind, especially when it's essentially ancient pop art. Rabhadh posted:I do quite like Lindybeige but I've always taken him with a pinch of salt. When it comes to reenactment stuff he's an enthusiastic amateur like myself and many of us here. The whole No Overhand stab! thing is really silly. Not only are people fighting for their lives quite pragmatic about what way they'd like to stab someone, but those Greek spears were counter weighted with a bronze butt spike making them even easier to use overhand. The pikes video as mentioned already is absurd as well. He also seems like a staunch Imperialist. I used to like him okay but then I tried watching some of his non-history videos. He just has incredibly lovely opinions on everything. Koramei fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
I may have read this in a really sketchy source, but most of the time the feudal Japanese armies would just sally out and meet the enemy on the field. The castles were there more to just impress the peasants and be administrative centres/ palaces. But then my only other knowledge of feudal Japanese castles comes from Ran and Throne of Blood which both involved them being besieged so
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Not really military history, but All Quiet on the Western Front should pretty much be required reading. edit: also Dulce Et Decorum Est quote:Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, edit 2: huh this version is slightly different from the one I'm familiar with what Koramei fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Dec 3, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
tweekinator posted:I've been listening to the Norma Centuries podcast, and especially during the conquest(s) of Southern Italy and Sicily and the reign of Roger I, Lars Brownworth describes incredibly outnumbered Normans winning amazing victories, such as at Cerami. What exactly made the Norman cavalry so (seemingly)unstoppable? Someone else can actually answer this I'm sure, but take everything Lars Brownworth says with a pinch of salt. I liked the series (and his other one, 12 Byzantine Rulers) but he is fairly sensationalist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
AATREK CURES KIDS posted:Some artillery now is still sketchy. Here's a propaganda video from the Syrian civil war with everyone running for cover whenever they launch a shell: I doubt all artillery these days is foolproof, but aren't they doing that in Syria 'cause the government forces would often booby trap shells that the rebels would capture? Also 'cause half that stuff is literally home made. Frankly it's more representative of artillery from 500 years ago than artillery today.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Bacarruda posted:And once the Zumwalts get their railguns, things are going to get even more interesting. Jesus Christ it really is the future isn't it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
I don't normally care about modern military stuff even slightly but whoah I remember "looking cool" was actually one of the major criteria for the F-35 so you just know all the "low radar profile" and "stealth siding" or whatever is just an excuse for "make it look futuristic" in this. The railguns had better glow blue and make bzapp noises.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:What? Okay maybe not "major" but I remember it was one of a few strikes against Boeing's entry 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
Say what? The term "Scandinavia" is what loving everybody calls those countries. Nordic is only an occasional thing and "the North" is what people say if they're taking the piss. Geopolitics and regionalism and whatever are about as up for debate as topics possibly get; maybe the term had an incredibly literal definition when it was first introduced, but that is not at all the case today. Acting like you know the definitive answer (or that there is a definitive answer) is incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Oh yeah clearly, my mistake.Alekanderu posted:If you actually read my post you'll see I'm talking about what the people actually living here are calling it. It's also a much better term since it's unambiguous. There are no unambiguous terms in geopolitics! It's all well and interesting to hear a local perspective but that doesn't mean it's correct, so marching in wanting to shut everybody up with your truth is still stupid!  Incidentally I'm guessin' you're both Finns; is there a particular reason Finns don't want to be seen as part of Scandinavia? also I'm not mad!!
Koramei fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Dec 13, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Was there actually major opposition to the occupation of Japan? I mean it obviously didn't all go perfectly, but I've heard it described as "the only successful foreign occupation in history". All things considered they got off extremely lightly.Davincie posted:Koreans also had a lot of problems on their home-front with people protesting but a lot of those got written off as communist agitators and punished accordingly. Korea being a dictatorship at both ends those days meant that a lot of protesters got put down rather brutally. Haha "punished accordingly" is quite an understatement. Well over a hundred thousand alleged communist sympathisers were put to death in the South during the early 1950s; backing Syngman Rhee was one of the worst things the US did during the Cold War, and that's saying something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Central Asia, during the mid-Bronze Age, pretty rapidly disseminating from there. Their quick adoption and massive spread should really be all you need to know to prove their usefulness. Cavalry didn't exist during this time- war horses were the product of thousands of years of breeding; the horses you'd get in the Bronze Age were much smaller and more fragile, and chariots were the first step towards actually using them in battle. The image of chariots as heavy platforms thundering into enemy lines is a much later one- from the Iron Age, with the heavy scythed chariots and poo poo. The ones during the Bronze Age were light platforms for skirmishing off of, and more importantly, for shuttling the well-to-do troops to the front lines (and back out when things got messy). Especially in places like Egypt and Mesopotamia (and Central Asia) where the land is mostly flat, they were extremely maneuverable and startlingly quick, but they were used extensively in China too so it's not like they were useless elsewhere. And actually, I don't know this for sure, but I'd imagine they were considered more agile than cavalry for some time; you get them filling that same role well into the Iron Age, even when actual cavalry started appearing in force, in places like Britain and France. Not to mention Roman chariot races that would persist well into the Middle Ages. Maybe there's something to those I'm missing, but "use fastest thing" sounds like it's half their point to me, so if cavalry were a better alternative I'd imagine they'd have maybe used them? Maybe tradition superseded that. Koramei fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Castle is a medieval English name for a stone fort, imported by Normans. As such it should be used for medieval forts only and I don't read any other technical difference to it. Other languages may have other uses for castrum or entirely different words for types of fortification.   It does seem a bit nebulous- and I mean, when'd the forts stop being medieval and start being renaissance? What about vanity castles built in much later times? "why does it matter"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:But if you want one, like if you want to date modern fortifications down to the day, it's: quote:1500 loving even Well that's convenient. And Merry Christmas Eve everybody!  99 years ago now. That really weirds me out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
It obviously varied, but plenty of nobles would uh, indulge. As Fangz said, getting lots of food doesn't necessarily mean that food is what you should be choosing- although in younger dudes at least that probably didn't matter too much. But nutrition is a literal science these days, and one our professional athletes pay keen attention to, and for that I'd say their diets are pretty indisputably better suited than what old nobles had.Rodrigo Diaz posted:What makes you think that modern training for splitting heads from horseback is superior to medieval training? Better understanding of anatomy, along with a whole world of fighting traditions  to build off of. I dunno about our figure skaters and rhythmic gymnasts and skiiers and synchronized swimmers, but for our boxers and wrestlers these days I don't think there's much of a contest. It is important to disabuse the notion that knights were plodding and useless, but modern professional athletes really are on a league of their own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Okay, yeah if you're talking about literally using a warhammer or axe or whatever then sure, but just "fighting" and being "physically fit", no. And many professional athletes literally are raised from 10 (or younger) for their trade. Not all, but then not all Medieval nobles would be either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Yeah, Albania is/was one of the worst dictatorships in Europe. You'd get people sailing across the Adriatic to escape and landing in Italy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:Who were the sea people, anyway? Are there any books that try to get to the bottom of that hilarious mystery? The general theory is just that they were assorted people from the Northern Mediterranean (Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Italy, parts of Greece etc) that were looking to settle in new lands (e.g. the Philistines), if I remember right. Nobody really knows more than that for sure, and most of the books that cover it do little to be enlightening. I mean, it is one of the biggest mysteries of the Bronze Age after all. Some of the groups are specifically named in the Egyptian sources (although I think there's a firm link for only a handful of those) so you can try searching for that. And try asking in the Ancient History thread too. And stuff on the Bronze Age Collapse is generally pretty morbid reading. It took a hell of a long time for civilization to pick its self back up after everything went down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:What do you make of the claim that the Sea Peoples were precursors to the Semites (Hebrews/Arabs)? Who says this? We have plenty of firm accounts of the Levant from well before the Sea Peoples invaded. When I gave the Philistine example, I meant just the Philistines. There are other groups like them but they're one that a lot of people know so they're an easy example. The Entire Universe posted:I wonder if it was some kind of coincidence that a handful of cultures from all over that corner of the Med decided to run sailing raids and it's just a fluke of a historical blind spot that the cultures doing the raiding aren't represented in the record for one reason or another (maybe they wrote everything on wood or something) They are represented in the record, I know for sure by the Egyptians (since they actually survived the invasions), and there are some pretty harrowing Hittite tablets too (didn't know that the Sea Peoples themselves recorded poo poo too although I guess it makes sense, that's cool). And no mass migrations are coincidence. The exact cause is still a bit of a mystery, but there are plenty of fairly logical and convincing arguments (e.g. that they're dissatisfied refugees from the big civilizations back for revenge  ).And while the term "Sea Peoples" conjures images of jolly 18th century pirates, they weren't raiders. They did plenty of raiding, don't get me wrong, but these were whole populations of people invading in force. They're Sea Peoples because they came from the sea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
The literate Late Bronze Age civilizations actually wrote down quite a lot (not as much as we'd like, but that's not really an achievable goal), but yeah, nearly all of it is lost to history. The Sea People and Bronze Age Collapse were more than 3000 years ago; that anything at all survives that long is pretty remarkable. And they weren't "random sea raiders". They completely broke down Mycenaean Greece, the Hittites, and permanently crippled Egypt right after what was pretty much its zenith. The reason there aren't many records of them is because there was nobody around to make any. (  ) I'm only half exaggerating. In any case they were important.And Carthage isn't really a fair example; the Romans made a pretty concerted effort to expunge them from history. sullat posted:They were oral histories, eventually recorded in Greek. The modern names for them are ”the Iliad” and ”The Odyssey”. um
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:There's some evidence behind it, Egypt survived the collapse and had some records of the names of the tribes that made up the 'Sea Peoples' who weren't so much an organized force as they were wandering tribes. For example the Pelest could have easily become the Palestinians etc Peleset became the Philistines, I thought? Which is where the word Palestine comes from, yeah, but today's Palestinian people are mostly just the descendants of the people who didn't leave in the Jewish Diaspora. The Philistines themselves have all but left the genetic pool. And yeah, for most major happenings in history, climate is, at the root of it, the reason why. veekie posted:Heck, I think it builds a better picture than "so and so ruled here and kicked a lot of rear end" since inventory records are inclined to be accurate and reliable. There's no political gain to be had for making poo poo up or delivering sick burns. No artistic interpretation or inflation(as happens with saying a thousand dudes marched etc). Reading people's interpretations of events can do a wonder to reveal how they thought, though. Both are extremely useful in different ways!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I'm still not sure this "collapse" ever happened. Everything I can find just points to those "sea people" going on a rampage of conquest, which is impressive, but not necessarily a sign of the violent collapse of civilization itself. Just business as usual. (Well not for Egypt, mind you, since they had to fight them off, apparently.) What? This isn't some kind of fringe theory; yeah, the explicit details of the collapse are still very much up for debate, there's still a great deal of it that's a mystery, and even what we do know can be hard to make sense of, but that there was a catastrophic and violent collapse of the major near eastern civilizations in this period is pretty drat near irrefutable, at least to the point of anything that happened three thousand years ago is. No, the Sea Peoples invading isn't a sign of collapse in and of its self, but the archaeological record, the written sources of the time, the massive setback in civilization in Greece and Anatolia and Syria, the power vacuum that enabled the Levantine City States to grow? There is no shortage of evidence for this having happened. And as Canuckanese mentioned- the Bronze Age Collapse is not solely because of the Sea People (I've been mentioning the two next to each other quite a bit 'cause they are related, but they're not one and the same, sorry if I confused anybody). They were maybe the catalyst (or more likely they were just a symptom of an already broken system), but there were a whole myriad of factors, and the repercussions were much more severe than a few great civilizations going kaput. And yeah, even that is not at all business as usual.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Not likely, both of those would take generations. Most people doing raiding and looting don't think all that far ahead (which is also why they might completely raze a city).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Alternatively, you join those marauding barbarians and snowball all around the Mediterranean with your new pals 'cause you kind of hated your old rulers anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Are there any examples of fighting treatises written for ladies?
Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 08:46 |
|
|
Because more than a thousand people died.a travelling HEGEL posted:Or girls.  Don't worry Hegel. edit: I still draw brave champions and ferocious beasts and poo poo Koramei fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 23:22
|
|