| Author |
Message
|
| Mordag McCallen |
 Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:43 pm Post subject: Lets get medieval |
 |
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 409
Location: Bunker
|
Enough of hijacking.
Here we might keep prooving each other wrong Jay 
| J8 Skall wrote: |
I realise Wikipedia isnt the best source, but its late, and all I could find int the small hours of the morning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights#The_decline_of_the_medieval_knight
Here is the link, and that in itself includes some more sources.
The decline of knights wasn't my point anyways, my point was made, but just proving your dismissal off what I said wrong  .
Wikipedia is just the basic though, and can be bias, I assure you if you research around the topic you will find I was right. |
Well, the article is rather missleading. I will grant that plate might have stopped a bullet and also might have not. Though we also need to count if the guy inside survived even without piercing the armor.
The thing, there is no norms in medieval times. There are no two same platemails found. They did have variety of quality of material as well as thickness of material. Also, the load of each shot was every time different.
Obviously, 17th century chestplate could hold a bullet, or at least some of them could:
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=10425
On the other hand, the testing I was talking about that typical 1,6mm medieval chestplate offers very little resistance from handheld guns fired from 15 meters:
http://www.brodabohemicalis.wz.cz/Fotky2/Test_kyrys2.jpg
A bow made a scratch without deformation.
Crossbow of force of 110 kg deformated the piece slighty as well as scratched.
Pipe gun (ancestor of arkebuz) .56 made from direct fire a hole, from angle it managed only to deform but not penetrate entirely.
Arkebuz .69 with round bullet Sn+Pb, 31g made the largest hole in the plate when fired directly. The huge deformation is made from indirect fire. To add, the arkebut was able to penetrae even on sides of the plate, where you have the plate strongest thanks to typical dual layer of plate.
Also, the article is sort of saying what I said with development of armors to only strong chetplate and helmet. Where I stated that reinforced armor (and yes, it was dual layer, sometimes 2mm thick) could stand the fire.
To add, for some reason article is comparing 17th century chestplate to 16th tournament armor, which has sadly nothing to do with battle armor, since tournament armor was single purpose, restricting in many moves and reinforced on specific places, while battle armor was almost non-restrictive to variety of movements and thinner, yet more averagely distributed.
As for the armor covering from all sides, that doesnt mean that battles were not fought in formations. Only effective way to destroy formation is to brake trough line and cause chaos among the ranks, or flank it, thats where the armor covering even back comes into play. Though this is nothing new on battlefield, celtic tribes were for example using bee nests hurled on roman shield fomrations, forcing soldiers to spread and then it came to "come from every side hack and slash". Typicaly side that started with formation and managed to hold it won the battle.
Just on sidenote as a curiosity, I am sure as hell I wouldnt like to be hit with higher caliber, this is imperial guard armor, therefore quite high quality, sadly, thanks to date it is no longer medieval in my eyes:
_________________
 Cpt. Mordag McCallen, BEng(1), SrTech 1st class |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| J8 Skall |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Location: God knows.....Follow the trail of blood
|
Alrighty,
Now let me state my arguements very simply, then elaborate furth on those that I haven't already done to death.
> Your architypal medieval knight did not go into decline due to becomeing any less effective as a war'machine', but rather due to a shift in culture and economic matters.
> Although a matchlock or flintlock musket could have killed a knight, this is irrelevant, as on the field of combat the two never met, unless some little documented eccentric lord put on some armour and charged a gunline a century or so after it was out of fashion.
> A gun, at the time known as a handcannon, is not a bad weapon, but it was not the reason for the end of the knightly era.
Now, the guns we are talking about are not matchlock muskets, or even arbesques (sp?), but simply 'hand cannons'. These were crude, slow to load, useless in the wet, short ranged and inaccurate. They were not an amazing new weapon that wiped out knights, infact they probabally wouldn't kill a knight, the reasons being;
> Fear, a line of knights, charging on horses the size of a small car, is going to be terrifying, the ground will shake, the noise will be thundering and thats before you get to the fact they want you dead. You will be scared, and by the time you get to fire they are close, so your unlikely to be able to aim an already inaccurate weapon properly... That's supposing you stand your ground.
> Range, if that handcannon kills at 15m, and even past the plate mail it has chainmail and padding/leather... But I agree a hit would knock a knight out. So you get off one volley at 15m, you are then 2 seconds away from death. A horse at full pelt can cover 5 meters a second, even heavily armoured. There is simply no time to reload even if you could hold it together enough to do so. Two centuries later cavalry begin to become obselete in warfair due to muskets that could be fired in 15 seconds by trained soldiers in 'square' formation... But we aren't at that stage yet.
> Armour, although not designed for it, at anything less than point blank range would liekly as not protect the knight, and even the horse might survive a shot.
Now a gun had it's advantages. They were relatively cheap, when compared to a well made bow, they required very little training, whereas a longbow would be taught from pretty much birth, and they mad eloud bangs, which frightened people.
I still maintain though that the guns you are talking about appeared over a century after a medieval knight had left the field. That imperial guard armour, although I can't proffess to be expert enough to say where it came from, looks to be around the Napoleonic age, give or take fifty years. That is a whole new theatre of war, they have muskets, proper artillery, bombs, grenades, rifled barrels, volley guns and countless other things.
The reason knights left the field was because a rich land owner could pay his dues to the king without risking his life and wealth by sending proffessional troops he pays for. Knights were rich businessmen, and as the age of tourneys passed being a classical knight wasn't very profitable. It meant you got seven shades of shit knocked out of you frequently, you had to train constantly, and risk your life occasionally, and ontop of that the Church of Rome wasn't all too keen on knights, and often excommunicated them - Which was a big deal at the time.
Overall, being a rich business person or feudal lord suited the knight, and having 100+ troops instead of a grumpy noble suited the King, afterall they were about the same price, and one could hold a castle, the other could be out of action with an unlucky blow or one too many ales.
The time when guns began to make medieval amour, indeed most armour, useless, was after the Medieval knight had left wars and replaced himself with troops, this is the age of Roundheads and Cavaliers and the like. The stripping down in armour came because an army couldn't equip all its troops with head to foot armour, and the training needed to use it, and it was just coincidence that in the decades later the armour would have become obselete anyways, so their focus on vitals like the head and torso was driven again by money. It is convenient that this became the accepted state of warefare before knightly armour was rendered obselete.
Then on the attack an army could muster was usually impossible to defend against in the field. Then the sheer number of troops, and their training and logistics played much more of a part.
The Napoleonic age heralded a time that has extended to the present day, where the offensive capabilites of a military, when brought to bear in a straight shoot out, will annihilate each other no nearly every level of combat, from a shoot out to a dogfight, or even nuclear war. Hence why camoflage, stealth, trenches and other countermeasures are so popular now, we still havent balanced our defensive capabilites to match offense, and thus rely on training and brains to even the score. Only exception really to the above is the tank, others, like aircraft, navies and soldiers usualy are lucky to be able to take a hit and remain operational, and this has been shown in eveyr major conflict since World War Two, granted there has only been one major conflict between 'blue water' navies (the Falklands).
_________________
Jay Skall
(All arguements [or discussion points] stated above are the player's opinion only, they are not truth from on high, the subversive whisperings of satan or the grunted rumblings of a troll... Incase you were struggling with the concept...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mordag McCallen |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 409
Location: Bunker
|
[quote="J8 Skall"]Alrighty,
Now let me state my arguements very simply, then elaborate furth on those that I haven't already done to death.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > Your architypal medieval knight did not go into decline due to becomeing any less effective as a war'machine', but rather due to a shift in culture and economic matters. |
Yes, on that I previously agreed. Knights becoming quickly leveled by inhabitants of the city in wealth and therefore gear were no longer exclusive elite warrior caste, also the techniques and weapons that were developed were serving much to their downfall. As I stated before, guns had part of the impact on fall of achetypal knight, no matter how obscure term it is trough the course of centuries. I also admit a straight shift in perception of life with humanism of renaisance, changed from (this is a bit myth still, but) the warrior knight to much more decadent version of a noble. So I practicaly agree with your statement as in general downfall of knights ideal, and weaponry and fighting techniques as a factor for shift of gear.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > Although a matchlock or flintlock musket could have killed a knight, this is irrelevant, as on the field of combat the two never met, unless some little documented eccentric lord put on some armour and charged a gunline a century or so after it was out of fashion. |
Gunpowder weapons were first introduced in 14th century, the first one was called Loshult gun, comming from scandinavia. Ever since then guns were more and more used on battlefields. Then the "Pipe gun" or "Píšťala" (origin of the word Pistol, by the way) started to be deployed on the field more and more often. And it is typical example of handhelg canon. This one was by the way included in example. Then havier version, "Hákovnice", or the "Hook guns", was introduced at the start of 15th century and were widely and succesfully used in central europe. From them "Hackenbüchse" or "Arkebuz" evolved at the start of 16th century. This was time where cavalry armor was at its top (german Maxmilian armor for example:  ) , from this stage, cavalry armor is getting lighter and lighter while gunpowder weapons better and better.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > A gun, at the time known as a handcannon, is not a bad weapon, but it was not the reason for the end of the knightly era. |
No, definitly not alone. And definitly not the main reason of change of mindset.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| Now, the guns we are talking about are not matchlock muskets, or even arbesques (sp?), but simply 'hand cannons'. These were crude, slow to load, useless in the wet, short ranged and inaccurate. They were not an amazing new weapon that wiped out knights, infact they probabally wouldn't kill a knight, the reasons being; |
Yes, crude, slow to load, innacurate, shooting effectively at range of 100 meters. Lets not forget yu are using first time in history a valley fire (15th century, Husites) which generaly has aim not to hit single person, but to hit a formation of people. Even when you cannot shot at specific target your chance to hit someone in a unit is high.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > Fear, a line of knights, charging on horses the size of a small car, is going to be terrifying, the ground will shake, the noise will be thundering and thats before you get to the fact they want you dead. You will be scared, and by the time you get to fire they are close, so your unlikely to be able to aim an already inaccurate weapon properly... That's supposing you stand your ground. |
Indeed so, thats why those guns were operated past the pavises, the line of guns fired and switched with halberdiers making spear wall to meet the cavalry. It is not unknown for footmen formation to divert atack of cavalry this way. Even more effective strategy was introduced by before mentioned Husites who were typicaly meeting cavalry charge past mobile wall of wagons from which they fired those handcanons (every wagon had one as was stated in military order) and at the same time polearms were keeping cavalry far.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > Range, if that handcannon kills at 15m, and even past the plate mail it has chainmail and padding/leather... But I agree a hit would knock a knight out. So you get off one volley at 15m, you are then 2 seconds away from death. A horse at full pelt can cover 5 meters a second, even heavily armoured. There is simply no time to reload even if you could hold it together enough to do so. Two centuries later cavalry begin to become obselete in warfair due to muskets that could be fired in 15 seconds by trained soldiers in 'square' formation... But we aren't at that stage yet. |
As stated above, effective range as for power is considered 100 meters. 15 meters was range used during the test because of before mentioned inacuracy of the gun.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| > Armour, although not designed for it, at anything less than point blank range would liekly as not protect the knight, and even the horse might survive a shot. |
Thats a thing we have to try yet, any volunteers?
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| Now a gun had it's advantages. They were relatively cheap, when compared to a well made bow, they required very little training, whereas a longbow would be taught from pretty much birth, and they mad eloud bangs, which frightened people. |
Longbow is regionaly typical weapon. In most of europe there were crosbows in use, for same reasons as you stated for guns. Easy to operate, cheap and (whats more important) faster made. Yes, the bang given a certain advantage not only against people, but also had its effect on horses.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| I still maintain though that the guns you are talking about appeared over a century after a medieval knight had left the field. That imperial guard armour, although I can't proffess to be expert enough to say where it came from, looks to be around the Napoleonic age, give or take fifty years. That is a whole new theatre of war, they have muskets, proper artillery, bombs, grenades, rifled barrels, volley guns and countless other things. |
Of course you are right, it is napoleonic armor, as I stated, it was out of the topic. I just like, the hole was made by small field canon. And yes, whole new theatre, thats why I said it is just for the nioce looks of it.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| The reason knights left the field was because a rich land owner could pay his dues to the king without risking his life and wealth by sending proffessional troops he pays for. Knights were rich businessmen, and as the age of tourneys passed being a classical knight wasn't very profitable. It meant you got seven shades of shit knocked out of you frequently, you had to train constantly, and risk your life occasionally, and ontop of that the Church of Rome wasn't all too keen on knights, and often excommunicated them - Which was a big deal at the time. |
No argue. The new heavy cavalry was professional soldiers, but the change in armor affected even them.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| Overall, being a rich business person or feudal lord suited the knight, and having 100+ troops instead of a grumpy noble suited the King, afterall they were about the same price, and one could hold a castle, the other could be out of action with an unlucky blow or one too many ales. |
Not sure I understand this exactly right, but I think even there I agree.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| The time when guns began to make medieval amour, indeed most armour, useless, was after the Medieval knight had left wars and replaced himself with troops, this is the age of Roundheads and Cavaliers and the like. The stripping down in armour came because an army couldn't equip all its troops with head to foot armour, and the training needed to use it, and it was just coincidence that in the decades later the armour would have become obselete anyways, so their focus on vitals like the head and torso was driven again by money. It is convenient that this became the accepted state of warefare before knightly armour was rendered obselete. |
See my point of view on this above. And of course, even this has in my perception of istory place, along with what I said above.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| Then on the attack an army could muster was usually impossible to defend against in the field. Then the sheer number of troops, and their training and logistics played much more of a part. |
The more closer to modern warfare, the more, yes.
| J8 Skall wrote: |
| The Napoleonic age heralded a time that has extended to the present day, where the offensive capabilites of a military, when brought to bear in a straight shoot out, will annihilate each other no nearly every level of combat, from a shoot out to a dogfight, or even nuclear war. Hence why camoflage, stealth, trenches and other countermeasures are so popular now, we still havent balanced our defensive capabilites to match offense, and thus rely on training and brains to even the score. Only exception really to the above is the tank, others, like aircraft, navies and soldiers usualy are lucky to be able to take a hit and remain operational, and this has been shown in eveyr major conflict since World War Two, granted there has only been one major conflict between 'blue water' navies (the Falklands). |
Well, the tank is no exception, not so long ago it had guaranteed field survivability under 1 minute.
And our armor has moved from our body further. We defend our body by shooting incomming nukes out of skies. Age of active defense.
_________________
Cpt. Mordag McCallen, BEng(1), SrTech 1st class |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| J8 Skall |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Location: God knows.....Follow the trail of blood
|
So you agree with me now?
And I know tanks aren't invulnerable, but are generally better able to take a direct hit from an anit tank weapon than a person is able to take a bullet, an aircraft take a missile, and a shit take a torpedo or exocet. They ofcourse aren't super weapons, far from it, but their countermeasures are somehat unique in that a tank relies on armour, the rest rely on not being hit in the first place, as a very broad generalisation.
_________________
Jay Skall
(All arguements [or discussion points] stated above are the player's opinion only, they are not truth from on high, the subversive whisperings of satan or the grunted rumblings of a troll... Incase you were struggling with the concept...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mordag McCallen |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 409
Location: Bunker
|
| J8 Skall wrote: |
So you agree with me now?
And I know tanks aren't invulnerable, but are generally better able to take a direct hit from an anit tank weapon than a person is able to take a bullet, an aircraft take a missile, and a shit take a torpedo or exocet. They ofcourse aren't super weapons, far from it, but their countermeasures are somehat unique in that a tank relies on armour, the rest rely on not being hit in the first place, as a very broad generalisation. |
Well, the agreement is only partial. As there is never only one factor involved in the process of change in history and all is tied together to simply say that only this caused whole change of era. Two points of view, same thing and various things stressed out as major. And few mistakes or missconceptions, perhaps on both sides, hopefully corrected now.
Well, compared to trooper, tank has very limited ability to hide which makes it a good target. I wouldnt bet on either. Winner is the general back home in atom shelter. 
_________________
Cpt. Mordag McCallen, BEng(1), SrTech 1st class |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| J8 Skall |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Location: God knows.....Follow the trail of blood
|
I didn't say tank was better. It hate being in a tank, it looks hellish.
I just said they are really the only class of combat unit, with APCs, where the defensive capability is still armour, and not interception, flares or stealth.
_________________
Jay Skall
(All arguements [or discussion points] stated above are the player's opinion only, they are not truth from on high, the subversive whisperings of satan or the grunted rumblings of a troll... Incase you were struggling with the concept...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mordag McCallen |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 409
Location: Bunker
|
| J8 Skall wrote: |
I didn't say tank was better. It hate being in a tank, it looks hellish.
I just said they are really the only class of combat unit, with APCs, where the defensive capability is still armour, and not interception, flares or stealth. |
And even that is no more true. Modern tanks have active defences, shooting incomming projectiles as far as I am aware. Might be wrong, better ask someone more knowledgable on tank topic.
_________________
Cpt. Mordag McCallen, BEng(1), SrTech 1st class |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quentin Morrisey |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
| You two should just kiss. *hides* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Oceania Goodliffe |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 759
Location: The Twilight Zone
|
| Mitchell Howlett wrote: |
| You two should just kiss. *hides* |
i'm sure Jay would enjoy that
_________________
B.I.T.C.H. (Babe In Total Control of Herself)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oceaniagoodliffe/
Sometimes you don't need good to fight evil, you need a different kind of evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Charles Noble |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
| Mordag McCallen wrote: |
| J8 Skall wrote: |
I didn't say tank was better. It hate being in a tank, it looks hellish.
I just said they are really the only class of combat unit, with APCs, where the defensive capability is still armour, and not interception, flares or stealth. |
And even that is no more true. Modern tanks have active defences, shooting incomming projectiles as far as I am aware. Might be wrong, better ask someone more knowledgable on tank topic. |
Ablative armour is a counter measure which repels impact with a counter explosion.
Really though my area of warfare expertise is battle ships from conception right through to dis use.
If you want a thread on that I'm sure would be interesting for me but prolly very few others |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mordag McCallen |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 409
Location: Bunker
|
I am open to all new information, Charles. In fact you can say it here, since we are already kissing each other with Jay.
_________________
Cpt. Mordag McCallen, BEng(1), SrTech 1st class |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Charles Noble |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guest
|
nah I think we all waiting for the kiss.
but simpliefied
england had good ship building resources, henry 8th designed the first purpose built battleship, built a navy, england terrorises the waves by
blowing up enemy ports with floating fortresses.
Goes on for some time, the navy gets bigger, 1st major victory is against spanish armarda , ships generally get bigger, improvement in navagation and ship designs all the way up to the american war of independence
when we first encounter the american built iron clads. which had a handy little ram spike till that point ships were attacked above the water line.
the american iron clads sat low in the water so must cannons could not be brought to bare on them, and they could also rupture hulls of wooden ships and cause them to sink. Also they had a tiltable rotating cannon meaning that they could bring their cannon to bare on the enemy ship by turning the cannon not the ship, first example of a turret really. Till that point you had to bring all your cannons to bare on an enemy.
so we go to iron hulls in the uk, iron is a smaller resource in the uk and so is coal, of course the arrival of steam changes things too.. steam powered iron clad battle ships. yay..turrets of course make their appearance proper just prior to world war two and these are now firing high velocity shells from a greater distance , totally able to blow the crap out of towns miles from port now.
minor developments in armenents of course the replacing of cannons with shells lead to the later world war 2 era battle ships ironically the last battle ships really..
And these ships were generally HUGE. such beauties as the Bismach, and its two smaller sisters, and the japanesse super battle ships the yamato..the biggest battle ship ever made... of course the pacific opperation introduced the air craft carrier... and this was the downfall of the battle ship.
Mobile floating aircraft runways on which planes could land and refuel was pretty much the end of the battle ship, it was no longer neccessary to shell enemy from a few miles at see, now one could sit their carrier 50 or so miles away from enemy fire and launch areoplanes at them.
course submarines also really made their pressence felt during world war 2 though they had been around a while, their effectivness against battle ships was devestating.
So really the battle ship was simply replaced by aircraft carriers and smaller mine sweepers, the battle ship was simply made redundent as it didn't need to shell or shoot enemy fortifications at sea anymore.
thats battle ships in a nutshell.
sure theres more to it, but thats the laymans for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| J8 Skall |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Location: God knows.....Follow the trail of blood
|
I like battleships too, though I don't know if I have a great deal of knowledge about them. Cept I read all the Hornblower books  .
Think I knew pretty much all that, but then, as Charle's said, it's basic. Shame we skipped from the independance war to Dreadnoughts though, missed out our crowning glory as a seafaring nation, Trafalgar.
Guess us Brits just know the bits of warefare and history we were world beaters at, our military is still great, but it isn't the dominant force in the world, far from it.
Shame noone actually knows how good current battleships, or indeed any naval vessel is, as the only big battle since WW2 was the Falklands, which just showed any surface ship is very vulnerable to missile attack, whichever navy it's in. We also didn't give the Argies much of a chance, they were piddling about with old US cruisers and the french had only given them 5 Exocets that could be launched from a plane. And we destroyed their airforce in the threatre to boot.
I suspect though that if two proper navies met the number of ships sunk and deaths would be sickening, as missiles can be launched so far away below radar and are so hard to detect... and it only takes one hole.
It's quite a shame really, they look pretty, submarines are a poor replacement, not quite as romantic.
It's just a shame Chuck you spelt Bismarck wrong...
/me tuts "spelling is SO important..."
As for the counter explosions on tank armour, and the new forecfields the Isrealis have in development, I admit they are more high tech countermeasures, but a tank is still based around the idea of taking fire in a way other units aren't.
And who is Jay supposed to be bit...kissing?
I'm also regretting writing so much, and prolly making a fair few points people wont agree with, I am very poor at ending threads.
_________________
Jay Skall
(All arguements [or discussion points] stated above are the player's opinion only, they are not truth from on high, the subversive whisperings of satan or the grunted rumblings of a troll... Incase you were struggling with the concept...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quentin Morrisey |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 34
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| J8 Skall |
| Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 788
Location: God knows.....Follow the trail of blood
|
/me nibbles Mordag
"Tough outside, soft gooey centre... But not very sweet..."
_________________
Jay Skall
(All arguements [or discussion points] stated above are the player's opinion only, they are not truth from on high, the subversive whisperings of satan or the grunted rumblings of a troll... Incase you were struggling with the concept...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
