| Author |
Message |
|
Irene Philips
Location: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 22 Oct 2010
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:43 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| James Holczer wrote: | | Not only is trying to draw a sword from a back mounted scabbard clumsy, time consuming and awkward, the very act leaves your body wide open and vulnerable. |
Y'know, I never thought of that. I always wondered why certain weapons were carried on the back, but the vulnerability aspect makes the decision to leave it on one's back even more silly. I already have enough trouble trying to grab stuff from my backpack without opening it. I can't imagine lifting a heavy sword out of my holster, over my head and attempting to swing it.
Of course, it's not something I ever thought of. When you DO think about how functional you would be, it doesn't make sense. I guess the only thing useful about keeping the sword on your back is that you look cool. . . but that's about it. 
Madame Irene
mittlerbros.com
|
|
  |
 |
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Irene Philips wrote: | | Of course, it's not something I ever thought of. When you DO think about how functional you would be, it doesn't make sense. I guess the only thing useful about keeping the sword on your back is that you look cool. . . but that's about it. |
Well not quite. The sword in the back is pretty much out of the way. A sword at your waist can get in the way of climbing or crawling through a tunnel for instance. In such a case, you may want the sword on your back. Which you remove, scabbard and all before you draw the weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Irene Philips wrote: | | Of course, it's not something I ever thought of. When you DO think about how functional you would be, it doesn't make sense. I guess the only thing useful about keeping the sword on your back is that you look cool. . . but that's about it. |
Well not quite. The sword in the back is pretty much out of the way. A sword at your waist can get in the way of climbing or crawling through a tunnel for instance. In such a case, you may want the sword on your back. Which you remove, scabbard and all before you draw the weapon. |
Climbing, take off the belt and loop it over your shoulder, or just rotate it around your waist so the sword is behind you. Crawling through a tunnel, take off the belt and push it before you - it would get even more in the way on your back than at your waist, anyway. In either case, there's simply no need for a special suspension system designed specifically for such rare special occasions.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to play along for a minute, when I've been in tight place trying to get through, the last thing I want is stuff on my back getting hung up. Getting stuck in a tight space is not much fun.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | Irene Philips wrote: | | Of course, it's not something I ever thought of. When you DO think about how functional you would be, it doesn't make sense. I guess the only thing useful about keeping the sword on your back is that you look cool. . . but that's about it. |
Well not quite. The sword in the back is pretty much out of the way. A sword at your waist can get in the way of climbing or crawling through a tunnel for instance. In such a case, you may want the sword on your back. Which you remove, scabbard and all before you draw the weapon. |
Climbing, take off the belt and loop it over your shoulder, or just rotate it around your waist so the sword is behind you. Crawling through a tunnel, take off the belt and push it before you - it would get even more in the way on your back than at your waist, anyway. In either case, there's simply no need for a special suspension system designed specifically for such rare special occasions. |
Just having the sword around the back still lets it get tangled up in your legs. But yes taking the belt off and looping it on your back works...and it still carring the sword on your back . As for crawling...and which hands do you plan on carrying the torch and digging tool with again? There are reasons to have the sword on your back. Not a lot mind you, but to say it NEVER comes up isn't really true now is it.
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Oct, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent C wrote: | | Could it be possible that for the sources in Scotland saying that the the islander highlander wore the two handed sword on the back, could this be used like carrying a flag around as identification? |
I've stayed quiet as long as I could.
Can't we let this silly thread die?
We have period wood cuts of Irish and Scottish (those islander highlander listed above) gallóglaigh carrying their Claidheamh Da Laimhs "across" their backs in the "shoulder arms" position.
We have period art of the landsknecht's carrying their Zweihänder "across" their backs in the "shoulder arms" position.
We have not one period piece of art showing carry a sword strapped on the back.or extant scabbard to carry a sword strapped on the back.
Cheers,
David
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Oct, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | As for crawling...and which hands do you plan on carrying the torch and digging tool with again? |
If you carry the sword on your back, where will you put your adventurer's backpack? What about the ten-foot pole?
Seriously, these scenarios do not come up often enough in real life that anyone would make plans, let alone equipment, specifically for them. Unless there was a Medieval martial order of cave spelunkers or something that I just haven't heard about. This is all pure speculation, verging on outright fantasy, and the thread is seriously beginning to repeat itself. I really don't think there's anything worthwhile left to be said about the subject.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've crawled through tunnels many times with a pretty big rifle (a FAL), and guess where I put it? Down the front of my body, with one end (preferably the muzzle) cradled in my arms. Slung on my back, the rifle is likely to snag against the walls of the tunnel and impede my forward progress, but when it's in front of me I can control where it goes with very little additional effort. I suspect the same principles would apply to carrying a sword while crawling through a tight space.
Torches and digging tools? Red herrings. If you have to hold a torch or dig your way ahead while crawling, you wouldn't be carrying a sword in the first place. Most probably you'd rely on your dagger, and you sure as hell aren't going to carry that with the hilt sticking up past your shoulder.
As for climbing, I've never done that with a sword on me, but if I ever do so I'd probably want to hang the sword down my front rather than my back, too. It's the controllability issue all over again. And, now that I think of it, I have done wall-climbing once with an unloaded carbine slung across my chest just for the fun of it. It got in the way a bit, but I suspect a weapon slung on the back would have been even more bothersome since it'd have more freedom to swing around and mess up your control over your center of gravity.
BTW, when it comes to historical examples to swords being carried on the back, we do have a very recent example: the sword-bayonets of some WW1 and WW2 American soldiers. I've seen some of these soldiers carry their bayonets along the left or right side of their knapsack (not across the face of the knapsack, of course!) so that the hilt sticks vertically up behind one shoulder. This makes sense for them since 1) the bayonet is short, 2) they have the knapsack to help them pull it off, and 3) a draw from this position puts the bayonet in a perfect position for fixing onto the muzzle of a gun. But that's pretty much the only example I know of a sword-like weapon being mounted on the back with the intent of being drawn over the shoulder, and doesn't validate the use of a back-mounted scabbard in other contexts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | As for crawling...and which hands do you plan on carrying the torch and digging tool with again? |
If you carry the sword on your back, where will you put your adventurer's backpack? What about the ten-foot pole?
Seriously, these scenarios do not come up often enough in real life that anyone would make plans, let alone equipment, specifically for them. Unless there was a Medieval martial order of cave spelunkers or something that I just haven't heard about. This is all pure speculation, verging on outright fantasy, and the thread is seriously beginning to repeat itself. I really don't think there's anything worthwhile left to be said about the subject. |
Umm you do know that sapping castle walls was a common tactic right? And it usually involved tunnels...and there are accounts of people fighting in said tunnels. I do admit that a sword would not be exactly my first choice in such a case...but meh. As for specialized equpiment, a couple pieces of leather to tie a loop and sling the sword over your shoulder which took almost no money (for the era) and is pretty quick. I think our ancestors could make a loop when it was convient to have the sword a bit more out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ITorches and digging tools? Red herrings. If you have to hold a torch or dig your way ahead while crawling, you wouldn't be carrying a sword in the first place. Most probably you'd rely on your dagger, and you sure as hell aren't going to carry that with the hilt sticking up past your shoulder.
As for climbing, I've never done that with a sword on me, but if I ever do so I'd probably want to hang the sword down my front rather than my back, too. It's the controllability issue all over again. And, now that I think of it, I have done wall-climbing once with an unloaded carbine slung across my chest just for the fun of it. It got in the way a bit, but I suspect a weapon slung on the back would have been even more bothersome since it'd have more freedom to swing around and mess up your control over your center of gravity.
|
I think my idea of crawling isn't quite the same as yours. I was thing alongs the lines of a sapping and siege tunnel...which while tight and you may need to get on hands and feet at some points was not a belly crawling afair...usually. I do agree that you would usually want your dagger over the sword...but some of those tunnels got pretty big at places...big enough where a sword was an option.
As for climbing, I have had to climb with my hunting rifles at may points in time (loaded at times as I didn't have an option). As long as you strap it to your back tight, it's really not any more of an issue then if you do it tight to the front. The key is to strap it TIGHT. Most people for some unknown reason will strap tight when the object is up front but lets the object be slung loose and floppy when carried on the back.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Umm you do know that sapping castle walls was a common tactic right? And it usually involved tunnels...and there are accounts of people fighting in said tunnels. I do admit that a sword would not be exactly my first choice in such a case...but meh. As for specialized equpiment, a couple pieces of leather to tie a loop and sling the sword over your shoulder which took almost no money (for the era) and is pretty quick. I think our ancestors could make a loop when it was convient to have the sword a bit more out of the way. |
Yes, sapping was a common maneuver in siege warfare, but it wasn't done with long swords.
| P. Cha wrote: | | I think my idea of crawling isn't quite the same as yours. I was thing alongs the lines of a sapping and siege tunnel...which while tight and you may need to get on hands and feet at some points was not a belly crawling afair...usually. I do agree that you would usually want your dagger over the sword...but some of those tunnels got pretty big at places...big enough where a sword was an option. |
But with tunnels that roomy, why not just keep the sword at your waist where you can actually draw it if need be - or, better yet, ready in your hand since apparently you're expecting imminent violence down there (otherwise, why bother bringing the damn thing at all)?
Seriously, having a long (or even relatively short) sword on your back in such cramped quarters would actually be more awkward than carrying it at your waist.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't forget your Uzi's...
as we all know:
If they had them they would have used them
and
The absence of evidence is not proof of their absence...
as Uzis would be quite handy for cover fire while drawing your back mounted Zweihänder in a tunnel while fighting as a sapper while sapping castle walls...  
Here is a real crazy idea, if sappers dug into a tunnel or counter-sappers dug into a sapping tunnel what if the weapons they fought with were the very tools they were digging with? 
Crazy, huh.
And what do you think the chances really are that the period art of great swords being carried shoulder arms is the way they did it  I think quite higher than the Uzi's...
Cheers,
David
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Mon 01 Nov, 2010 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | But with tunnels that roomy, why not just keep the sword at your waist where you can actually draw it if need be - or, better yet, ready in your hand since apparently you're expecting imminent violence down there (otherwise, why bother bringing the damn thing at all)?
Seriously, having a long (or even relatively short) sword on your back in such cramped quarters would actually be more awkward than carrying it at your waist. |
Because it's not that roomy at ALL places. You need to move through cramped areas. The areas where your gonna be working with your tools will most likely be quite a tight fit as well. As long as the strap you use keeps the sword tight and the sword hilt isn't long enough to stick up above your head, it's really not a bad way to carry a sword while leaving hands free and your legs untangled. Honestly, it's really hard for you to grasp that making a tight loop from cheap materials around the camp to keep something out of the way is so hard for you to think as a plausible thing to have been done?!? I do it all the time today. I have tied down rifles to my back using para cords. I honestly don't think that our ancestors would be stupid enough that they can't do something like that when it warrants such.
|
|
|
|
|
Mikko Kuusirati
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Nov, 2010 12:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="P. Cha"] | Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | | Because it's not that roomy at ALL places. You need to move through cramped areas. The areas where your gonna be working with your tools will most likely be quite a tight fit as well. As long as the strap you use keeps the sword tight and the sword hilt isn't long enough to stick up above your head, it's really not a bad way to carry a sword while leaving hands free and your legs untangled. Honestly, it's really hard for you to grasp that making a tight loop from cheap materials around the camp to keep something out of the way is so hard for you to think as a plausible thing to have been done?!? |
Not hard, just wildly impractical.
If there's no room to carry a sword, there's no room to draw or use it, either - just leave your's behind at the camp before your teammates finally have enough of it getting in the way and beat you up with it. If you're too fancy to hit people with your shovel (a surprisingly effective sharp implement in its own right), a big dagger will be blade enough for anything you come across down there.
Seriously, sappers did not have underground swordfights. The tunnels they dug were exactly as compact as they could get away with, and the odds of being beset by enemies underground in a space large enough for swords was at the very bottom of a VERY LONG list of much more important things to worry about.
"And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
— Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Tue 02 Nov, 2010 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: | If there's no room to carry a sword, there's no room to draw or use it, either - just leave your's behind at the camp before your teammates finally have enough of it getting in the way and beat you up with it. If you're too fancy to hit people with your shovel (a surprisingly effective sharp implement in its own right), a big dagger will be blade enough for anything you come across down there.
Seriously, sappers did not have underground swordfights. The tunnels they dug were exactly as compact as they could get away with, and the odds of being beset by enemies underground in a space large enough for swords was at the very bottom of a VERY LONG list of much more important things to worry about. |
Once again, your assuming it'll be uniform all the way. Siege tunnel were not. On a tour of the rock of gibraltar, you can see large areas where yes you could indeed have enough room for a sword fight...with a group of people no less. To GET there, it wasn't quite that spacious. In fact the tour guide even goes to say that, why yes they did in fact fight, quite a bit in those tunnels (albiet not really with swords by that era). Yes if you have a fast seige, you will not have any large chambers...or have counter tunnelers meeting up with you...but your chances of having a fast seige is pretty slim. And with tunneling, counter tunneling, counter counter tunneling etc etc, it's not as neat and uniform as you seem to think it ought to be. And not only that I even said it was UNLIKELY...but you know what, if I was going through a seige at the rock of gibraltar at an earlier era, I would bring my sword with me. Strapped to my back tight so I can bend over and crawl when I need to. There is plenty of areas where that sword may have to be drawn and used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Nov, 2010 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | Here is a real crazy idea, if sappers dug into a tunnel or counter-sappers dug into a sapping tunnel what if the weapons they fought with were the very tools they were digging with?
Crazy, huh. |
Yes, it's an idea so crazy and stupid that most sappers in the period actually did it. They must all have been idiots. I share your pain. *shakes head*
| P. Cha wrote: | | Once again, your assuming it'll be uniform all the way. Siege tunnel were not. On a tour of the rock of gibraltar, you can see large areas where yes you could indeed have enough room for a sword fight...with a group of people no less. To GET there, it wasn't quite that spacious. In fact the tour guide even goes to say that, why yes they did in fact fight, quite a bit in those tunnels (albiet not really with swords by that era). Yes if you have a fast seige, you will not have any large chambers...or have counter tunnelers meeting up with you...but your chances of having a fast seige is pretty slim. And with tunneling, counter tunneling, counter counter tunneling etc etc, it's not as neat and uniform as you seem to think it ought to be. And not only that I even said it was UNLIKELY...but you know what, if I was going through a seige at the rock of gibraltar at an earlier era, I would bring my sword with me. Strapped to my back tight so I can bend over and crawl when I need to. There is plenty of areas where that sword may have to be drawn and used. |
If there's enough room for a swordfight, there's going to be room to swing picks and shovels. Or, if we're thinking about thrusts, there's going to be enough room to jab a spade or a trowel, too. Modern archaeologists usually sharpen their pointed trowels, and I personally know someone who had been accidentally stabbed in the arm with one. It wasn't pleasant, I tell you. Sharpened spades have also been a staple weapon for modern soldiers since at least World War I. The Spetsnaz (Russian special forces) even specialize in it, including in techniques for throwing it with deadly effect over short distances. So, with this surfeit of tools that can be turned into deadly weapons with barely any effort at all, I don't see why the sappers using them would even need to carry swords.
Now, there were instances of swordfights occurring in mining and countermining operations. But the people involved in these were generally not the miners/sappers themselves--I think I've read at least two 16th-century accounts where sword-and-target men were purposely deployed a short distance behind the actual sappers, ready to relieve them as soon as combat begins in earnest. In this case, there was no need for the sappers to carry swords either. That was the job of the dedicated swordsmen, who already had their swords drawn and wouldn't have needed a back-mounted scabbard to carry them!
As for crawling, I should have made it clear that I meant both kinds of crawling--flat to the ground on my belly, and raised up on all fours. In both cases I found it much more convenient to have the rifle down my front than on my back. Even when the rifle is hanging a bit loose beneath my body as I crawl ahead on all fours, the worst it could do was to smack my balls a little--not enough to be any serious nuisance, and certainly nothing compared to the unpleasant chock as a rifle on my back digs into a tunnel wall and scoops up a handful of earth into the muzzle. This last concern wouldn't have been quite as important with a sword, but having it in front still makes it easier to see and control where the crossguard goes, even when it's not strapped tightly to my chest. That's definitely what I'd do in preference to strapping the sword to my back, where I wouldn't have been able to watch where it goes.
So yeah. Assuming that I'd need a sword at all in a tunnel--which is pretty unlikely unless I was a sword-and-target man standing in reserve, for which I definitely wouldn't have needed a back-mounted scabbard, what with my sword being already in my hand--I would rather hang my scabbard down my front than up my back. Unlike a back-mounted scabbard, a scabbard stuck in front is quite easy to manipulate in these situations even if not tightly strapped, and it's much easier to drop too if I had to run/crawl away in a hurry!
(Ever noticed that Cossacks in WW1 and Russian Civil War photographs tend to carry their rifles across their chests rather than their backs? They knew what to do as cavalrymen who often had to fight dismounted and/or keep their weapons safe when they fell from their horses. I would have done the same if I had a spare sword that wouldn't fit on my hip (and no servant or squire I could bully into carrying it for me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connor Ruebusch
Location: Cincinnati Joined: 10 Nov 2009
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Nov, 2010 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems that we may also be forgetting another aspect of the fight. Forgive me if someone has already mentioned this, but if you are expecting a fight, whether in a tunnel or a field, you probably would not have a scabbard with you at all. Why bring a device built for transporting your blade when you can just carry it in your hands? No one wants that scabbard slapping around while you fight, no matter if it's at your hip or your back. I bet those sword and buckler men behind the sappers didn't stand around with sheathed blades until they were needed. If they were in that tunnel expecting an altercation, I can guarantee that they'd be standing with bared blades, ready to fight the moment the fight broke out.
Now traveling... then you might have a sheathed sword on your person, because it's far easier to carry over long distances. But we're talking an awful lot about soldiers using scabbards, and I do believe there is ample evidence for soldiers just carrying their swords into battle. Unless the sword is a secondary weapon, I guess, but then you'd hardly want it to be on your back in that case either, would you?
I think some people are just getting caught up in the ninja mythology. You know, silent assassin climbs up the side of an elegant manse, ready to deal death to his target (exclusively by hand, for some reason), stealthily drawing his blade over his shoulder because it looks so awesome. But the fact of the matter is, that just didn't happen. In fact, it'd be far more likely to have some grungy fellow climbing up a slippery latrine chute, most likely without a sword at all, as those do tend to get in the way when one is trying to scramble through a sewer.
Connor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Nov, 2010 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Connor Ruebusch wrote: | | I bet those sword and buckler men behind the sappers didn't stand around with sheathed blades until they were needed. If they were in that tunnel expecting an altercation, I can guarantee that they'd be standing with bared blades, ready to fight the moment the fight broke out. |
Exactly. Except that these guys were sword-andtarget men, not sword-and-buckler men. They had big shields strapped to the arm rather than small fist-gripped bucklers, and that was a distinction constantly maintained and stressed by contemporary authors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Nov, 2010 12:30 pm Post subject: Historical back scabbards! |
|
|
And now for some historical back scabbards! Celtic even!
Mike Loades, in his new book, "Swords and Swordsmen", has some period art of Celtic back scabbards, and a reconstruction - the Withernsea chalk figure warrior, pg 57. M. J. Aldhouse-Green, An archaeology of images: iconology and cosmology in Iron Age and Roman Europe, pg 29 also shows this figure, but doesn't show the back, so the back scabbard is only just visible in profile.
Loades suggests that this arrangement is to keep the scabbard from dangling around the legs when jumping in an out of chariots. The reconstruction he gives has the belt going through a scabbard slide, but with the sword worn on the outside, where it will flop around and be easier to lose (more force on the scabbard slide) instead of the more common sword between belt and wearer, scabbard slide on the outside. Loades says that this might be so that the sword + scabbard can pivot, so that it can be turned to a position where it can be drawn from. The chalk figure supports this.
(Haven't read the Loades book yet, just flipped through it, so no review yet.)
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Nov, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the description you have provided I'm more inclined to interpret this as a loop over the should hanging high under the arm, and to the side, than something hanging down the back. Just can't visualize the sliding and tilting on the back, but then again, I'm not reading the book or looking at the illustration in question. On another note, I'd be very careful about interpreting a chalk drawing...mucho potential for wishful thinking there.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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