Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next 
Author Message
Rolf Postma




Usergroups: None


Posts: 4
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 3:20 am    Post subject: No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages         Reply with quote

There is a high chance of this being a repost, but I skimmed through recent topics and searched some and could not find this specific question. If it is a repost let me apologise in advance

I am newly getting into the field of medieval arms and armour and one thing that strikes me as odd is the absence of metal greaves and vambraces from a large portion of the middle ages. I understand why (full-)plate armour only came on late, but it seems to me that steel greaves and vambraces should have been producible much earlier. As a layman it does not seem more difficult to produce such amour compared to a helmet (half-helm great-helm etc.). It would appear to be lighter than mail and no articulation would be required, because of the large rigid body-parts.

Still in all sources I find both the under arm and shins covered by mail.

Greeks seemed to have used bras greaves in the antique times and Vikings seem to have used boiled leather vambraces.

The only reason I can think of for the disappearance of these armour parts is the possible gaps it would leave in the armour, but that could be remedied by some intelligent design.

Please let me know what you think on this topic
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Usergroups: None

Location: Croatia
Likes: 7 pages
Posts: 1,815
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 4:05 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have often wondered the same, but the fact is that there is a huge gap between greek vambraces and greaves and the next appearance in high medieval period. And even greeks and romans used vambraces rarely. I remember no roman vambraces actually, only manica which is for the whole arm. And in greek era, vambraces seem to be rarer than greaves... There is no evidence for boiled leather in viking age, so no leather viking vambraces. Only iron splinted vambraces and greaves in Vendel (pre-viking) grave. So between roman manica and 12th century full length mail shirts, it seems that warriors were not really concerned with lower arm and leg defences... At least in western and central europe.
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.




Usergroups: None


Posts: 95
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 4:35 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Luka Borscak wrote:
I have often wondered the same, but the fact is that there is a huge gap between greek vambraces and greaves and the next appearance in high medieval period. And even greeks and romans used vambraces rarely. I remember no roman vambraces actually, only manica which is for the whole arm. And in greek era, vambraces seem to be rarer than greaves... There is no evidence for boiled leather in viking age, so no leather viking vambraces. Only iron splinted vambraces and greaves in Vendel (pre-viking) grave. So between roman manica and 12th century full length mail shirts, it seems that warriors were not really concerned with lower arm and leg defences... At least in western and central europe.


Shields are an important factor I believe. Let's take vikings as an example, they used a shield that would cover their shield arm almost entirely and protected their sword arm quite well. At least that is what I deduct from the lack of a complex cross guard on swords of that time frame. During the period in which the round shield was used there was little need for vembraces of any kind.

Why the vikings didn't bother with leg protection like the Greeks did? Well it could be that it was not required since simply lowering the shield a tiny bit covered the lower legs, and attacking the lower legs would expose the attacker quite a bit leaving him vulnerable to counter attack. Another explanation would be that the industry simply didn't allow it. As in the amount of armor being produced was to low to warrant leg armor. Even the high and mighty Jarls which had a mail shirt didn't bother with greaves. If even the richest members of society who could afford mail would not buy leg protection than it simply isn't worth making for a craftsman.

Similar logic could be applied to later eras such as the crusades. The kite shield we see so often does an even better job protecting the lower legs and forearm of the shield arm. It's only when the heater shield is used that those areas require rigid armor.

I believe it boils down to a matter of shield usage and iron/steel quality and craftsmanship.


*Bonus the Romans only started using the arm protection when their shields did not offer enough protection against the Falx.
View user's profile Send private message
Rolf Postma




Usergroups: None


Posts: 4
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 4:55 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Thank you both for your answers,

You both make very valid points. Though there remains one part that still bothers me and that is that in the beginning of the 2nd half of the middle ages (11th and 12th century) you do see images of lower legs and forearms/hands being covered by mail armour. A few examples of these can be found in the Bayeux Tapestry on the Norman Knights among other sources.

I would expect that mail armour is heavier and more cumbersome than plate in those places and since mail also seems to be more labour intensive to make it would possibly be more expensive
View user's profile Send private message
Pieter B.




Usergroups: None


Posts: 95
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Rolf Postma wrote:
Thank you both for your answers,

You both make very valid points. Though there remains one part that still bothers me and that is that in the beginning of the 2nd half of the middle ages (11th and 12th century) you do see images of lower legs and forearms/hands being covered by mail armour. A few examples of these can be found in the Bayeux Tapestry on the Norman Knights among other sources.

I would expect that mail armour is heavier and more cumbersome than plate in those places and since mail also seems to be more labour intensive to make it would possibly be more expensive


Mail is indeed more labor intensive but it requires less skill so to speak. Any old fart who knows the basics can make a mail shirt if he has the rings produced for him (oversimplification), if you get a minimum wage worker it doesn't matter that much if it takes a week or three months to make. Another advantage is that mail can be made of lesser quality steel/iron (iron most likely) and it can be repaired more easily.
View user's profile Send private message
Mart Shearer




Usergroups: None

Location: Jackson, MS, USA
Posts: 674
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Rolf,

If your argument is correct, why would they not have immediately replaced the entire hauberk of mail with plate, or coats of plate, and not only the limb protection?

ferrum ferro acuitur et homo exacuit faciem amici sui
View user's profile Send private message
Bartek Strojek




Usergroups: None

Location: Poland
Likes: 23 pages
Posts: 395
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There's absolutely huge amount of things that can, and do, seem 'obvious' and necessary once one had already seen and used a lot of them.

But it doesn't change the fact that statistically, huge majority of people in history had never actually used that.

And today more things they would never otherwise imagine seem obvious to us - because we can see them in any media, in huge amounts of information completely unknown in the past.

And still, in 100 years there will be obvious things in use, and people will wonder 'why didn't they think about it".

And then, after this all, of course, actual practical and economical reasons kick in, which can be just as important.

Leading to no greaves, even if they seem to us to be very obvious answer.
View user's profile Send private message
T. Kew




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 56
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It wouldn't necessarily be more expensive to make - the economics of mail production depend a lot on the price of labour, and so if labour is cheap you can have a number of minimally trained apprentices doing bits of the preparation stage.

Plate greaves and vambraces are quite cumbersome to wear without the rest of the plate supporting them. The simple strapped-on ones you see for sale as costume now are a lot less wearable than a tailored mail shirt or set of hose. The Greek bronze greaves get round this through perfect shaping, but that's also an expensive step, especially in iron.

They're also much less necessary for foot combat. I find it interesting to wonder why the Greeks even used them, but I'd guess perhaps to protect against arrows. However, from what we can tell massed archery was much less common in Viking warfare, so that would have been a less important factor.

Where we have people fighting on horseback, they are still used - the Vendel graves are the most obvious example, as they're attired and equipped as late-Roman cavalry officers, and have greaves to go with it.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Usergroups: None

Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 902
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 9:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Looks like it's been made clear enough that there were no vambraces in the Viking era, but it's a point that bears reinforcement! Beware of Hollywood...

I think it should also be pointed out that complete armor was not some kind of "default" back then, and that anything less than THE BEST protection was seen as some kind of disadvantage or problem to be solved. The default was NO armor--it was perfectly common for many warriors to go to war with shield and spear, and they don't seem to have spent a lot of time worrying about their supposed lack of protection. So *any* armor was gravy. A simple shirt of mail was a nearly impenetrable and infinitely flexible metal skin that could be put on in seconds. Compared to the guy in the wool tunic, that's an incredible advantage. It might also be noted that odd bits like the splinted defences from Vendel show up here and there early on, but get dropped even as society, economics, trade, and production are on the rise. There was absolutely no technological reason that limb defences could not be built or used, and the people who would have used them were certainly wealthy enough to afford something like that.

All we can safely conclude is that complete protection was not the only consideration for the man getting armored up. Weight, comfort, and just the chances of being *significantly* injured were probably all part of the equation. Bottom line, it worked for them!

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rolf Postma




Usergroups: None


Posts: 4
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I am aware of the limitless shortcomings of Hollywood and even most 'historically-accurate' documentaries. I must admit that I was under the impression that Vikings used vambraces of leather or thick cloth as arm protection, since a lot of reenactors depicting this era use them (my thanks for correction my misconception on that part).

I know that armour was not common on the (early) medieval battlefield and that the common soldiers had to make do with padded clothing, but I think I am safe in assuming that most all of the early knights did own a suit of mail.

I have a mail hauberk myself (unfortunately not tailored..) and know that it is quite easy to wear and move in, if suspended by a belt.

I got to this topic because I want something on my legs to finish of the armour, at first I was thinking of greaves, but after research I only found mail 'trousers' for leg protection, which is how I got to my question

Thank you all for giving me more insight into to how and why Happy
View user's profile Send private message
Dan Howard




Usergroups: 
Donating Members

Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 2,324
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 12:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Pieter B. wrote:
Mail is indeed more labor intensive but it requires less skill so to speak. Any old fart who knows the basics can make a mail shirt if he has the rings produced for him (oversimplification), if you get a minimum wage worker it doesn't matter that much if it takes a week or three months to make. Another advantage is that mail can be made of lesser quality steel/iron (iron most likely) and it can be repaired more easily.

Mail making was a specialist industry. The tools and skills required are very similar to those of a jeweller. It was never made by a village blacksmith. The quality of iron in mail was generally of the highest quality - low carbon content but very highly refined with low levels of slag. If you try making wire from low quality iron then it can't be pulled through a draw plate without constantly snapping (plus it will quickly destroy your drawplate) and it can delaminate when being pierced with a drift. The cost and labour required just to make the wire for mail (between one thousand and two thousand feet) would have far exceeded the cost of completing most other types of armour

Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen and Sword Books
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Usergroups: None

Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 902
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 1:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Rolf Postma wrote:
I am aware of the limitless shortcomings of Hollywood and even most 'historically-accurate' documentaries. I must admit that I was under the impression that Vikings used vambraces of leather or thick cloth as arm protection, since a lot of reenactors depicting this era use them (my thanks for correction my misconception on that part).


No prob. Trust me, it isn't just Viking reenactors! Vambraces are a plague for Romans, Greeks, obviously Saxons and Normans, heck I've even seen them on 17th and 18th century reenactors!

Quote:
I know that armour was not common on the (early) medieval battlefield and that the common soldiers had to make do with padded clothing...


Surprisingly, there's even a lack of evidence for that! The first reliable mentions of padded amor are 12th century, if I'm not mistaken. (I'm thinking of the English Assize of Arms.)

Quote:
...but I think I am safe in assuming that most all of the early knights did own a suit of mail.


Sounds like a safe assumption to me. In fact early militia requirements don't always mention class, they only go by wealth or income. So even a non-knight with enough money would be required to have mail.

Quote:
I got to this topic because I want something on my legs to finish of the armour, at first I was thinking of greaves, but after research I only found mail 'trousers' for leg protection, which is how I got to my question


I agree, it's very strange! Some of it we can ascribe to simple conservatism, the unwillingness to change what has always worked. I can't help thinking that we simply don't understand how much the medieval warrior LOVED mail, for whatever reason. Plate only shows up in any significant amount *after* the whole body has been mail-covered for a century or more. It's wierd. Or maybe it's wyrd.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pieter B.




Usergroups: None


Posts: 95
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 4:00 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Dan Howard wrote:
Pieter B. wrote:
Mail is indeed more labor intensive but it requires less skill so to speak. Any old fart who knows the basics can make a mail shirt if he has the rings produced for him (oversimplification), if you get a minimum wage worker it doesn't matter that much if it takes a week or three months to make. Another advantage is that mail can be made of lesser quality steel/iron (iron most likely) and it can be repaired more easily.

Mail making was a specialist industry. The tools and skills required are very similar to those of a jeweller. It was never made by a village blacksmith. The quality of iron in mail was generally of the highest quality - low carbon content but very highly refined with low levels of slag. If you try making wire from low quality iron then it can't be pulled through a draw plate without constantly snapping (plus it will quickly destroy your drawplate) and it can delaminate when being pierced with a drift. The cost and labour required just to make the wire for mail (between one thousand and two thousand feet) would have far exceeded the cost of completing most other types of armour


Okay so the technical difficulty has nothing to do with the late (re)appearance of splinted limb protection? Guess I learn something new every day, I always imagined plate armor required even better metal with low slag content.
View user's profile Send private message
Will Phillips




Usergroups: None

Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 10
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 4:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Why the vikings didn't bother with leg protection like the Greeks did? Well it could be that it was not required since simply lowering the shield a tiny bit covered the lower legs, and attacking the lower legs would expose the attacker quite a bit leaving him vulnerable to counter attack. Another explanation would be that the industry simply didn't allow it. As in the amount of armor being produced was to low to warrant leg armor. Even the high and mighty Jarls which had a mail shirt didn't bother with greaves. If even the richest members of society who could afford mail would not buy leg protection than it simply isn't worth making for a craftsman.


I think that also hints at why we might see plate shin defenses and knee cops start to appear in the 13th century. You had the ascent of cavalry as the premiere arm of war, and a kite shield might cover most of you, but it won't cover the other half of your body, or protect everything when you're mounted and get surrounded by infantry with cleavers and axes.

Then, as we go to smaller, heater shields and away from the flat-topped kites, you start to see leg armor more frequently.

This is just a guess and not based on any research, but it seems logical on the surface, at least.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Matthew Amt




Usergroups: None

Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 902
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 5:24 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Will Phillips wrote:
I think that also hints at why we might see plate shin defenses and knee cops start to appear in the 13th century. You had the ascent of cavalry as the premiere arm of war, and a kite shield might cover most of you, but it won't cover the other half of your body, or protect everything when you're mounted and get surrounded by infantry with cleavers and axes.

Then, as we go to smaller, heater shields and away from the flat-topped kites, you start to see leg armor more frequently.

This is just a guess and not based on any research, but it seems logical on the surface, at least.


OR the spreading use of leg armor allowed the shields to get smaller? Which is cause and which is effect? (Just to poke the hornets' nest, ha!)

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Philip Dyer




Usergroups: None


Posts: 175
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 5:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Rolf Postma wrote:
I am aware of the limitless shortcomings of Hollywood and even most 'historically-accurate' documentaries. I must admit that I was under the impression that Vikings used vambraces of leather or thick cloth as arm protection, since a lot of reenactors depicting this era use them (my thanks for correction my misconception on that part).


No prob. Trust me, it isn't just Viking reenactors! Vambraces are a plague for Romans, Greeks, obviously Saxons and Normans, heck I've even seen them on 17th and 18th century reenactors!

Quote:
I know that armour was not common on the (early) medieval battlefield and that the common soldiers had to make do with padded clothing...


Surprisingly, there's even a lack of evidence for that! The first reliable mentions of padded amor are 12th century, if I'm not mistaken. (I'm thinking of the English Assize of Arms.)

Quote:
...but I think I am safe in assuming that most all of the early knights did own a suit of mail.


Sounds like a safe assumption to me. In fact early militia requirements don't always mention class, they only go by wealth or income. So even a non-knight with enough money would be required to have mail.

Quote:
I got to this topic because I want something on my legs to finish of the armour, at first I was thinking of greaves, but after research I only found mail 'trousers' for leg protection, which is how I got to my question


I agree, it's very strange! Some of it we can ascribe to simple conservatism, the unwillingness to change what has always worked. I can't help thinking that we simply don't understand how much the medieval warrior LOVED mail, for whatever reason. Plate only shows up in any significant amount *after* the whole body has been mail-covered for a century or more. It's wierd. Or maybe it's wyrd.

Matthew

Well, consider most conflict in the Early Middle Ages was predominated by foot skirmishes and ambushes and most soldiers were locally levied part time soldiers, and as anyone would has any small scale (tens to at most couple hundred of combatants) fighting can devolve ranks clashing each other can devolve into brawls quite quickly and I would imagine turn out quite similarly if you most of are untrained conscript farmers. It those cases it very possible get lethal blows aimed at you in places that takes significant articulation skill to cover with plate, back in the knee, inside of elbow, armpit. Simply,it is much simplier to protect those places which very easy to severe or case massive bleeding with mail than with plate.It take alot of techlogical armoring prowess to render chainmail a useless thing to wear.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary T




Usergroups: None

Location: Missouri
Posts: 30
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Well, consider most conflict in the Early Middle Ages was predominated by foot skirmishes and ambushes and most soldiers were locally levied part time soldiers, and as anyone would has any small scale (tens to at most couple hundred of combatants) fighting can devolve ranks clashing each other can devolve into brawls quite quickly and I would imagine turn out quite similarly if you most of are untrained conscript farmers.


That's a rather broad and somewhat inaccurate picture. But I guess, what do you mean by "Early Middle Ages"? Perhaps Fall of Rome until Hastings? Also, the question is where during this time period? How far east or south will you go from the European Continent?

But staying in the boundries of Europe, We have the Spanish with some solid professionalism and cavalry. Same goes for the Normans, The Empire of Charlemagne just to name a few.

And while the Saxons and Scandanavians were predominantly foot, there was certainly some professionalism among these armies depending on the more specific who and where, but at a minimum The Anglo Saxon Huscarls and the Scandanavian Hird would be considered largely professional.
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Amt




Usergroups: None

Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 902
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 6:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Philip Dyer wrote:
Well, consider most conflict in the Early Middle Ages was predominated by foot skirmishes and ambushes and most soldiers were locally levied part time soldiers, and as anyone would has any small scale (tens to at most couple hundred of combatants) fighting can devolve ranks clashing each other can devolve into brawls quite quickly and I would imagine turn out quite similarly if you most of are untrained conscript farmers. It those cases it very possible get lethal blows aimed at you in places that takes significant articulation skill to cover with plate, back in the knee, inside of elbow, armpit. Simply,it is much simplier to protect those places which very easy to severe or case massive bleeding with mail than with plate.


I think we still have very different ideas about what warfare was like back then. From what I've seen, from any era in Europe, combat was based on lines. Those "untrained conscript farmers" were part of organized militia systems with regular musters, and if you wanted them to survive the day you taught them to STAY IN LINE. Almost none of them could afford any armor, so there was no point in worrying about armoring parts of their bodies that would normally only be at significant risk if they dropped their shields and tried to run away. Those who *could* afford armor also knew very well that formation=survival. If the enemy is behind you, you've already lost, whether you get hit or not.

Most of the Saxons at Hastings were conscripts, strictly speaking. But then, so were Greek hoplites (aside from Spartans!) and Republican Roman legionaries. The whole idea of clueless "peasant levies" toting pitchforks into battle is mostly a myth.

Quote:
It take alot of techlogical armoring prowess to render chainmail a useless thing to wear.


THAT I definitely agree with! It still has uses today.

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Philip Dyer




Usergroups: None


Posts: 175
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 7:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Matthew Amt wrote:
Philip Dyer wrote:
Well, consider most conflict in the Early Middle Ages was predominated by foot skirmishes and ambushes and most soldiers were locally levied part time soldiers, and as anyone would has any small scale (tens to at most couple hundred of combatants) fighting can devolve ranks clashing each other can devolve into brawls quite quickly and I would imagine turn out quite similarly if you most of are untrained conscript farmers. It those cases it very possible get lethal blows aimed at you in places that takes significant articulation skill to cover with plate, back in the knee, inside of elbow, armpit. Simply,it is much simplier to protect those places which very easy to severe or case massive bleeding with mail than with plate.


I think we still have very different ideas about what warfare was like back then. From what I've seen, from any era in Europe, combat was based on lines. Those "untrained conscript farmers" were part of organized militia systems with regular musters, and if you wanted them to survive the day you taught them to STAY IN LINE. Almost none of them could afford any armor, so there was no point in worrying about armoring parts of their bodies that would normally only be at significant risk if they dropped their shields and tried to run away. Those who *could* afford armor also knew very well that formation=survival. If the enemy is behind you, you've already lost, whether you get hit or not.

Most of the Saxons at Hastings were conscripts, strictly speaking. But then, so were Greek hoplites (aside from Spartans!) and Republican Roman legionaries. The whole idea of clueless "peasant levies" toting pitchforks into battle is mostly a myth.

Quote:
It take alot of techlogical armoring prowess to render chainmail a useless thing to wear.


THAT I definitely agree with! It still has uses today.

Matthew

First you don't have to be running away to be hit in armpit or cut in the back of the knee or neck or so on. Second, to say than all warfare or any era in Europe was based on lines in a gross over simplification which down the presence of columns, crown formation, wedge formations, etc. Also, from what I've read, the muster system was largely development of the High Middle Ages, along with Arms Azzizes, the expansions of preference of cities, all of where refined in late Middle Ages and Renaissance. Also, to demonstrate the relative (key word, relative) lack of discipline of Dark Age Armies, Harold Goodwinsion essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when his a good portion of his tired and impatient men broke formation and charged Norman's fighting retreat. They could won the day and force William and his army to leave if they just stay in shield wall longer. I agree that it is clueless peasant levy is probably not accurate but I think that is more a exaggeration, not complete fabrication.
View user's profile Send private message
Gary T




Usergroups: None

Location: Missouri
Posts: 30
PostPosted: Thu 04 Dec, 2014 7:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
Harold Goodwinsion essentially snatched defeat from the jaws of victory when his a good portion of his tired and impatient men broke formation and charged Norman's fighting retreat. They could won the day and force William and his army to leave if they just stay in shield wall longer.


Well, I would blame his Huscarls for getting over confident, Harold stayed in formation. Big Grin

But there are many many examples of later middle ages armies, even those that were thought to be more "regular" showing an inability to stay in formation, breaking when they seemed to have an advantage, overpursuing, etc. etc. etc.

Durazzo had the elite and regular Varangian Guard overpursue - same thing happened to various what I would consider somewhat regular Hellenistic pikemen - pursuing retreating romans into bad terrain and losing formation. THere were a few times late middle ages foot were routed by a small group of cavalry attacking from the front - though this was hardly the norm.

The thought of "Dark Ages" armies as peasants with little or no training is greatly greatly exaggerated.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > No greaves and vambraces in the early middle ages
Page 1 of 5 Reply to topic
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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 2003-2014 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum