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   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSpahis

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Theodore Felix View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar
AE Editor

Joined: 10-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 769
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Theodore Felix Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Nov-2008 at 05:37
Quote
'In the 15th and 16th centuries most of the Timarli Sipahis were of kul ('slave') origin. Among Muslim Turks, only those who volunteered and gained honours in battle, and the followers of frontier lords ('ucbeylerinin yandaslari') could get a timar ('fief'). Statistics of Albania region of the year 1431 show that %16 of the sipahi were former Christian nobles, 30% were Anatolian Turks, 50% were slaves of the Sultan or other Beys. Remaining 4% of the timars belonged to Kadis, 'Piskopos' (Orthodox Bishops) and palace favourites. Later, the ratio of sipahis with Turkish origin slowly declined.'
 
Also note that the Muslim Anatolian Turks he mentions need not be Turcomans. They were mostly already settled Turks."
 


Ive actually been looking for a translated version of Inacik's Sancak i-Arnavud for quite some time but have had no luck whatsoever...
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 05:23
Topic stickied 

Back to Top
gezgin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
BANNED

Joined: 07-Jan-2009
Location: ankara
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gezgin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Jan-2009 at 17:23
Sipahis got dressed heavy silk armours.Silk armour is stronger than metal armours.Also silk gives confort activity.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 09:11
Originally posted by gezgin gezgin wrote:

Sipahis got dressed heavy silk armours.Silk armour is stronger than metal armours.Also silk gives confort activity.
 
Sorry, but it doesn't hold facts. There are descriptions from the battle of Chocim 1621 that single blows of hussar lances, were piercing 2, 3 and even 4 sipahis at once (BTW, it doesn't apply only to Ottomans; there are sources from other battles which show that piercing a couple of enemies, who didn't use metal armors, by the hussar lance, was an usual event). On the other hand, there is Ottoman relation from the battle of Vienna which states that sabres and lances of Ottoman soldiers did nothing to Polish hussars who wore metal armors (so Ottoman cavalrymen had to strike Polish horses).


Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2009 at 09:20
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 16:13
Quote Beylerbeyi
Timarli Sipahis (land holding ones- not land owning) or Kapikulu Sipahis (Sipahis of the Porte)?... Timarli Sipahi are not elite. Akincis are not elite either, they are just raiders; light cavalry. Kapikulu Sipahi are the only ones that could be called elite.


The Timarli were irregular cavalry who are confused with the elite Sipahi force as colloquially they were also called Sipahis. The "Sipahi" was the elite divison of the "six divisions of the cavalry". Akinci were the raider divison, they served as scouts and disrupted the enemy units.

Quote Beylerbeyi
Bullocks. Majority of the Timar holders were 'of kul (slave, i.e. non-muslim) origin', just like the Janissaries, according to Inalcik. I posted the detailed quote here before:


This was true during Murad I reign, however, Mehmed II changed this making Sipahi's chosen ethnic Turks.

Quote Beylerbeyi
I don't think we can compare the Janissary to the Timarli Sipahi in term of loyalty or 'effectiveness'.


Sipahi were regarded as being loyal, the phrase "Atlı er başkaldırmaz" ("Horsemen don't mutiny".) is testonomy to this.

Quote Beylerbeyi
In my opinion the worst case of betrayal in Ottoman history, caused by 'Turks', while Serb vassals fought to the end...


I'm not so certain we can call this a betrayel, those lands wern't Ottomans, they were still under the hegemony of beyliks. The Ottomans underestimated Emir Timur and the Beyliks, when some of the Beyliks decided to accept Timur as the leader along with other escalations made war immenant. Many of the early Ottoman battles were with other Turks, like against the Karamanogullu beylik and the Mamluks both who were older than the Ottomans (athough the Mamluks by then were dominated by Circassians.)


      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 17:06
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

The Timarli were irregular cavalry who are confused with the elite Sipahi force as colloquially they were also called Sipahis. The "Sipahi" was the elite divison of the "six divisions of the cavalry". Akinci were the raider divison, they served as scouts and disrupted the enemy units.

I already explained it above, no need it to repeat it, least of all after quoting me.
Anyway, Sipahi is also a generic name for cavalry, and it is not a mistake to all cavalry Sipahi. 'Timarli' by itself is an adjective. Therefore, the proper names are 'Timarli Sipahi' and 'Kapikulu Sipahi'. Of the two types, the latter are the 'elite' ones.

Quote This was true during Murad I reign, however, Mehmed II changed this making Sipahi's chosen ethnic Turks.

Not true. Never heard of such a thing. What are your sources for this claim? 

In the quote I posted above Halil Inalcik give a breakdown of the situation in 1431, which shows majority of the timarli sipahi are of slave origin. And the quote ends like this: 'Later, the ratio of sipahis with Turkish origin slowly declined.' So the ratio of Turkish background after 1431 did not increase as you claim, but actually declined further.
 
As to the Kapikulu Sipahi, there were Turkish nobles before Mehmed II, but their numbers declined as he replaced them with slaves, exactly the opposite of what you have written.

Quote Sipahi were regarded as being loyal, the phrase "Atlı er başkaldırmaz" ("Horsemen don't mutiny".) is testonomy to this.

Again, never heard of this phrase and it proves nothing. It is nonsense, not the least because Turks were the least loyal of all ethnicities in the Ottoman Empire in the classical age. So even if the horsemen are more loyal, it is not a proof of their Turkishness, to the contrary. It is true that there was enmity between the Kapikulu Infantry (Janissary) and the Kapikulu Sipahi, but there were cases where the Janissary were more reliable. If you like historical phrases on this enmity, here is a real saying: 'tut keli percheminden' ('grab the bald (man) from his locks'- it originally refers to the hair style of the Janissary, today has a different meaning in Turkish).    

Quote I'm not so certain we can call this a betrayel, those lands wern't Ottomans, they were still under the hegemony of beyliks. The Ottomans underestimated Emir Timur and the Beyliks, when some of the Beyliks decided to accept Timur as the leader along with other escalations made war immenant.
It was textbook betrayal, because those troops actually switched sides in Ankara, pointless to try to whitewash. They were deployed with the Ottoman army, but switched to Timur. Can't get any more treacherous than that. Almost destroyed the whole country, it took 50 years to recover.

Quote Many of the early Ottoman battles were with other Turks, like against the Karamanogullu beylik and the Mamluks both who were older than the Ottomans (athough the Mamluks by then were dominated by Circassians.)
Karaman and other Anatolian Beyliks are Turks, but Mamluks can not be called Turks.

As to Sipahi armour, 

Some wore metal armour, but their retainers may not have worn them. Holder of a Timar was obliged to bring a certain number of armoured troops (and that is metal armour) and retainers depending on the size and value of his timar. Wearing of silk was common in history, especially among the Mongols and other nomads because silk is strong and flexible makes it easy to remove an arrow (nomads were horse archers) from a wound. So it was commonly worn under the metal or leather armour. Polish Winged Hussar armour was probably heavier than an average Sipahi's or horeseman's so they would be hard to damage, that account I'd believe. They are more comparable to the Kapikulu Sipahi as a formation. The shish kebab story (4 people skewered on a lance) OTOH, was funny, but I don't believe it.

Another interesting point is that Western Knights (French, German etc) believed it is not honourable to kill the horse of another knight. First thing the Turks (and all nomads) kill (shoot), however, is the horse. Since you like them, here is a Turkmen saying from Dede Korkut: 'yayan erin umudu olmaz' ('infantry has no hope'). That's one of the reasons why Western Knights got slaughtered by the Ottomans in Nicopolis and such battles. 
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 17:21
Originally posted by ataman ataman wrote:

Originally posted by gezgin gezgin wrote:

Sipahis got dressed heavy silk armours.Silk armour is stronger than metal armours.Also silk gives confort activity.
 
Sorry, but it doesn't hold facts. There are descriptions from the battle of Chocim 1621 that single blows of hussar lances, were piercing 2, 3 and even 4 sipahis at once (BTW, it doesn't apply only to Ottomans; there are sources from other battles which show that piercing a couple of enemies, who didn't use metal armors, by the hussar lance, was an usual event). On the other hand, there is Ottoman relation from the battle of Vienna which states that sabres and lances of Ottoman soldiers did nothing to Polish hussars who wore metal armors (so Ottoman cavalrymen had to strike Polish horses).
I agree with you that the polish armor was heavier than turkish ones but the turkish sipahis mostly used metal armor also. The Kapıkulu sipahis were heavy horseman which numbered total 5-6000 at the 16th century era. The tımarlı sipahis also wore metal armor however their retainers  equipment were poorer than their masters. The story of single blow killing  3-4 sipahi is I think illogical but this exxagrated stories of turkish losses are common in Europe(satisfaction probably).  
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 17:34

There are accounts of cataphracts running two people through so why not a Hussar?

How is it illogical?
 
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 17:38
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Evrenosgazi wrote:

I agree with you that the polish armor was heavier than turkish ones but the turkish sipahis mostly used metal armor also.  
 
Are there any accounts that sipahis used metal armor at Chocim in 1621? I believe that all these sources which describe piercing of 2-4 soldiers are correct, but they refer to these sipahis who didn't wear metal armor.
 
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Evrenosgazi wrote:

The Kapıkulu sipahis were heavy horseman which numbered total 5-6000 at the 16th century era. The tımarlı sipahis also wore metal armor however their retainers  equipment were poorer than their masters. The story of single blow killing  3-4 sipahi is I think illogical but this exxagrated stories of turkish losses are common in Europe(satisfaction probably).  
 
As I already written, they weren't just Ottomans who were 'impaled'. There is a letter of Lithuanian hetman from 1660, where he stated that in the battle of Polonka 6 Russian infantrymen were pierced by single blow of the hussar lance.
And this is not only a feature of hussar lances. I know military treaty written by Swedish officer, who stated that piks were piercing 2-3 (unarmored) enemies at once. And he certainly refered to Christian enemies, not to Muslim ones.


Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2009 at 18:04
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 18:24
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:


Another interesting point is that Western Knights (French, German etc) believed it is not honourable to kill the horse of another knight.
 
Maybe, but European cavalrymen had to learn very fast. German, French and English military treaties from 16th and 17th c. advice to kill enemy horses first of all. It was much easier to dismount armoured enemy than to kill him.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 18:46
Quote As I already written, they weren't just Ottomans who were 'impaled'. There is a letter of Lithuanian hetman from 1660, where he stated that in the battle of Polonka 6 Russian infantrymen were pierced by single blow of the hussar lance.

I don't think it is an anti-Ottoman or anti-Turkish thing. It just seems highly unlikely. If you run through one person, that's it. You can't change the heading of the lance anymore. So you'd have to impale everyone in one strike. Now, if you are charging onto infantry in close formation, it may be possible to impale a few people. On the other hand, if you are charging cavalry, they must be unarmoured, practically touching each other, and you should charge them perfectly from the side, and even then the horses take much more space than men. In a stretch, I can believe two horsemen getting impaled, but four? I don't think so. 

Quote Maybe, but European cavalrymen had to learn very fast. German, French and English military treaties from 16th and 17th c. advice to kill enemy horses first of all. It was much easier to dismount armoured enemy than to kill him.
I read the memoirs of a German knight (or squire) who was captured by the Ottomans in Nicopolis and that's what he wrote, e.g. the knights charged the Turkish cavalry but Turks shoot the horses first, so they were soon fighting on foot. Now, he also wrote that there were dragons in Anatolia, which is funny, but I don't see anything wrong with his comments on the knights and Turks shooting the horses. 
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 18:55
the lance used by the Polish Hussaria was hollow wood, so it would break on impact, otherwise it would unhorse the Hussar because of the velocity of the impact. so i cannot seriously believe this at all for the reasons stated.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:00
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

You can't change the heading of the lance anymore.
 
I agree
 
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

So you'd have to impale everyone in one strike. Now, if you are charging onto infantry in close formation, it may be possible to impale a few people.
 
I agree
 
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

On the other hand, if you are charging cavalry, they must be unarmoured, practically touching each other, and you should charge them perfectly from the side,
 
And it could have happened at Chocim, because hussars charged the wing of Ottoman cavalry.
 
Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Beylerbeyi wrote:

and even then the horses take much more space than men. In a stretch, I can believe two horsemen getting impaled, but four? I don't think so. 
 
If spahis rode knee to knee it was possible. 4 cavalrymen occupied about 4 m side by side, while hussar lances were even 21 feet long in that time.


Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2009 at 19:09
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:06
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

the lance used by the Polish Hussaria was hollow wood, so it would break on impact, otherwise it would unhorse the Hussar because of the velocity of the impact. so i cannot seriously believe this at all for the reasons stated.
 
Human body, unprotected by metal armor is like a butter for a lance.
Anyway, there are too many sources, written by too many soldiers and eyewitness, from different times and different battles to ignore all of them.


Edited by ataman - 08-Jan-2009 at 19:06
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:09
i have read a lot of such primary sourcesabout the use of the lance in ww1 (which doesn't break) and so far there was only one mention where one body was completely impaled and most of the time the lance did but only light wounds despite many stabs. those modern soruces are by far more reliable. but if you think you have so many sources that proove the contrary then give me those sources.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:26
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

i have read a lot of such primary sourcesabout the use of the lance in ww1 (which doesn't break) and so far there was only one mention where one body was completely impaled and most of the time the lance did but only light wounds despite many stabs.
 
There is one huge difference between WW1 and 17th c. The manner of using long hussar lance in 17th c. was different than the manner of using short lance in 20th c. 
 
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

those modern soruces are by far more reliable.
 
Because...?
 
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

but if you think you have so many sources that proove the contrary then give me those sources.
 
Ok, just a couple of examples:
1. The battle of Chocim 1621 - relation of hussar rotemaster (I hope it's a good translation :)) Rudomina. Rudomina commanded his unit in this charge. Auxent (the eyewitness of this battle). They both wrote about 3-4 Ottomans pierced by single blows of hussar lances.
2. The battle of Połonka 1660 (vs Russians) - grand Lithuanian hetman (the main commander) Sapieha. He commanded Lithuanian army in this battle. He wrote to the king about 6 Russian infantrymen pierced by hussar lance.
3. The battle of Cudnów 1660 (vs Russians and Cossakcs) - colonel of Polish cavalry and member of the battle Leszczyński (5 Russians pierced by hussar lance)
4. The battle of Vienna 1683 - hussar comrade Kochowski (2-3 Ottomans pierced by hussar lances)
 
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:42
those are only four sources and from a time period of 60 years, you said you had "too many" and from "different times"...
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Jan-2009 at 19:59
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

those are only four sources
 
5 sources from 4 battles
 
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

and from a time period of 60 years, you said you had "too many" and from "different times"...
 
62 years between the battle of Vienna and the battle of Chocim is 'the same time' in your opinion?
I've given you primary sources written by members of the battles, by commanders of hussars and commander of an army. Is it not enough? Ok, so look at the list of sources only to the battle of Chocim 1621:
1. Potocki (3 Ottomans pierced at once)
2. Auxent (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once)
3. Rudomina (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once)
4. Marchocki (2 Ottomans pierced at once)
5. Sobieski (3 Ottomans pierced at once)
6. Lubomirski (2-3 Ottomans pierced at once)
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Status: Offline
Points: 379
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jan-2009 at 23:13
Originally posted by ataman ataman wrote:

Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

those are only four sources
 
5 sources from 4 battles
 
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

and from a time period of 60 years, you said you had "too many" and from "different times"...
 
62 years between the battle of Vienna and the battle of Chocim is 'the same time' in your opinion?
I've given you primary sources written by members of the battles, by commanders of hussars and commander of an army. Is it not enough? Ok, so look at the list of sources only to the battle of Chocim 1621:
1. Potocki (3 Ottomans pierced at once)
2. Auxent (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once)
3. Rudomina (3 - 4 Ottomans pierced at once)
4. Marchocki (2 Ottomans pierced at once)
5. Sobieski (3 Ottomans pierced at once)
6. Lubomirski (2-3 Ottomans pierced at once)
İt really seems unbelieveable, because with the impact of the lance ,the lancer will also loose its stability with the first clash(momentum: speed*weight, single arm power against the clash).But with the powerful clash the formation of their opponents would crack. Maybe 2 soldier at once could be but 3-4 is impossible
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 1106
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Jan-2009 at 08:45
Originally posted by Evrenosgazi Evrenosgazi wrote:

İt really seems unbelieveable, because with the impact of the lance ,the lancer will also loose its stability with the first clash(momentum: speed*weight, single arm power against the clash).But with the powerful clash the formation of their opponents would crack. Maybe 2 soldier at once could be but 3-4 is impossible
 
Here is the secret of the hussar manner of wielding the lance:
Look at the second picture in the article. It is not the hussar's arm which has to endure the impact. It is the hussar's saddle where the impact is transfered.
There are even accouts that hussar lances were able to pierce an armour in this way.
 
When hussars attacked unarmoured cavalrymen, they aimed enemy navels. Potocki describes that hussar lances at Chocim 1621 struck livers. This part of the body is very easy to penetrate.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.