*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 07:53:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Donate

We Appreciate Your Support

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 1686616
  • Total Topics: 118113
  • Online Today: 777
  • Online Ever: 2235
  • (October 29, 2023, 12:32:45 AM)
Users Online

Recent

Author Topic: Force composition in the Wars of the Roses  (Read 189753 times)

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4914
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2013, 09:47:37 AM »
It seems to me that the term 'archer' was sometimes used as a handy way to get supernumeraries onto the books. I seem to remember one Lord in France having his barber, cooks, grooms, etc... down as 'archers'. Did this mean they all fought as archers? I dunno, who can tell.

But with the Lord able to draw wages for an archer and having to pay for his own servants, it would seem to be an unusual aberration of human nature if the books weren't cooked every now and then!

I seems logical as well, that especially when 'on tour' as it were, the mounted archers was the perfect light cavalry (a task performed by hussars and light dragoons in later centuries), able to fill any number of handy roles away from the battlefield.
'Sir John ejaculated explosively, sitting up in his chair.' ... 'The Black Gang'.

Paul Cubbin Miniature Painter

Offline Doomsdave

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2208
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2013, 10:11:41 AM »
I read every word of this thread and...


I think I love you guys
This is my boomstick!

Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2013, 10:26:47 AM »
Hi Jules and glad you're enjoying it... I certainly am and it's great to hear other people's views, even if they're wrong!  ;)

I had the same problem myself with struggling to find a definitive solution to the things the WotR threw in my face, so I can sympathise... a lot.

Edward's Teller Rolls for 1475 are often used to justify composition of forces of the time and a number of 'explanations' of what is in black and white (or sepia and sort of dark brown) are usually offered to support any viewpoint. I'm no different, so here's mine...

First off, the expedition was a picked force for a foreign campaign. The men were selected over a period of time, required to show they were capable soldiers and that they possessed a decent standard of arms and armour. Shortfalls were addressed and large numbers of 'English Longbows' were imported from Spain to replace substandard ones owned by individual archers. As opposed to armies raised for short duration 'quick campaigns with a battle at the end', they couldn't be more different.  

Secondly, they are a record of receipts of payments made to 'captains' for their men. People have said that "If it shows so much detail in one segment (it mentions specific tradesmen), then the record of contingents, which show 'Knights', 'Spears' (men at arms) and 'Archers' must also be correct". The usual counter to this is the quite logical assumption that writing out "Knights, Spears, Archers, Billmen, Staves... et al" for each captain was quite laborious, so they grouped all of the 'others' under 'Archers' to save ink, time and writer's cramp.

While for a number of documents this might be true, the actual payments made correspond to the pay rates for the numbers and types given. If there were billmen and others hidden in the 'Archer' total, the amounts would be wrong. Next argument offered is that "Maybe the bills were paid the same as the archers?", but as we are dealing with royal accountants, this is extremely unlikely, as these guys almost certainly 'squeaked when they walked', they were so tight. It does however remain a possibility.

Thirdly, while the troop ratios 'seem wrong', this may not be the case. There is roughly one 'Knight' for each hundred men, the typical company size (although some groups of 'spears' are somewhat smaller) and the ratio of 'spears' to archers is about 1:8. It's very different to the typical 1:3 or 4 of the Agincourt era, but not so odd when you look at its allies and likely opposition. Despite having vast numbers of men at arms, French armies were around a ratio of 1:8 in terms of them, versus their mounted infantry and foot, once the Franc-Archers were added in at least. The Burgundians were 1:6 in the Ordonnance companies, but again, add in extraneous urban contingents etc, and you are looking at about 1:8 too.

Armies in Europe were getting bigger, but contained ever larger numbers of infantry. I think Edward was just going with the trend and of course with larger numbers of less well-armoured opponents, the bow would be more effective than in previous wars. Edward needed a lot of men too (it was the biggest army ever raised for a foreign war to date) and you get two foot archers for the pay of one man at arms (and as always money was an issue). As the plan was to take cities and towns and then hold them, an archer behind a wall offers more practical service than a man at arms. Slightly later small contingents supplied to Brittany and Burgundy, and those of the Tudor period are invariably listed as companies of 'xxxx Archers' too, as opposed to 'Men at Arms and Archers'... read into that what you will.

"A bow with a bill at his back"... you should have spoke up earlier... that one had slipped out of my mind and I could have used that in an earlier post.

;)

I have sort of switched between two possible options about how these contingents formed up. I've considered them being like an ECW regiment, with a solid core of men at arms, surrounded by bills, but with archers who formed up in front, but fell back to the flanks when it came time for hand strokes. I've also considered them as something more simple, in that the archers formed up in front, but fell to the rear of the men at arms/bills as things progressed. Neither of these seemed perfect to me, especially as archers appear to have got 'stuck-in' as much as anyone.

My current thoughts are that the household and retainers in any contingent, whether men at arms or archers 'probably' formed the centre, possibly with the men at arms in the middle, flanked by the archers (who could advance to form a shooting line and then fall back). On either side of this core were the levies, tenants and other 'lower grade' bodies raised by the noble who's contingent it was. These I suspect were deployed as they came... archers being in the main more well-equipped, to the fore, with the less martial bills behind them to 'bulk' the formation out. So instead of a single 'tactical' standard, you now have two, both reliant on ability and experience and playing to the relative group's strengths and weaknesses... but within the same individual formation. Obviously there is no evidence to support this and indeed it might be a bit fanciful into the bargain.    

Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2013, 10:45:51 AM »
It seems to me that the term 'archer' was sometimes used as a handy way to get supernumeraries onto the books. I seem to remember one Lord in France having his barber, cooks, grooms, etc... down as 'archers'. Did this mean they all fought as archers? I dunno, who can tell.

But with the Lord able to draw wages for an archer and having to pay for his own servants, it would seem to be an unusual aberration of human nature if the books weren't cooked every now and then!

I seems logical as well, that especially when 'on tour' as it were, the mounted archers was the perfect light cavalry (a task performed by hussars and light dragoons in later centuries), able to fill any number of handy roles away from the battlefield.

You snuck in while I was typing there...  ;)

It was common for people to have a 'military' and a 'civil function' within a household, so yes, someone's barber would also be an archer. He'd get pay for being an archer from the King (in the case of the 1475 campaign) and pay from his lord for the tonsuring and such. Same as the royal household, but in miniature, where you had things like 'Master of the royal bedpan', who was also a man at arms.

Nevertheless 'cooking the books' did go on... a lot, but is incredibly hard to pin down through sources. I'm sure there were a few dead guys who drew pay for a time, at the very least. In other armies they had routine musters and commissioners (themselves occasionally prone to taking a backhander) to weed that sort of stuff (although it remained rampant), as well as the loaning of equipment across a district to cover for inspection shortfalls... I doubt the English were not prone to the same scams either.  

I agree that the mounted archers, along with the 'lesser men at arms' would have been the 'light cavalry' of the day... 'ideal' I'm not so sure about. Obviously folk like the 'Border Horse' would have been perhaps the best, but the remainder was likely to have been pre-eminent by virtue of there being no other entrants. Some were quite good; the Lancastrian's at 2nd St Albans, who managed to shield an approach and a flank attack through the town, while Warwick faced the wrong way (clearly a real let down by his own men). Edward's guys in the Tewkesbury campaign were able to find, harry and keep contact with the Lancastrians, despite having fought at Barnet.

Others were not so good... two opposing armies literally marched past each other at one point (can't remember for the life of me when it was though, but it was early in the wars). It was the same across Europe though, which is why the Stradiots, Hussars and other types were able to take the role over and become the epitome of the type. Nevertheless the whole point of having mounted archers was for 'raiding', a role they began as a support for the men at arms, but later became its primary element.  

*Edit* - I just remembered that one of the chroniclers, who was part of a contingent from London, did a fair bit of whining about the 'afore riders', although he didn't say much about the battles. He complained of them stripping the area bare of what could be bought and grabbing the best billets... sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me.

;)
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 10:50:36 AM by Arlequín »

Offline Cubs

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 4914
  • "I simply cannot survive without beauty ..."
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #64 on: October 18, 2013, 11:21:46 AM »
I've always regarded actual fighting as being very much a secondary job for light cavalry, their main ones being scouting, supply (nicking stuff), escort duty, carrying messages and generally filling in any number of useful roles away from the battlefield itself.

Offline H.M.Stanley

  • Scatterbrained Genius
  • Posts: 2812
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2013, 11:23:33 AM »
"sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me."

My brother was in the 13/18th and the tankies used to tease the [newbie] grunts by making out that they could get tea out of the back of the tank and then p*ss themselves laughing (from inside the tank i suspect) while the foot-sloggers poked and prodded looking for the dispenser ...

But i digress  :)
"Ho, ho, ho! Well, if it isn't fat stinking billy goat Billy Boy in poison! How art thou, thou globby bottle of cheap, stinking chip oil? Come and get one in the yarbles, if ya have any yarbles, you eunuch jelly thou!"

Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #66 on: October 18, 2013, 12:09:38 PM »
I've always regarded actual fighting as being very much a secondary job for light cavalry, their main ones being scouting, supply (nicking stuff), escort duty, carrying messages and generally filling in any number of useful roles away from the battlefield itself.

Certainly, but I gather they were somewhat more flexible as regards actual roles back then, which is perhaps why they didn't particularly excel in any of them, other than which particular aspect they as individuals preferred to be doing. I've no doubt that the route of march was marked by a trail of 'dry' inns and pregnant wistful wenches, rather than a trail of enemy dead though.  
;)

"sounds like the usual infantry complaints about cavalry to me."

My brother was in the 13/18th and the tankies used to tease the [newbie] grunts by making out that they could get tea out of the back of the tank and then p*ss themselves laughing (from inside the tank i suspect) while the foot-sloggers poked and prodded looking for the dispenser ...

But i digress  :)

Do you remember the old Army Recruitment Ads? The one that started with "I'm Bill and I'm a born leader..." or something like that, showed tankies all drinking tea, so assuming it was on tap in a Chieftain is believable.
lol
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 12:13:54 PM by Arlequín »

Offline wrgmr1

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 555
  • Mad Gamer and Painter
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #67 on: October 19, 2013, 04:45:31 AM »
Just found this thread, late to the ball, excellent read gentlemen, my compliments.

Our group plays WOR and Renaissance games using Armati 2 rules. Currently I'm painting up approx 350 Front Rank Burgundians for these games. I'm nuts, I know.

This rule set was originally written with ancients in mind although the WOR armies seem to work fairly well.
Archery can make big difference depending on the dice luck. I've seen games where it was decided almost entirely by longbows. With one side doing more damage and winning the cavalry battles.
Other times the Bill and MA's get into a large scrum and fight it out to a conclusion.

The army lists really don't reflect what any of you are talking about concerning ratios.
All are units:

Archers 9
Bill 6
Mounted Knights 3
Dismounted men at arms 2
Light infantry 1
Skirmishers 2

This is approx what a single size core army plus 75 points would look like. A double core and 150 points would be approx double these numbers.
My guess would be that they were tailored to make it game worthy.

Your thoughts gentlemen?
Cheers,
Thomas


Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #68 on: October 19, 2013, 07:52:27 AM »
Hi Thomas, glad you've enjoyed the thread... I think it sort of snowballed from H.M.'s original question though.  lol

There are no eyewitness accounts of WotR battles and nothing but fragments of detail about the composition of forces of the time. Some people draw comparisons with the 'professional' armies which fought in the French Wars, other backtrack from the Tudor era... which I suspect might be a bit closer to the mark than the former.

The Army list is therefore as valid as anybody else's interpretation. I'm not sure who the 'Light Infantry' and 'Skirmishers' are supposed to represent, but there's no reason to suppose there were/weren't any. The mix of troop types seems reasonable enough too, although for my tastes there may be too much in the way of 'Men at Arms' and 'Mounted Knights' in total... although I've nothing I can back that up with as far as sources go.

If the lists and the rules give a good fun game and the forces have equal access to similar troop types, that's the important test I would think.

:)

Offline Captain Blood

  • Global Moderator
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 19308
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2013, 10:15:34 AM »
Hmmm.

Well, from a strong position of ignorant bliss, I've been giving this some thought and trying to make sense of the many contradictions in the evidence and terminology...

Seems to me that the problem is we are trying to make sense of troop types, classifications and proportions, against a whole range of different dimensions, and then trying to make these fit into a simple percentage classification.

This is probably a fool's errand and involves a lot of speculation because the evidence is so thin and the variables so many...

Armoured or unarmoured? (Or part armoured?)
Social standing or no social standing?
Skilled or unskilled?
Full-time professional or levied part-timer?
Bow, bill, or something else entirely?

Personally, I think the whole nomenclature thing is confusing and doesn't help. As Arlequin points out, 'men-at-arms' by this stage appears to wrap in all full-time, well-equipped soldiers, be they fully-armoured nobles or partly-armoured, indentured, professional employees of a lower social rank.

Maybe it would be helpful (in my mind at least) to revert to the more traditional classification we're all familiar with from earlier medieval periods?

So 'Knights' are basically the lords, gentry, monied or mercantile upper and upper middle classes. They are not all literally 'knights', but the equivalent of the old knightly class. In this period they fight mainly on foot with poleaxes or hand weapons, and wear expensive suits of armour. They're trained and skilled for the most part - although not 'professional' (paid full-time) soldiers as such, since it's a lifestyle for them - part and parcel of being from the top few tiers of society. They are brought up in the tradition of arms. Having to fight is always a possibility for their class. These 'knights' probably only make up 5%-10% of any given force, but provide the leadership and the cutting edge. They have most invested in the outcome - because they have the most invested in the society of their day in terms of power, wealth and prestige.

Then you have the true 'men at arms' - professional, paid, full time soldiers employed and liveried by lords, nobles, gentry or other interests. These tend to be well-equipped, with more or less armour.
Some are trained and skilled archers, some are bruisers who fight right in there at the cutting edge alongside their 'knightly' employers, with hand weapons, poleaxes, polearms. These two types of 'men-at-arms' make up perhaps another 10% - 20% of any given force.

Next, you have skilled longbowmen, from the English yeoman tradition. Lower middle class foresters, woodsmen, farmers. They're not full-time paid professional soldiers - but they are skilled longbowmen, trained from a young age, and used to being called upon in times of war. They might have some minimal armour, helmets, hand weapons. They might even get a livery coat from their lord or employer. They make up perhaps another 25% or so of any given force.

Finally, you have the rest - the unskilled men (who don't feature in the Perry catalogue). Pressed or bribed into service a la Falstaff. They can't use a longbow because they haven't trained. They might have some little training or skill at arms or brawling - but many of them will be raw. They're armed with bills, staves, spears. Old swords or daggers for a few lucky ones. They don't have any armour to speak of, and the bosses probably don't even invest the cost of a livery coat in these troops. Maybe just a tin badge or field sign of some kind to indicate their alliegance. I don't really understand the role of these troops - cannon fodder, or just to bulk up the line? They don't have much invested in the outcome - except they might end up dead if they're on the losing side... So are quite likely to turn and run as soon as the tide of battle starts to swing against them... They comprise perhaps as much as 30% - 40% of any given force - although there might be very few of them in a small battle, where the bosses haven't had time to levy many such low-grade men, and are reliant on their professional and skilled men to a much greater extent...

I venture a schematic.

Feel free to rip it apart  :D

Plausible?


Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2013, 12:49:46 PM »
Captain, you pretty much have it as far as I'm concerned... just some tidying required in my opinion.

Seems to me that the problem is we are trying to make sense of troop types, classifications and proportions, against a whole range of different dimensions, and then trying to make these fit into a simple percentage classification.

That's part of the problem. Just like today's society, 15th Century society existed in several dimensions. One man could be both a retainer and liable to serve under a commission of array at the same time. Under the law he was required to own and maintain a set minimum level of equipment for potential service to the crown. If he was a retainer, or a 'veteran', he would probably have equipment in addition to the 'set standard', whether hand-me-down, bought or gifted by a grateful employer.

Besides military functions people often had civil functions too. Picture the staff at Downton Abbey. Every one of the males, besides their duties, would also be a soldier, unless age or infirmity prevented them. They were called 'retainers', which is confusing as 'Lord Downton' (or whatever his title is), could himself be a 'retainer' (paid or unpaid) of another noble. Retainers could live both within the household as 'full time' members, or outside as 'part-time' members (the guy who runs the Lord's mill, or who runs his inn, whatever the relationship, be it as a full-time service function, 'occasional hired help', or as a tenant). In other words, if you were reliant on an individual for work, paid your rent to him or had any similar form of social interaction with him, odds were that you also provided military service to him as well.


Personally, I think the whole nomenclature thing is confusing and doesn't help. As Arlequin points out, 'men-at-arms' by this stage appears to wrap in all full-time, well-equipped soldiers, be they fully-armoured nobles or partly-armoured, indentured, professional employees of a lower social rank... snip

We haven't really helped ourselves here, as successive historians, rule writers, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, have added to a very simple set of terms which were current at the time.

The schematic does make things easier by far, so...



That's pretty much how the 15th Century English socio-military structure existed by income, 'troop classification' and levels of equipment provided (to the letter of the law). As a term of reference, there were about 3,000 individuals whose income (as head of a family, which might include a son or two) fell above the £25 threshold in the whole of England and Wales, out of a population of about 3 to 5 million. In illustrative terms £2 p.a. might be equivalent to somebody bringing in about £10k p.a. today, so literally this was pretty much the 'poverty line'. If your salary now is around £30k, you would fall into the lower reaches of the 'Spears' category.

Maybe it would be helpful (in my mind at least) to revert to the more traditional classification we're all familiar with from earlier medieval periods?

A 'Knight' (hereditary noble) in a domestic force would almost invariably be a leader, usually a captain of around a hundred men (be they archers or spears, or both). Some would be leaders of several hundreds, each led by a Knight. A unit of mounted 'Knights' is almost certainly anachronistic.

There's little to suggest any form of separation across the 'Spears', other than pay, terms and conditions, they all seem to have been lumped together on the battlefield, as far as we can tell. The only variable would be in terms of the 'average' in terms of levels of equipment and expertise within any given 'unit'.

Your archers will be very much a mixed bag in any way you want to look at it. All archers will be 'skilled archers' in a 'professional' force, they wouldn't employ you without proof of ability. 'Skilled archer' is not the same as 'experienced soldier' however. Somebody who has only shot at targets not being the same as one having fought in a battle.

In units raised by commissions of array, or from amongst a Lord's tenants and similar situations, skill with a bow is 'assumed'... they kept passing laws to keep people practising, so there must have been an underlying problem. People turned up with what they were required to have... what any captain chose to take from within such a motley group was on his own recognisances. The bigger the group, the lower the overall quality, on the basis that he'd know who his best options were.

His final force would be a mix of groups... his household and retainers probably divided into Spears and Mounted Archers and then men raised from his estates and those of his friends and admirers. Almost certainly most, if not all, were liveried up. The quality of man probably indicated by the quality of the livery jacket (besides the state of his kit). Troops raised by commission, on the other hand, unless they were raised by a town or city, are unlikely to have liveries and yes, some field sign or scrap of cloth tied to one arm, is likely to be the indicator of whose side they are on (no proof of this though).

So... finally the billmen, or more correctly 'the Footmen'. Why raise them if they sucked big time? The simple answer is that if you don't the enemy might, or that they are cheap should you have to pay them, or that they are free and better than no men. If you are paying troops for a foreign adventure and money is tight, you wouldn't bother, but in domestic conflicts these guys are free for a time and if you hold more land than your opponent you also have an advantage... as much as I run them down, a bloke with just a staff (especially if he can use it and it is the original English martial art after all) can be pretty damn dangerous... a group of them more so. If your opponent hasn't raised his... tough luck buster!
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 12:53:52 PM by Arlequín »

Offline Plynkes

  • The Royal Bastard
  • Elder God
  • Posts: 10212
  • I killed Mufasa!
    • http://misterplynkes.blogspot.com/
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #71 on: October 19, 2013, 12:55:27 PM »
'Lord Downton' (or whatever his title is)...

Lord Grantham.

Let me just be clear that the fact of my knowing this should not be taken as a reflection of my TV viewing habits.  :)
With Cat-Like Tread
Upon our prey we steal...

Offline Arlequín

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 6218
  • Culpame de la Bossa Nova...
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #72 on: October 19, 2013, 01:06:48 PM »
Lord Grantham.

Let me just be clear that the fact of my knowing this should not be taken as a reflection of my TV viewing habits.  :)

Of course not... whatever you say.  ;)

Offline Silent Invader

  • Galactic Brain
  • Posts: 9636
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #73 on: October 19, 2013, 02:20:10 PM »
Just picked up on this thread and have to say that it is totally bloody brilliant.

For my army, they can either fight as distinct bands with their top nob at the centre or have men tasked elsewhere .... All helped by being based as singles.

I got round the conundrum of unit building by using a very loose formulaic approach ... I decide on the unit size (some start small but might grow over time) then just pick parts from the Perry boxes to get a mix that I like (without repitititions).

Here's large and small units from the OOB spreadsheet that indicates the underlying formulae.





Referencing back to the earlier Blood/Arlequin schematic, these two units produce overall ratios of:

NB:I have classed retinue halberd as "spears" and retinue archers as "mounted archers" (but the horses are parked with those of the spears!); I have also excluded command and control elements as they distort the ratios for small units

LARGER UNIT

Spears 8
Mounted Archers 6
Archers 9
Footmen 21

= broadly 3:2:3:7
= even more broadly 1:1:1:2

SMALLER UNIT

Spears 3
Mounted Archers 2
Archers 3
Footmen 7

= broadly 1:1:1:2
= if you combine the archers 1:2:2
= if you combine the archers and footmen 1:4

I have quite a few units, all marginally different, some weighted more to bows others more to bills, some with less MAA and some with more



« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 02:24:09 PM by Silent Invader »
My LAF Gallery is HERE
Minis (foot & mounted) finished in 2024 = 0
(2023 = 151; 2022 = 204; 2021 = 123; 2020 = ???)

Offline wrgmr1

  • Mad Scientist
  • Posts: 555
  • Mad Gamer and Painter
Re: WotR using HC
« Reply #74 on: October 19, 2013, 10:18:31 PM »
Arlequin:
Thanks for your opinion.  :)

My take on Skirmishers in Armati is that they are the peasants armed with simple weapons or crossbow skirmishers to harass the enemy and put a few hits on them.

Ok, I'm going to throw another wrench into all of this:

What are the differences from the WOR period to Renaissance. In particular early period.
This query is due to the Burgundian army I am currently painting. We are trying to decide the best way to handle Longbow within this army.
During the WOR, Armati 2 allows for Longbow to stand in front of Bill then melt into them once melee is imminent.
They add their fighting power to the melee Bill as well.
However the Burgundians did not do this, or did they?
I know Charles tried to mix bow with hand weapons on occasion but was it successful? Would the above rule be to liberal for this period?
The other discussion we had was to just make Longbow a Skirmish type unit.

Again, thoughts are appreciated gentlemen.
Cheers,
Thomas


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6801 Views
Last post July 24, 2012, 12:41:45 PM
by H.M.Stanley
20 Replies
7046 Views
Last post June 18, 2013, 03:06:45 AM
by B.E.A.R
3 Replies
3883 Views
Last post October 07, 2013, 03:06:54 PM
by shandy
29 Replies
11482 Views
Last post January 10, 2015, 07:03:19 PM
by Captain Blood
34 Replies
6524 Views
Last post November 05, 2017, 05:28:16 PM
by GamesPoet