Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sword Carrying and the Scutum Strap
#1
Intro: Several ancient sources and archaeological finds have shown that it was common for Roman soldiers, as well as other users of the 15-20 lb shield a scutum type shields to utilize a carrying sling/strap to take the weight off in certain situations (route marching or running in full fighting kit) and to allow hands free carry (use on horse, climbing ladders, etc.). Several reenactors have created methods for attaching said carrying straps, with the simplest being a long two finger wide leather sling looped through the carrying handle and thrown over the shoulder, to a more intricate 9 ring suspension system involving several iron carrying loops nailed to the shield as well as several independent straps.

Hypothesis: The right side carriage of the gladius by Roman soldiers in the Republican and Principate periods were dictated not only by custom and style but by practicality as well, as it allowed for a more comfortable, effective, and most of all, safer, carry of the sword for those that slung their shields on their left with a carrying strap.

Test:
Equipment used
Shield: 30“x48” (76 cm x 121) oval curved Republican-era scutum style shield, center hand grip, with 1” (2.54 cm) carrying strap looped around handgrip, then looped over the head and right shoulder
Weapon: Cold Steel Gladius Machete, 19” (48.2 cm) blade, in standard cloth sheath, belt loop rolled over to hike whole sheath up, and belt fastened at level slightly above hips. Secured by simple 1” leather belt.

Results:
When the shield carried in the left hand, braced in fighting position, at the shoulder, elbow and knee, with shield sling not used, the sword was very difficult to draw without worrying about slicing left forearm open, though it was possible with care. It should be noted that a shallow slicing motion could result in a debilitating tendon cut or could sever a artery or vein in the unprotected forearm.

With the shield sling used and the shield braced, it was near impossible to draw the sword from the left, as the position made the shield carrying sling interfere with the pommel of the sword during the draw, as well as continuing the dangers of accidentally cutting yourself.

With the shield held relaxed at the left side, hand grip parallel with the left leg, in a non-battle transport method, it was easier to draw the sword, from a left sided draw, as more room was available and the left forearm was not in the way.

Carrying the sword scabbarded on the left side while in a light march configuration (shield, sword, and pila, with no furca or extra baggage), with the shield held in left hand aligned with the left leg, wasn’t so much difficult as annoying, as the sword scabbard rubs continuously against the sword scabbard. Meaning a constant banging and more wear and tear and on the sword scabbard than normal, which is counter to a highly decorated sword scabbard as was custom amongst the Romans. Additionally, the shield carrying strap constantly tangles with the sword’s hilt, twisting everything around and making for more discomfort.

In all positions noted above, a right handed carrying of the sword made for an easier carry and drawing of the sword when a shield was carried, braced or not, as well as a shield carrying strap.

Additional Considerations:
For those that did not have a shield bearer to carry their shields up until the start of the battle (ie. Non-officers), as well as those like shield bearing cavalry who would rely on a sling readily used with their shields, having the sword \\slung on their left interfered too much with drawing it, at least in comparison to a right side carry, which makes drawing a sword, even a longish one (30” blade), rather easy. This is demonstrated by the sword bearing warriors of the Celts, whose model warrior was a cavalryman armed with a spear, a long La Tene slashing sword, as well as a thureos/scutum-type shield, which would have needed a carrying strap for use on horseback. Additionally, Roman infantry of the non-officer variety would have had to carry their own kit (no personnel slaves), they used an abnormally large and heavy version of the scutum (as compared to other cultures that used a hand held shield), and they were frequently used in non-battle tasks such as marching/climbing which would make carrying the shield at all times with the left hand impossible.

Roman officers, to include centurions, praefects, tribunes, etc., carried their swords on the left. The reasoning I have for this was that they all were allowed personal servants to follow them on the battlefield, which would include a shield bearer. So the annoyance factor of carrying a shield on the left and a sword on left is null. When they did feel the need to strap on their own shield with a sling, they probably were rarely in a position as a common soldier that might necessitate the rapid drawing of a blade. Additionally, many of the armor kit styles of Roman officers mimicked those of the Hellenistic age/Etruscan/old days. Style and custom meant that carriage of sword on the left side was the norm. Baldrics were more common as well, which allowed for an easier left side draw.

The fighting kit of the Hellenistic soldier, the Greek hoplite and/or Macedonian sarissaphoi, would not have had the problems listed above because a sword baldric (in most cases, a rope) was used, making the sword scabbard slung higher than a belt carry and looser, thereby allowing a more flexible draw, whereby the act of drawing the sword started by gripping the hilt, pulling it to center line before drawing it, while wedging the bottom of the aspis against the scabbard’s rounded chape to prevent resistance (problem with using a baldric over a belt is overcoming resistance with drawing the blade). The threat of cutting the left arm would have been greatly diminished by pulling the sword to center line before drawing. So a warrior armed with an aspis or Macedonian pelte style shield with a canted baldic slung sword (xiphos or kopis) had no difficulty drawing from the left side, as show in art.

Conclusions:
Overall, this lines up with the Roman infantry and cavalry of the 4th Cent BC to the 3rd Cent. AD, where the rankers carried their swords on the right and officers carried them on the right. While my experimentation was greatly simplistic, enough similarities to the actual equipment existed to allow me to feel a little more comfortable with my conclusions.

Notes:
(1) A republican style convex oblong scutum is currently in construction, solid 30”x48”x1/4” (76 x 122 x .63 cm) birch glued plywood (2 layers), with internal braces to facilitate curve, dog bowl as a boss. Shield strap is a USGI 1” (2.54 cm) cotton web rifle sling, looped through the hand grip and slung overhead at a length that allows a slight bend in left elbow, which takes weight off arm and hand while maximizing movement allowed by carrying strap.

(2) The Cold Steel Gladius Machete’s blade is comparable in shape with a Fulham Mainz gladius, though it is about 2” (5 cm) shorter than the normal. The wider blade would have made left handed drawing more difficult, increasing the likelihood of accidentally cutting the left arm, while its much shorter blade made it a bit easier. The sword scabbard/sheath must be flexible in its attachment point to the belt, as it needs significant canting for a draw. The longer the sword, the more canting it needs.
Reply
#2
Anyone have any insight, critique or anything else they care to share about? Especially those of you that actually wear realistic kit, is my theory and experiment bunk?
Reply
#3
pictures would be great
Lucius Domitius Aurelianus
Patrik Pföstl

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.roemer.ch.vu">http://www.roemer.ch.vu

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.celtae.de/SihFrewen/index.php">http://www.celtae.de/SihFrewen/index.php


[Image: o3.gif]

.
Reply
#4
Didn't take any pics when I did it but I could redo the "experiments." So, pics to follow maybe some time next week.
Reply
#5
Quote:.............., dog bowl as a boss. ...........

Big Grin

Thank you kindly for a Saturday chuckle!

More seriously, I'm sorry, I don't lnow how but I simply didn't see this post before......

Overall I think your ideas perfectly sound, with just one addition and one digressing comment that is much wider.

In addition to all the practical carrying and marching elements I have previously postulated that it's also much more sensible to have the sword on the right when in the battle-line. For this scenario:

- in battle-line with pilum ready and sword sheathed
- throw pila
- brace in a shield-wall with your neighbours' using two hands
- hold the line, shield now tight up against your left-hand-side (not possible to draw sword)
- initial charge resisted, draw sword from un-engaged side and begin fight back

The 'officers' are not, to my mind, in that scenario (as we have discussed) - they only draw their swords when it's time, or there is a need, to get to the front and inspire (leading rather than commanding).

I do query the idea of shield-bearers overall, except for extremely high ranking officers/kings. I do particularly query the idea I have seen suggested several times before that any slaves are commonly on the battlefield. The odd personal paid servant for Tribunes and above, perhaps. Slaves do not belong on battlefields or around weapons - and they would have to be fed too; an additional logistic burden.
Reply
#6
Quote:
Bryan post=356215 Wrote:.............., dog bowl as a boss. ...........
Big Grin
Thank you kindly for a Saturday chuckle!...
The 'officers' are not, to my mind, in that scenario (as we have discussed) - they only draw their swords when it's time, or there is a need, to get to the front and inspire (leading rather than commanding).
I do query the idea of shield-bearers overall, except for extremely high ranking officers/kings. I do particularly query the idea I have seen suggested several times before that any slaves are commonly on the battlefield. The odd personal paid servant for Tribunes and above, perhaps. Slaves do not belong on battlefields or around weapons - and they would have to be fed too; an additional logistic burden.

I thought about trying to build some elaborate wooden umbo and spine but I dont have the tools for it. So then it was a matter of having to buy an actual iron, brass or bonze shield umbo but for what I had in mind for the shield, I decided against it. Realism with weight isn't an issue, just balance, and my shield is surprisingly well balanced. I figure having a realistic shield in terms of weight would be great, for most of what I am doing with it, it isn't necessary. In time, I'll buy a realistic one and have it painted but I've yet to see a place that sells well made Republican style scuta.

Slaves were everywhere in the ancient world. I think that anyone that had a personal servant/calo/bodyslave would bring those people into battle with them, arm them, and use them as a shield bearer and a bearer of extra weaponry. There are many examples of armed camp servants and personal slaves that were completely and utterly devoted to their masters. I don't see why you be afraid to arm them. If you trust them enough to accompany you on in war, then they're probably safe to arm. It was probably a great honor to be chosen to accompany your master on campaign, the more slaves owned the higher of an honor. It meant the slave's worth was valued. And these weren't slaves working a latifundia or salt mine that needed to be whipped or chained up daily. So in my mind all officers, from centurion up, who were allowed personal servants/slaves, used them to carry whatever they wanted, including shields, spears, javelins, wine, snacks, medical supplies, etc.

Situation: A battle is about to happen. Early morning, the troops are woken up, fed and then at first light they pour out of the four gates of the camp, marching in units to the battleline under the direction of the tribunes. A centurion marches around his men and they form up in ranks. He bothers to wear an elaborate decoration covered armor, all heavily shined, and still wears his brightly colored cloak, which he'll fight in as well. In his right hand he carries a vine staff, which he uses to emphatically point at his men as he gives them orders. More than anything else, its the symbol of his position. Would that centurion also be encumbered with a 20 lb shield and pila during this time as well? What was his calo doing? Sleeping back in the camp? Heck no, that kid is humping the centurion's kit until he asks for something. My guess is that the shield and pila wouldn't be handed over till about 2 minutes before the battle starts, so the centurion (who would be expected to fight the entire battle in the front ranks) would be nice and fresh. That's my idea anyway.
Reply
#7
Quote:............................
Situation: A battle is about to happen. Early morning, the troops are woken up, fed and then at first light they pour out of the four gates of the camp, marching in units to the battleline under the direction of the tribunes. A centurion marches around his men and they form up in ranks. He bothers to wear an elaborate decoration covered armor, all heavily shined, and still wears his brightly colored cloak, which he'll fight in as well. In his right hand he carries a vine staff, which he uses to emphatically point at his men as he gives them orders. More than anything else, its the symbol of his position. Would that centurion also be encumbered with a 20 lb shield and pila during this time as well? What was his calo doing? Sleeping back in the camp? Heck no, that kid is humping the centurion's kit until he asks for something. My guess is that the shield and pila wouldn't be handed over till about 2 minutes before the battle starts, so the centurion (who would be expected to fight the entire battle in the front ranks) would be nice and fresh. That's my idea anyway.

Well, we've had part of this discussion before - and I'll stick to my viewpoint, certainly..... Smile

A centurion cannot 'command' his century from the front line whilst fighting. He cannot co-ordinate with his neighbours, he cannot look around and be aware of what's going on. I don't see the centurion carrying a pilum (nor the Optio and certainly not the signifer or the cornicens - like the tribunes don't).

All the writings that mention when centurions go to the front, or emphasize the numbers of centurions lost are writing similarly (to a knowledgeable audience) to the phrase 'the battle came to the triarii' and it describes a hard fight. What it does emphasize is that when the battle is underway and leadership is required - then it is the centurion that steps forward and provides the example.

On campaign and in the camp there are muleteers, wagon drivers and some servants. I could imagine a servant for a centurion, but am more likely (like in Scarrow's novels) to believe in a clerk per century instead. Servants for tribunes and above, sure, but a low proportion and very few, if any, even devoted, slaves. Certainly none on the actual battlefield where all you want are soldiers to fight.

If a centurion wants his armour shined - then hes got 80 men to do it. Just like having a batman in the British army - batmen are still soldiers. You only feed those who are useful and essential.
Reply
#8
Quote:Well, we've had part of this discussion before - and I'll stick to my viewpoint, certainly..... Smile
A centurion cannot 'command' his century from the front line whilst fighting. He cannot co-ordinate with his neighbours, he cannot look around and be aware of what's going on. I don't see the centurion carrying a pilum (nor the Optio and certainly not the signifer or the cornicens - like the tribunes don't).
All the writings that mention when centurions go to the front, or emphasize the numbers of centurions lost are writing similarly (to a knowledgeable audience) to the phrase 'the battle came to the triarii' and it describes a hard fight. What it does emphasize is that when the battle is underway and leadership is required - then it is the centurion that steps forward and provides the example.

During the ancient period, hardly anyone, even the commanders of armies, really commanded from the rear. Those that did needed to because they needed to see the larger picture of a battlefield and not get stuck getting tunnel vision by only focusing on one small sector of it. But this isn't the case of centurions. Centurions led centuries, they didn't need to worry about anything else but their own relatively small unit.

In the past I've brought up this one large point that you've never acknowledged. Unless mounted on a tall horse (like senior officers of the legions did, such as tribunes, legates and commanders) a centurion even two ranks behind the front rank would have ZERO idea what was actually happening in the front rank because he wouldn't be able to see over the heads and crests of the soldiers in front of him. Add to this your conception that he stood someone in the back of the century, way beyond two ranks, and he would have been blind to the fighting in the front. Is it your contention that some sort of "runner" existed on the front lines that would reported back to the rear of the century to let the centurion know what was happening in the front ranks?

Once the century was committed into the fight, there would be little a centurion could do command-wise. He had no control over any other unit but his own, meaning he didn't need to worry about a larger sector of the battlefield. A century could either advance or retreat in contact and it was not up to the centurion to order either of those, they were relayed from the tribunes who ordered the advance to the entire battle line. What does the centurion have to coordinate with an adjacent unit? Fire control? Nope. Routes of advance? Nope. Communication signals? Nope. There is nothing that a centurion would need to coordinate with a sister century once it had been committed to battle. All additional commands would be relayed from the true coordinators and commanders of the legion, the tribunes, by voice or musical instrument. The centurions job was to lead from the front. Reread Polybius and Caesar's Commentaries, the latter which makes it abundantly clear that even in battles with light casualties, centurions suffered a much higher casualty rate than the rest of the soldiers, and I'm not referring to desperate fights either. I recommend you read the Osprey books on centurions as a start. Lots of discussions have occurred on this forum, in Ancient Warfare Magazine, and other forums and publications that pretty definitively prove that centurions led from the front. If you want to debate this more, create another topic. But I'd recommend you do some more research first.

On campaign and in the camp there are muleteers, wagon drivers and some servants. I could imagine a servant for a centurion, but am more likely (like in Scarrow's novels) to believe in a clerk per century instead. Servants for tribunes and above, sure, but a low proportion and very few, if any, even devoted, slaves. Certainly none on the actual battlefield where all you want are soldiers to fight.
If a centurion wants his armour shined - then hes got 80 men to do it. Just like having a batman in the British army - batmen are still soldiers. You only feed those who are useful and essential.


The Romans, even from the lower strata of their propertied classes, were slave owning people. This was not unique among the time and place, nearly every culture had slaves. And it had been a time honored tradition to bring a personal slave with you on campaign to take care of all the mundane issues that fill up soldiers time, such as cooking and cleaning. This included the Greeks, the Celts, and everyone else. During most of Rome's history, soldiers were property owners, meaning they too would have brought slaves with them. Meaning, that individual soldiers had for some time brought their own slaves and servants with them into war. It wasn't till specific commanders like Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianus, and Marius, to make the baggage train smaller and lessen the army's logistics, forbid individual soldiers from having their own personal servants, forcing them to either ship them home or sell them. Same goes for mules, it had been customary for individual soldiers to bring their own mules to carry their equipment and it wasn't until Marius that individual soldiers were forced to hump their own equipment (Marius' Mules). Following that, every contubernium (tent section) had its own servant, meaning every 8 or so soldiers shared a slave or hired servant. It is widely reported that centurions were allowed their own and weren't forced to share them with anyone else. A centurion had his own tent, his own mule, his own cart. This is all attested. He also had his own slave to take care of all these things. All told, there were many slaves attached to each century and the centurion would not use a soldier as a "bat man" when he was allocated his own personal slave.

There is an abundance of information available that discusses the existence of military servants, calo/calones.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...lones.html
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...ry=calo-cn

Relief from the Augusta Taurinorum: Centurio and Calo
[img width=200]http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p557/ironfather1/scansione0002a.jpg[/img]
Reply
#9
Quote:I could imagine a servant for a centurion, but am more likely (like in Scarrow's novels) to believe in a clerk per century instead.

I wondered about that here. It seems that, rather than there being something like a cornicularius for the centurion, the signifer acted as clerk at century level.


Quote:A centurion... also had his own slave to take care of all these things.

As did other soldiers, it seems - perhaps in spite of regulations! Martin of Tours (St Martin) joined a cavalry unit of the imperial bodyguard as a young man in the mid 4th century. It is reported by his biographer that he was so ascetic that he made do with the services of only a single slave. He would also regularly swap roles with his slave, cooking for him and cleaning his boots...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#10
Quote:............................
In the past I've brought up this one large point that you've never acknowledged. Unless mounted on a tall horse (like senior officers of the legions did, such as tribunes, legates and commanders) a centurion even two ranks behind the front rank would have ZERO idea what was actually happening in the front rank because he wouldn't be able to see over the heads and crests of the soldiers in front of him. Add to this your conception that he stood someone in the back of the century, way beyond two ranks, and he would have been blind to the fighting in the front. Is it your contention that some sort of "runner" existed on the front lines that would reported back to the rear of the century to let the centurion know what was happening in the front ranks? .................................. If you want to debate this more, create another topic. But I'd recommend you do some more research first.

.......................]

Happy to do more research first before initiating a full and deep re-discussion, but certainly wished to acknowledge your point - for I promise I've not ignored it before intentionally - I just do not think it applies...

The century is formed 10x6 with the Optio at the rear left and the signifer at the front right (in front of the 1st man of the 1st file - with the centurion next to him. That's how you form up and then advance (if necessary). The centurions job at this time is to ensure the line is kept and he needs to see where those to left and right of him are. When the engagement is about to start - it's 'standards to the rear' and both signifer and centurion retire to the rear right. The signifer is then visible as a marker to tribunes and legates of where everyone is - and where they can find the centurion if they need him and runners/cornicens can find them.

The century is only 25ft wide and, when closed up, only some 15ft front to back. A centurion can certainly see this far. When the battle is underway his prime role is to maintain the battle-line with his neighbours to prevent breakthrough and subsequent out-flanking - he cannot do that if he is fighting. The optio's are far too busy keeping their own century's ranks dressed (forcefully encouraging any shirkers if necessary) and organising the clearance of any casualties back some yards from the immediate battle. It's not their role to command unless the centurion is lost.

Only if his own century is not holding the line, or when the battle has become serious enough, or when a real push is necessary, does the centurion need to inspire his own troops from the front rank. Yes, the Greek hoplite-style of fighting had the leaders in the front rank - but that's why they displayed little tactical flexibility once engaged - just the sort of thing with the careful movement of centuries and maniples that the Romans were so noted for.

Yes, to see wider you have a horse - and a tribune (almost certainly in the Polybian period) sits back a little further looking after a 4-century frontage of 100ft with his 2-3 cornicens/runners next to him. That's still only 100ft. With only 100ft between tribunes and a maximum of perhaps 70ft to the furthest centurion (tribune is perhaps 50ft to the rear) - it's only shouting distance.

It's the Romans mastery of tactical command and control that makes them different - and that's why the command element is so essential. Yes, the centurions provided the inspirational (and that's why you read of it - it's the heroic bit to the fore) example of direct leadership when it was necessary. But you cannot command from the front and fight at the same time.

But yes, perhaps another topic for another time - but I assure you it wasn't ignored.
Reply
#11
Quote:
Mark Hygate post=356438 Wrote:I could imagine a servant for a centurion, but am more likely (like in Scarrow's novels) to believe in a clerk per century instead.

I wondered about that here. It seems that, rather than there being something like a cornicularius for the centurion, the signifer acted as clerk at century level.....................

My organisational research suggests that there are a pair of cornicens per cohort, but not at the century level, with just the centurion, optio and signifer per century as the 'officers'. The centurion needs to be able to read and write, the optio will certainly need to learn to do that if he is to advance and certainly if he is to deputize (let alone ingratiate by doing the centurions work for him). The signifer, as the senior and most trusted (by his soldier comrades as he looks after their pay) miles, does not necessarily need to be able to read and write.

It's why I'm therefore quite fond of the idea that a century may well have a clerk-type in barracks, not only to help prepare paperwork as part of any military bureaucracy, but perhaps to help teach also; but they wouldn't be soldiers, but scribes instead.
Reply
#12
Quote:Happy to do more research first before initiating a full and deep re-discussion, but certainly wished to acknowledge your point - for I promise I've not ignored it before intentionally - I just do not think it applies...
The century is formed 10x6 with the Optio at the rear left and the signifer at the front right (in front of the 1st man of the 1st file - with the centurion next to him. That's how you form up and then advance (if necessary). The centurions job at this time is to ensure the line is kept and he needs to see where those to left and right of him are. When the engagement is about to start - it's 'standards to the rear' and both signifer and centurion retire to the rear right. The signifer is then visible as a marker to tribunes and legates of where everyone is - and where they can find the centurion if they need him and runners/cornicens can find them.
The century is only 25ft wide and, when closed up, only some 15ft front to back. A centurion can certainly see this far. When the battle is underway his prime role is to maintain the battle-line with his neighbours to prevent breakthrough and subsequent out-flanking - he cannot do that if he is fighting. The optio's are far too busy keeping their own century's ranks dressed (forcefully encouraging any shirkers if necessary) and organising the clearance of any casualties back some yards from the immediate battle. It's not their role to command unless the centurion is lost.
Only if his own century is not holding the line, or when the battle has become serious enough, or when a real push is necessary, does the centurion need to inspire his own troops from the front rank. Yes, the Greek hoplite-style of fighting had the leaders in the front rank - but that's why they displayed little tactical flexibility once engaged - just the sort of thing with the careful movement of centuries and maniples that the Romans were so noted for.
Yes, to see wider you have a horse - and a tribune (almost certainly in the Polybian period) sits back a little further looking after a 4-century frontage of 100ft with his 2-3 cornicens/runners next to him. That's still only 100ft. With only 100ft between tribunes and a maximum of perhaps 70ft to the furthest centurion (tribune is perhaps 50ft to the rear) - it's only shouting distance.
It's the Romans mastery of tactical command and control that makes them different - and that's why the command element is so essential. Yes, the centurions provided the inspirational (and that's why you read of it - it's the heroic bit to the fore) example of direct leadership when it was necessary. But you cannot command from the front and fight at the same time.
But yes, perhaps another topic for another time - but I assure you it wasn't ignored.

I don't want to veer off topic too much, so I will keep my rebuttal short, but without a step stool or a horse, there is no way a person in the back ranks of a six rank deep formation will be able to see what is happening in the front. Especially if you add helmets and crests to the height of the men in front of them. See drawing:

[attachment=10203]centurion.png[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#13
Quote:I don't want to veer off topic too much, so I will keep my rebuttal short, but without a step stool or a horse, there is no way a person in the back ranks of a six rank deep formation will be able to see what is happening in the front. Especially if you add helmets and crests to the height of the men in front of them. See drawing:

[attachment=10203]centurion.png[/attachment]

Which is true if he stands directly behind one individual or file and stays there. But half a pace right or left and he is looking between the heads of one file and the next. To get an idea of what is going on over the whole frontage of the unit he would actually need to be moving up and down the rear of the unit.

I have commanded units from the rear many times and although it gets harder the deeper the formation is you can still see enough to know what is going on (and I am a shorty!). Unlike standing in the front rank because during an actual fight as long as the men next to you are still there the rest of the unit could all be running for the hills and you would never even know.
Adam

No man resisted or offered to stand up in his defence, save one only, a centurion, Sempronius Densus, the single man among so many thousands that the sun beheld that day act worthily of the Roman empire.
Reply
#14
I am going to create a new topic, please post about centurion placement in there.
Reply


Forum Jump: