History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login


Forum LockedChinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Chinese Military Conduct Against Steppe Armies
    Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 03:51
Originally posted by Julius Augustus

during the time of the sui dynasty and tang dynasties sarmat, thanks.  
Ok. I'll try to find this information.
Originally posted by Julius Augustus

by the way is true that the sassanid had both trade and military alliance with both dynasties?

 
Yes. This is true they had very friendly relations. Even persian religions of Manicheism and Zoroastrianism were very influential in China at some point.
 
Some stuff about the cordial relations between China and Sassaninds.
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589
Post Options Post Options   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 05:05
Originally posted by Julius Augustus

Darius, how much contact? I heard there were intermarriages between the two 
 
 
The two peoples set up trading posts along the Silk Road. Forts, guard towers, and walls were constructed to protect the traders on the Silk Road from "barbarians" and bandits. The Sassanids sent musicians, entertainers, and concubines to Chinese courts and palaces. The Sassanids and Chinese also allied with each other against the Hephthalities. There are sources stating that the Sassanids and Chinese fought other peoples, such as Turkic tribes and armies. Pirooz fled to a Chinese imperial court after the Arabs took over what used to be the Sassanid Empire. He and his son were given high titles at the court. The Chinese possibly sent their armies to the Middle East to give the land back to the Sassanids. I am positive there were forms of intermarriage between Sassanids and Chinese. Royal intermarriages are not as likely, but Sassanids and Chinese in high positions probably pregnated concubines and others.
What is the officer problem?
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 203
Post Options Post Options   Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 00:21
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by honeybee


I'm sorry, but it appears that 10 is just your blind conjecture. Normal agricultural households have 5 people per household, not 10, and certainly not 20. You have not even shown me what your tumen actually meant. The source you've cited is mixed with your own unprofessional estimation, while my source gives the total population with no need for any redundant estimations of my own. Unless you can provide a source which explicitly state the entire population of the Golden Horde, I say my source is more reliable than yours.
 
Your source didn't state the whole population of the Golden Horde. It just stated the population of the Russian principalities which formed only a part of the Golden Horde state which was much larger. How can you prove that I'm wrong by saying that the population of the Russian principlaties was a couple of million men?
 
 


No, my source my source stated Mongol Russia as a whole, including the steppe lands.
Back to Top
honeybee View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun


Joined: 16-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 203
Post Options Post Options   Quote honeybee Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 00:23
Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by Sarmat12

 Manchu were primarily nomadic people engaged in limited agriculture. Their warfare was distinctively nomadic style and they conquered China in the 17th century and then they ruled China until 1912.
 
That's what I said and this is totally consistent what other famous scholars including the distinguished professor Mark C. Elliott.
 
Of course some of Manchu were forest dwellers, some were farmers; but a part of them was involved in nomadic pastoralism that's why they were called semi-nomadic and they lived in steppes; in yurts just like Mongols, as one of my sources was saying.
 
Their traditional warfare was almost the same with the Mongolian one.
 
FYI it's believed that originally Mongols were also forest dwellers.
 
 
 


Where does Mark Elliot state that the Manchu people herded and migrated around, show me the exact passage.


"""Please also note, that while I provided numerous references which called Manchu nomadic and semi-nomadic, you provided no source except mentioning the name of the Chinese professor.""""

Like thats not what you are doing right now?

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 01:46
Originally posted by honeybee


No, my source my source stated Mongol Russia as a whole, including the steppe lands.
 
As I say you repeat this mamba-jamba again. Why does it make you so happy?
 
"Mongol Russia" in the meaning of the paragraph you cited with or without steppe lands doesn't even try to include Crimea, Cuacasus or agricultural oasises of the Central Asia i.e. the most populous, developed and prosperious lands of the Golden Horde.
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 23-Apr-2008 at 02:20
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 02:19
Originally posted by honeybee


Where does Mark Elliot state that the Manchu people herded and migrated around, show me the exact passage.
 
Mark Elliot couldn't predict such picky questions. Nomadic means some one who "migrate around with herds in steppe" by itself.
 
You need to read his book "The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imerial China." I don't have this book here right now. But if you want an exact source and page number where he writes similar stuff, please check the article: "Widows and Ethincity in Qing China." Published by Cambridge University Press in "Comparative Studies in Society and History," Vol, 41, No. 1, (January 1999)
 
on page 35
 
"The early Manchu state, like the states built by other nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples of nothern and central Asia, was organized primarily for conquest."
 
Originally posted by honeybee

"""Please also note, that while I provided numerous references which called Manchu nomadic and semi-nomadic, you provided no source except mentioning the name of the Chinese professor.""""
Like thats not what you are doing right now?

What am I doing? I gave the links on the internet. You didn't do even this... Actually, anybody can clearly see that I provided much more sources than you did.



Edited by Sarmat12 - 23-Apr-2008 at 03:37
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
Post Options Post Options   Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 03:29
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Julius Augustus

Darius, how much contact? I heard there were intermarriages between the two 
 
 
The two peoples set up trading posts along the Silk Road. Forts, guard towers, and walls were constructed to protect the traders on the Silk Road from "barbarians" and bandits. The Sassanids sent musicians, entertainers, and concubines to Chinese courts and palaces. The Sassanids and Chinese also allied with each other against the Hephthalities. There are sources stating that the Sassanids and Chinese fought other peoples, such as Turkic tribes and armies. Pirooz fled to a Chinese imperial court after the Arabs took over what used to be the Sassanid Empire. He and his son were given high titles at the court. The Chinese possibly sent their armies to the Middle East to give the land back to the Sassanids. I am positive there were forms of intermarriage between Sassanids and Chinese. Royal intermarriages are not as likely, but Sassanids and Chinese in high positions probably pregnated concubines and others.


Ill give you a Chinese text tomorrow Darius about a sister exchange between two kings, I somewhat lost it. but the sister of Yazdegeird did marry a Chinese king.
Back to Top
Brainsucker View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 05-Apr-2009
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brainsucker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2009 at 11:57
Well, I'm a Chinese but I don't care if Li Shemin was partly Turk or Xianbei.

Because if it's true, then the Han people and Turk should be closer as both of them have the same ancestor. Or... Am I wrong? Didn't some people said that there were a lot of Turk-Han intermarried in the past?

Sharing the Tang with Turks is OK for me, because if it's true, then Turk and Han should has the same supposely ancestor, and that mean both races can live together as the decendant of Tang Dinasty.


Edited by Brainsucker - 19-Apr-2009 at 17:40
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2009 at 21:05
I like your attitude Brainsucker. Smile
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2009 at 09:05
Originally posted by Brainsucker

Sharing the Tang with Turks is OK for me, because if it's true, then Turk and Han should has the same supposely ancestor, and that mean both races can live together as the decendant of Tang Dinasty.


Admirable attitude, but don't expect to be met with the same openness if you ever try to do the opposite and claim a Turkish hero as Han Chinese. This is why I don't yield an inch to nationalist revisionists - it's a one way deal. Besides, history is about facts, not dividing up the glory to please everyone.

We should be careful about confusing races and linguistic/cultural groups. The Turkic peoples are the latter, and so are the various peoples of China.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2009 at 09:28
Originally posted by Brainsucker

 
 
Well, I don't care if Li Shemin was partly Turk or Xianbei.

Because if it's true, then the Han people and Turk should be closer as both of them have the same ancestor. Or... Am I wrong ? Didn't some people said that there were a lot of Turk-Han intermarried in the past?
 

 
 
Sui ( Yang ) & Tang ( Li ) royal houses had maternal Xianbei lineage,( Dugu ) 獨孤 was their compound surname in Chinese characters.
 
It's a known fact that northern Han-Chinese have significant nomadic genetic component.
 
China is the Asia continental nation where many Asiatic peoples originated from,so it's natural that the diversed Chinese population is related to them more or less.
 
 
 
 


Edited by pebbles - 21-Apr-2009 at 09:29
Back to Top
Brainsucker View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 05-Apr-2009
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brainsucker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2009 at 10:59
Originally posted by Reginmund

Originally posted by Brainsucker

Sharing the Tang with Turks is OK for me, because if it's true, then Turk and Han should has the same supposely ancestor, and that mean both races can live together as the decendant of Tang Dinasty.


Admirable attitude, but don't expect to be met with the same openness if you ever try to do the opposite and claim a Turkish hero as Han Chinese. This is why I don't yield an inch to nationalist revisionists - it's a one way deal. Besides, history is about facts, not dividing up the glory to please everyone.

We should be careful about confusing races and linguistic/cultural groups. The Turkic peoples are the latter, and so are the various peoples of China.
 
Well, it doesn't matter for Tang dinasty. They are belong to us, China. The people of China nowaday claim that they are the decendant of Tang people. They even called themselves Tang Ren (Tang People) before they changed it to Han Ren.
 
In fact the origin of the Chinese call themselves Han because they claim as the decendant of Han People. The word of China came from the word of Qin or Qing (Am I wrong?) They changed it to Han because they consider then Han dinasty as the first dinasty of China (Because they consider then Qin Shi Huang as cruel man or because the Qin was short live) But before calling themselves Han, the Chinese People call themselves Tang.
 
So, whoever call Tang as their ancestor can be called Chinese or at least has the same origin of Chinese, aren't they? Or... Am I Wrong? Then shouldn't we call them brother?


Edited by Brainsucker - 21-Apr-2009 at 11:05
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 407
Post Options Post Options   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2009 at 12:43
Originally posted by Brainsucker

 
 
 
 
Well, it doesn't matter for Tang dinasty. They are belong to us, China.
 
 
 
 
 
What do you mean " they belong to us,China ",you're an Indonesian LOL.
 
 
Back to Top
tonyget View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 17-Feb-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Post Options Post Options   Quote tonyget Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 03:14
Han Chinese was never a "pure blood" ethnic group, it's more like a self-identify cultural group.
 
If a non-han person identify himself as Han people, in that way we can say he is a han Chinese.
Back to Top
Brainsucker View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 05-Apr-2009
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brainsucker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2009 at 03:33
I'm a Chinese, but live in Indonesia. Just like the Chinese People who live in Canada, USA, and other countries. What wrong with that. I always consider myself as the decendant of Han and Tang people. So, I'm a Chinese. But, politically or nationality, I'm an Indonesian because I live here.
 
You must not mixes the politic / Nationality and the blood lines / cultural identify, man. Nationality is a political matter. It decide your loyalty to the country where you born or live. But the blood-lines is always about the blood lines. They can't be considered as political issue except if you want to make the racism as your political agenda.
 
an African American is always an African. But, he is politically an American. In term of bloodlines, they are African, but in term of politic or nationality, he is an American. The only pure American I can see here is the American Indian, as they are the American Native.
 
But yes, I'm an Indonesian, and a Chinese Decendant.


Edited by Brainsucker - 22-Apr-2009 at 03:54
Back to Top
Qin Dynasty View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 08-Jan-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 210
Post Options Post Options   Quote Qin Dynasty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2009 at 16:58
For the past four thousand years well written Chinese history, how many raids the steppe armies had done to Chinese? How many times they succeeded?
 
The only time the steppe army successfully subjugated the whole Chinese nation to its yoke was Kublai Khan's Mongol empire. Its rule over China was only lasted for a few decades.
 
and yes, the Manchurian took China as well, but only at the time the Ming empire was fallen by its own rebellions and the Manchurians were led by former Ming forces. I would even not consider it a conquest.
 
Besides these, what else? dont tell me about jing, liao, xixia and etc.  They were not Chinese, and they did not conquer China for god's sake, China was still there either under the rule of Song dynasty or Jin dynasty. The shrink of territory does not mean China was conquered. I have no idea how someone did the calculation saying that China was under the steppe nations rule for 600 years in the last 1000.
 
and dont, plz tell me the rubbish that Chinese soldies were made of peasants. Well, even peasants can fight. let alone in every dynasty China has professional troops. These troops had been fighting for years along the border against those barbarians. Give me the figures if u claimed they were unable to fight and unsuccessful to guard the country!
 
i cant believe that people talked about those agent wars China waged against its opponents as an evidence of weakness. Did these people think that China bought off those nomdic group to fight for them because Chinese can not fight by themselves? what the hell is this kinda of prejudice coming from?
 
If China was not powerful enough to be manipulative, would those nomidic troops be bought off? They wouldn't! They would invade China and robbed the wealth of Chinese instead. They were willing to fight for China because they were kicked ass by Chinese and China was skillful enough to play nasty political games among those steppes tribes.
 
The steppe tribes only got united and strong when China was in civil wars, a typical case is the rise of Genghis Khan. Even the Song empire was deeply weakened by constant civil riots and wars with other countries, the Song still managed to hold off the Mongols for decades.  The Song empire stood when most nations on the euro asia continent were wiped off by the Mongol hordes.
 
and u call it unsuccessful?
 
 
Back to Top
Brainsucker View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 05-Apr-2009
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brainsucker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 08:54

Well, maybe you're right. The Chinese Army made of Peasant. They were not noble, and they were conscript. But remember than in early 19th century, France almost conquers all Europe (under Napoleon Barner) with the power of conscripted Peasant. That's mean, Peasant power is stronger than Noble. It has been proved in history.

It's not only that. The mongol army was also conscripted Peasant too. They are just a clan member who live under the rule of a Khan. So, they were not a profesional soldier either. But, it has been proved that Mongol has the strongest army in the world at that time.
 
For the steppe army, you must separate the Turk and Mongol. Both of them were steepe Clan, but they were different. Mongol is Mongol while Turk is Turk. Although they share the same livestyle, but their power, leadership, military tradition, and the quality of warriors were different. So don't make them the same kind just because of the Mongol Victory on the battlefield.
 
Just like the old say,"One Man can make a different"
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 10:08
Originally posted by Brainsucker

Well, maybe you're right. The Chinese Army made of Peasant. They were not noble, and they were conscript. But remember than in early 19th century, France almost conquers all Europe (under Napoleon Barner) with the power of conscripted Peasant. That's mean, Peasant power is stronger than Noble. It has been proved in history.


A well-organised and properly equipped army of trained conscripts fighting in formation will normally be both larger and more effective than an aristocratic force of highly skilled individual fighters. Throughout history you often find the warrior nobility dominates, indeed that's why they were a warrior nobility in the first place, but they were only able to do so when the commoners were loosely organised and poorly equipped. As soon as the full potential of the peasant levy is realised however, their importance on the battlefield will be greater than that of the elite warriors. You find this development in both Europe and Japan, regions that were initially dominated by their respective warrior elites, knights and samurai, who found their military role increasingly compromised by the commoners. In Japan in the 16th century you find commanders relying more and more on ashigaru armed with rifles. In Europe the process had been going on for even longer and commoners armed with crossbows, longbows or in tight spear formations had proven their worth against noble knights. The Church even placed a ban on the crossbow, as it was considered unfair that a random peasant with almost no training could pick up a crossbow and kill a knight who had been trained as a warrior all his life with a single bolt (which could pierce the armour of the day).

Of course, a professional standing army of career soldiers is superior to both alternatives.

Originally posted by Brainsucker

It's not only that. The mongol army was also conscripted Peasant too. They are just a clan member who live under the rule of a Khan. So, they were not a profesional soldier either. But, it has been proved that Mongol has the strongest army in the world at that time.


Peasant isn't the right word here, since Mongols weren't agriculturalists. In fact the Mongols and many other steppe peoples make for a special case, since their very lifestyle depended on skills they could also make use of in battle - riding in formation, firing on horseback and travelling fast without relying on a supply train. As such it can be argued the entire male population were close to what can be considered professional soldiers. This professionalism is what often enabled them to defeat the less professional feudal and state-organised armies of sedentary civilizations.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3115
Post Options Post Options   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2009 at 16:32
Mongol army wasn't consisted of peasant. In fact, Ancient Mongols couldn't be peasants even in theory. It was consisted of highly skilled warriors that trained in archery and warfare from the earliest age. While Mongolian culture has been always putting the war and warlike spirit in its center, in a sense it was someking of the equivalent to the Spartan militaristic culture of the ancient Greece.
 
Chinese culture is a complete opposite. Chinese mentality in general is against war and aggression and there is even a proverb in Chinese "A good lad does not become a soldier, good steel does not become nails" (好男不当兵好帖不打钉)"
 
Also from the times of the Han dynasty military career hasn't been considered prestigeous in imperial China at all.
 
Historically speaking, the times of the greatest Chinese campaigns against the steppe people were rather when they were using some Steppe people against another (Tang dynasty expansion) or when the Steppe people were leading such campaigns (Manchu conquest of Mongols and Jungars).


Edited by Sarmat - 28-Apr-2009 at 16:34
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Brainsucker View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 05-Apr-2009
Location: Indonesia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 33
Post Options Post Options   Quote Brainsucker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2009 at 06:25
Originally posted by Reginmund

Originally posted by Brainsucker

Well, maybe you're right. The Chinese Army made of Peasant. They were not noble, and they were conscript. But remember than in early 19th century, France almost conquers all Europe (under Napoleon Barner) with the power of conscripted Peasant. That's mean, Peasant power is stronger than Noble. It has been proved in history.


A well-organised and properly equipped army of trained conscripts fighting in formation will normally be both larger and more effective than an aristocratic force of highly skilled individual fighters. Throughout history you often find the warrior nobility dominates, indeed that's why they were a warrior nobility in the first place, but they were only able to do so when the commoners were loosely organised and poorly equipped. As soon as the full potential of the peasant levy is realised however, their importance on the battlefield will be greater than that of the elite warriors. You find this development in both Europe and Japan, regions that were initially dominated by their respective warrior elites, knights and samurai, who found their military role increasingly compromised by the commoners. In Japan in the 16th century you find commanders relying more and more on ashigaru armed with rifles. In Europe the process had been going on for even longer and commoners armed with crossbows, longbows or in tight spear formations had proven their worth against noble knights. The Church even placed a ban on the crossbow, as it was considered unfair that a random peasant with almost no training could pick up a crossbow and kill a knight who had been trained as a warrior all his life with a single bolt (which could pierce the armour of the day).

Of course, a professional standing army of career soldiers is superior to both alternatives.

Originally posted by Brainsucker

It's not only that. The mongol army was also conscripted Peasant too. They are just a clan member who live under the rule of a Khan. So, they were not a profesional soldier either. But, it has been proved that Mongol has the strongest army in the world at that time.


Peasant isn't the right word here, since Mongols weren't agriculturalists. In fact the Mongols and many other steppe peoples make for a special case, since their very lifestyle depended on skills they could also make use of in battle - riding in formation, firing on horseback and travelling fast without relying on a supply train. As such it can be argued the entire male population were close to what can be considered professional soldiers. This professionalism is what often enabled them to defeat the less professional feudal and state-organised armies of sedentary civilizations.
 
I agree with you.
 
And maybe it's my fault to say that Mongol people were peasant. They were sheep & Horse herd weren't they? I doubt they were profesional soldider, because they were not specially trained to be a warrior and not dedicated their life to combat. I have watched several Mongol movie. According to the movie / tv Series I saw, the Mongol army was no other than the herder / people who live in a clan. They just called by the Khan to fight as soldier when their clan needed soldiers.
 
But, these people can be considered as veteran warriors because of the constant war that happen to their clan. You know, although a mere peasant can be a veteran warrior who expert in a lot of weaponary if they fought a lot in their life.


Edited by Brainsucker - 29-Apr-2009 at 06:29
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.