Jump to content

Military Strengths-2 and More!


Corvo the Crow

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This should be Robert referencing the immediate surroundings of Highgarden which indeed are full of roses - but this is hyperbole. We don't assume that all the female Kingslanders lose their modesty in summer and like to swim naked, right?

Whatever descriptions we have of Highgarden imply that this is a very lively a populous place. There may not be a town around the castle proper but there must be towns and villages in the immediate neighborhood.

The difference to the Barrowlands here is that we don't have just Robert's word that the place is empty - we see it through Ned's eyes as well - whereas no one has ever told us anything about the lands around of Highgarden being empty. The Reach is full of cultivated land (even before the Conquest; the Field of Fire takes place on fields of grain) whereas there are vast lands in the North (especially in those regions of the Barrowlands we see in AGoT) that are completely devoid of cultivation.

We just see some portion of the road though, and road north of Winferfell is densely populated even in Wolfswood.

North makes up half the land of 7K, or a third depending on who you ask even with a population as big as the reach there will be  SOME depopulated areas but my point is Reach is not so densely populated either, nor RL since there are ruined castles ad villages that remain unoccupied. Same goes for West, judging from Robb’s campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A small thing

Quote

Renly is crowned," said Marq Piper. "Highgarden and Storm's End support his claim, and the Dornishmen will not be laggardly. If Winterfell and Riverrun add their strength to his, he will have five of the seven great houses behind him. Six, if the Arryns bestir themselves! Six against the Rock! My lords, within the year, we will have all their heads on pikes, the queen and the boy king, Lord Tywin, the Imp, the Kingslayer, Ser Kevan, all of them! That is what we shall win if we join with King Renly. What does Lord Stannis have against that, that we should cast it all aside?"

Even RL lords were expecting Dorne to join Renly. 

So when Renly was saying 100000 men he may have just thought 10000 in Highgarden + 80000 with me + 10000(as was during RR) from Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

We just see some portion of the road though, and road north of Winferfell is densely populated even in Wolfswood.

The Wolfswood is not densely populated. There are some people there, just as their are people in the Kingswood.

8 hours ago, Corvo the Crow said:

North makes up half the land of 7K, or a third depending on who you ask even with a population as big as the reach there will be  SOME depopulated areas but my point is Reach is not so densely populated either, nor RL since there are ruined castles ad villages that remain unoccupied. Same goes for West, judging from Robb’s campaign.

The Reach seems to be all cultivated land - those fields of golden roses are not uncultivated lands, the Tyrells grow them there to reference the flower in their sigil, presumably. There are some forests in the Reach, too - Wat's Wood, for example - but those are woods completely under human control whereas the Wolfswood is still a wild forest.

That there are ruins in the Riverlands doesn't mean those areas have been depopulated. Those are remains of ancient places that were destroyed and not rebuilt. But that doesn't mean there aren't new and grander castles in the neighborhood.

If you want my comparison to the real world then the south is the US and the North Canada insofar as population density is concerned (although the North is not as large as the South, unlike the US and Canada).

The North is pretty much the only place where we don't see vast tracts of actually cultivated land. The Riverlands are full of fields, riThe lands of the clansmen are a complete wilderness along the route Bran took. That wouldn't be the case in any other place in Westeros. Meera could have likely led Bran through the Riverlands and the Reach, too, but there they would have been forced to hide in orchards and fields rather than in the wilderness and they would have been able to travel only by night, etc.

The idea that the great villages and towns of the North are hiding beside the next corner (along with the vast grain fields) really doesn't have any merit at this point. We don't invent the background of that world, we deduce it from hints given in the text, from the world-building details George gives us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Wolfswood is not densely populated. There are some people there, just as their are people in the Kingswood.

The Reach seems to be all cultivated land - those fields of golden roses are not uncultivated lands, the Tyrells grow them there to reference the flower in their sigil, presumably. There are some forests in the Reach, too - Wat's Wood, for example - but those are woods completely under human control whereas the Wolfswood is still a wild forest.

That there are ruins in the Riverlands doesn't mean those areas have been depopulated. Those are remains of ancient places that were destroyed and not rebuilt. But that doesn't mean there aren't new and grander castles in the neighborhood.

If you want my comparison to the real world then the south is the US and the North Canada insofar as population density is concerned (although the North is not as large as the South, unlike the US and Canada).

The North is pretty much the only place where we don't see vast tracts of actually cultivated land. The Riverlands are full of fields, riThe lands of the clansmen are a complete wilderness along the route Bran took. That wouldn't be the case in any other place in Westeros. Meera could have likely led Bran through the Riverlands and the Reach, too, but there they would have been forced to hide in orchards and fields rather than in the wilderness and they would have been able to travel only by night, etc.

The idea that the great villages and towns of the North are hiding beside the next corner (along with the vast grain fields) really doesn't have any merit at this point. We don't invent the background of that world, we deduce it from hints given in the text, from the world-building details George gives us.

The Canada-US comparison is non sensical as Canada and the US were not medieval civilizations with medieval population patterns. For a better comparison you need to look to Europe.

And here we know the Seven Kingdoms are loosely based on the 7 Anglo Saxon kingdoms, with the North roughly equivalent to the Kingdom of Northumbria + parts of Scotland, with some Scottish highlands thrown in where the Northern Mountain Clans reside.

So a modern Canada - US comparison was never intended. Instead Northumbria vs Mercia vs Wessex etc is a better analogy.

Canada is the Lands Beyond the Wall. Martin even described the Haunted Forest as similar to the area around Lake Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the great southron host that crept upriver had more than a thousand but “almost a tenth were knights” even bein generous calling them 25000 and a tenth of that knights, we know Hightowers brought 1000 knights and 5000 men. Even with some of these dead, other lords’ contribution would be small especially knightwise. Peake having 100 knights and 900 men-at-arms is considered powerful as well to get a better picture.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/26/2018 at 6:17 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Canada-US comparison is non sensical as Canada and the US were not medieval civilizations with medieval population patterns. For a better comparison you need to look to Europe.

And here we know the Seven Kingdoms are loosely based on the 7 Anglo Saxon kingdoms, with the North roughly equivalent to the Kingdom of Northumbria + parts of Scotland, with some Scottish highlands thrown in where the Northern Mountain Clans reside.

So a modern Canada - US comparison was never intended. Instead Northumbria vs Mercia vs Wessex etc is a better analogy.

Canada is the Lands Beyond the Wall. Martin even described the Haunted Forest as similar to the area around Lake Michigan.

Insofar as size is concerned, the US-Canada comparison makes more sense, especially considering that we also have more good numbers of the population of those lands in the present - the numbers on the English kingdoms of the early middle ages are all conjecture.

Even the US are not exactly densely populated compared to great European countries - the US has 33 people per km² whereas Germany has 232 people per km². Canada has only 3.6 per km².

Historically George took inspiration from medieval England, but insofar as size is concerned he looked to the Americas.

But you can also go with a European population density there. Germany has 232 people per km² as a I said and Norway merely 13 people per km² despite the fact that Germany is not much larger in size than Norway.

And the idea that in a medieval environment many people would want to/could live in the North as compared to the regions were much more land could be and were cultivated and where winter was either not an issue or not that problematic.

If we go by those military numbers the Reach alone has thrice+ as many people as the North.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Insofar as size is concerned, the US-Canada comparison makes more sense, especially considering that we also have more good numbers of the population of those lands in the present - the numbers on the English kingdoms of the early middle ages are all conjecture.

Even the US are not exactly densely populated compared to great European countries - the US has 33 people per km² whereas Germany has 232 people per km². Canada has only 3.6 per km².

Historically George took inspiration from medieval England, but insofar as size is concerned he looked to the Americas.

But you can also go with a European population density there. Germany has 232 people per km² as a I said and Norway merely 13 people per km² despite the fact that Germany is not much larger in size than Norway.

And the idea that in a medieval environment many people would want to/could live in the North as compared to the regions were much more land could be and were cultivated and where winter was either not an issue or not that problematic.

If we go by those military numbers the Reach alone has thrice+ as many people as the North.

I suggest you stop wasting your time with modern day populations. They are irrelevant to medieval demographics.

And again. The North is not Norway. The Lands Beyond the Wall are Norway.

As for the Reach’s population vs the North:

The Reach can raise maybe 100k men. The North maybe 40k. In isolation that would suggest 2.5 times the population. However, the wealth, fertility and infrastructure of the Reach would also allow them to raise a higher percentage of their population to war than the North. Meaning the 100k might be 1% of the Reach’s population while the 40k is only 0.75%  of the North’s, for example.

In any case, I give the Reach around 10m people and the North around 4-5m.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Insofar as size is concerned, the US-Canada comparison makes more sense, especially considering that we also have more good numbers of the population of those lands in the present - the numbers on the English kingdoms of the early middle ages are all conjecture.

Even the US are not exactly densely populated compared to great European countries - the US has 33 people per km² whereas Germany has 232 people per km². Canada has only 3.6 per km².

Canada might conceivably work as a comparison but only if you take it as representing the land beyond the Wall rather than the North. I don't recall the exact percentage but as I recall well over 90% of the Canadian population live within 100 miles of the US border

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Black Crow said:

Canada might conceivably work as a comparison but only if you take it as representing the land beyond the Wall rather than the North. I don't recall the exact percentage but as I recall well over 90% of the Canadian population live within 100 miles of the US border

The point here is that lands like Canada, Norway, all countries in the far north, to be exact, would have had even less people back in a medieval time than they have now. In that sense those are not bad comparisons at all. Bad weather and climate doesn't support many people, no matter whether you have industrial agriculture or not. Most of the Northmen should live in the southern reaches of the North, too, in the lands near White Harbor and in the southern parts of the Rills and the Barrowlands if they are reasonably fertile. Also on Cape Kraken and the other southern coastal regions.

North of Winterfell seems to come mostly wilderness.

But the real parallel is that the North feels and looks like those regions of the US and Canada which are, well, empty wilderness whereas no other place in Westeros feels like that. Nobody talks about or describes the Reach or the Riverlands or the Vale or the West or the Crownlands as a place of vast wilderness and emptiness. If somebody abandons you without horses and food in the middle of the Barrowlands in the region where Ned and Robert ride in AGoT you might starve to death or die of thirst before you get back into civilization again. There are population centers in Norway and Canada, too. Pretty big cities, in fact. But most of the place is empty. Which is how it is with the North, too. There is a reason why the North has only a single town and a single city - none of the Seven Kingdoms have that few population centers, nor that much empty and wild land.

The lands beyond the Wall are pretty much an utter wasteland, with no population centers (i.e. cities or towns) whatsoever (at least since Hardhome is gone). That would be more akin to Alaska having 0.4 people per km².

20 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Reach can raise maybe 100k men. The North maybe 40k. In isolation that would suggest 2.5 times the population. However, the wealth, fertility and infrastructure of the Reach would also allow them to raise a higher percentage of their population to war than the North. Meaning the 100k might be 1% of the Reach’s population while the 40k is only 0.75%  of the North’s, for example.

In any case, I give the Reach around 10m people and the North around 4-5m.

That's just a nonsensical ad hoc argumentation based on nothing we get in the books. Where is it said that the Northmen cannot raise as great a percentage of their population as the Reach? Where is it stated that military potential numbers we are given are relative to the percentage of the entire population this region can raise?

There is no reason to take this special pleading seriously, especially not since both Torrhen and Cregan Starks have years (!) to raise their armies. The idea that they cannot raise all their fighting men in that time is just silly.

Not to mention that we have literally no numbers on actual population sizes - which makes it completely pointless to speculate about any of that.

What we can do is to notice the obvious differences in the descriptions of the North and the other kingdoms. And those are very glaring. Nobody ever mentions masses of people in the North outside the vicinity of White Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The point here is that lands like Canada, Norway, all countries in the far north, to be exact, would have had even less people back in a medieval time than they have now. In that sense those are not bad comparisons at all. Bad weather and climate doesn't support many people, no matter whether you have industrial agriculture or not. Most of the Northmen should live in the southern reaches of the North, too, in the lands near White Harbor and in the southern parts of the Rills and the Barrowlands if they are reasonably fertile. Also on Cape Kraken and the other southern coastal regions.

North of Winterfell seems to come mostly wilderness.

But the real parallel is that the North feels and looks like those regions of the US and Canada which are, well, empty wilderness whereas no other place in Westeros feels like that. Nobody talks about or describes the Reach or the Riverlands or the Vale or the West or the Crownlands as a place of vast wilderness and emptiness. If somebody abandons you without horses and food in the middle of the Barrowlands in the region where Ned and Robert ride in AGoT you might starve to death or die of thirst before you get back into civilization again. There are population centers in Norway and Canada, too. Pretty big cities, in fact. But most of the place is empty. Which is how it is with the North, too. There is a reason why the North has only a single town and a single city - none of the Seven Kingdoms have that few population centers, nor that much empty and wild land.

The lands beyond the Wall are pretty much an utter wasteland, with no population centers (i.e. cities or towns) whatsoever (at least since Hardhome is gone). That would be more akin to Alaska having 0.4 people per km².

That's just a nonsensical ad hoc argumentation based on nothing we get in the books. Where is it said that the Northmen cannot raise as great a percentage of their population as the Reach? Where is it stated that military potential numbers we are given are relative to the percentage of the entire population this region can raise?

There is no reason to take this special pleading seriously, especially not since both Torrhen and Cregan Starks have years (!) to raise their armies. The idea that they cannot raise all their fighting men in that time is just silly.

Not to mention that we have literally no numbers on actual population sizes - which makes it completely pointless to speculate about any of that.

What we can do is to notice the obvious differences in the descriptions of the North and the other kingdoms. And those are very glaring. Nobody ever mentions masses of people in the North outside the vicinity of White Harbor.

So this is once again a difficult post to respond to due to its vague, wide ranging style. Instead of focusing on a few key points that can be debated, it relies on sweeping statements of impression, interpretation and opinion.

So here goes an attempt to keep the response (relatively) tight.

Firstly, Black Crow's point is a valid one, which is that the vast bulk of Canada's population lives in a relatively narrow band close to its southern border. Go farther North and you find almost no one. This is categorically not the case in the North, with holdfasts stretching right up to the Wall, which is bordered by arable farmland to its immediate south, in the Gift. In fact, agriculture is even practiced North of the Wall, signified by many of the food products in evidence among the Free Folk.

The North cannot be Canada, or Norway or Sweden, as it does not stretch to the Arctic. And is in fact hundreds of miles south of the Tundra. This is not a new point, and has in fact been established in countless posts going back most of a decade.

The North has a medieval, feudal society, based on agriculture and farming, stretching right up to the Wall. That is indisputable. This despite 5 year Winters. Saying it is less densely populated than the South is not a win for your argument, because no one disputes that. It is a given. It also happens to be much larger than the southron kingdoms, which counters that lower population density.

We know it can raise a similar army to the Vale. That tells us that it is not medieval Norway compared to a Vale who might be medieval Germany or Austria. No, its military strength is on the same level as that of southron kingdoms (such as the Vale specifically).

Now, as for the last point which you contest, which is the comparative mobilization ratios:

It is simple logic. We KNOW mobilization capability is not limited by population size, but by the amount of food surplus, wealth and logistical capability of a region. A kingdom where armies have to travel much further, which has lower food surpluses and where road infrastructure is less developed will face much greater constraints in mobilizing its population to war than a comparatively wealthy, fertile and densely populated region where troops have to travel smaller distances to get to the field of battle.

It would have cost the North much more to get Torhenn's 30k men to the Riverlands than it would have cost Tywin Lannister or the Arryn's to get 30k men to the same place.

Simple logic allows us to estimate a high likelihood that the North has a lower mobilization rate than the South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That's just a nonsensical ad hoc argumentation based on nothing we get in the books. Where is it said that the Northmen cannot raise as great a percentage of their population as the Reach? Where is it stated that military potential numbers we are given are relative to the percentage of the entire population this region can raise?

There is no reason to take this special pleading seriously, especially not since both Torrhen and Cregan Starks have years (!) to raise their armies. The idea that they cannot raise all their fighting men in that time is just silly.

 

Imagine raising an army from a kingdom the size of the USA, during mid/late medieval society. With a population that is scattered throughout the countryside due to the lack of cities and towns. Imagine sending your riders to find any available men, how hard could it be to be able to knick pick every available men throughout the land especially when every major lord of the North holds lands that are equal in size with France. Imagine how hard it is to find these men with the lack of roads and infrastructure, along with all the mountains, forests, and wilderness of the North.

The North is one of the poorest of the seven kingdoms, most possibly poorer than the Ironborn since they do so much reaving and plundering. With winter always approaching, a House such as the Karstarks cannot waste precious food on fielding so many men, especially when its harder to find these men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point I’d like to correct; North is not bereft of towns; Barrowton (and Wintertown in Winter) are just the most prominent one and perhaps the only large one but we’ve been told there are other ones.

Similar case, Cat tells us there are many a market town on Greenfork but we don’t know any of them because none are as prominent as say Saltpans or Seagard or Fairmarket.

 

But this is not what I came to post...

Lannisters start ‘to dance’ with 8000 men and after defeating the smaller army of Vance and Piper on Redfork (it seems history repeats itself), they cross it and some time later they are done in Fishfeed. Fishfeed was the bloodiest battle with 2000 dead in total, so how come Westerman army just ceased to exist? Were they already reduced to a small number at this time? Did they just surrender after some fighting?

 

Also one thing I’d like to point out, Rivermen numbers in dance exceed the Westerman numbers. I believe this would also be the case if Edmure had more time to prepare and had not spread his forces thin.

And finally a question, does Bloody Ben’s company of archers cease to exist after Tumbleton?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

Imagine raising an army from a kingdom the size of the USA, during mid/late medieval society. With a population that is scattered throughout the countryside due to the lack of cities and towns. Imagine sending your riders to find any available men, how hard could it be to be able to knick pick every available men throughout the land especially when every major lord of the North holds lands that are equal in size with France. Imagine how hard it is to find these men with the lack of roads and infrastructure, along with all the mountains, forests, and wilderness of the North.

The North is one of the poorest of the seven kingdoms, most possibly poorer than the Ironborn since they do so much reaving and plundering. With winter always approaching, a House such as the Karstarks cannot waste precious food on fielding so many men, especially when its harder to find these men.

Interesting on the wealth front. On a GDP per CAPITA basis the North is likely the poorest of the mainland kingdoms. That means dividing your gross domestic product by the number of people in the kingdom. Basically, it takes more people to produce a ton of grain in the North than it does in the South, due to the lower agricultural yields.

However from a total GDP perspective (total economic production) the North would probably be significantly higher than Dorne, and possibly similar to the Vale of Arryn. 

It is only once you divide that total production by the North’s higher population, that the per capita wealth likely drops below that of Dorne, which might have less than half of the North’s population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interesting on the wealth front. On a GDP per CAPITA basis the North is likely the poorest of the mainland kingdoms. That means dividing your gross domestic product by the number of people in the kingdom. Basically, it takes more people to produce a ton of grain in the North than it does in the South, due to the lower agricultural yields.

However from a total GDP perspective (total economic production) the North would probably be significantly higher than Dorne, and possibly similar to the Vale of Arryn. 

It is only once you divide that total production by the North’s higher population, that the per capita wealth likely drops below that of Dorne, which might have less than half of the North’s population.

Dorne probably doesn’t even have a quarter of the North’s population; Dorne is the least populated of 7K(II not included) and then Stormlands. I can see the North as the second highest population after Reach simply because they raise similar numbers to Vale and RL from a much larger region with a lower amount of “gold per person” if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

However from a total GDP perspective (total economic production) the North would probably be significantly higher than Dorne, and possibly similar to the Vale of Arryn. 

2

Since Dorne is a desert, their economic production might be low in terms of crops, they most likely rely on food imports from the nearby free cities. 

It is possible that the North has a similar economic production to the Vale. Even tho the Vale is the 3rd most fertile of the kingdoms, the North is 3 times the size of the Vale, and can no doubt meet the standards of the Vale, on the yielding of crops. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Dorne probably doesn’t even have a quarter of the North’s population; Dorne is the least populated of 7K(II not included) and then Stormlands. I can see the North as the second highest population after Reach simply because they raise similar numbers to Vale and RL from a much larger region with a lower amount of “gold per person” if nothing else.

The Riverlands even tho is always plagued by war, are still highly populated and are most likely the 2nd most populated of the kingdoms since it's not just a battleground for warfare, but also a centre of trade between 4-5 kingdoms. Not to the forget its fertile lands which are no doubt due to attract many foreign farmers from maybe the Westerlands into migrating. 

The Riverlands united under a strong leader can be a force to be reckoned with. If the North and Riverlands managed to part away from the Iron Throne, with some years of recovery they could have easily raised a force that could challenge the might of Renly's host. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Young Maester said:

Since Dorne is a desert, their economic production might be low in terms of crops, they most likely rely on food imports from the nearby free cities. 

It is possible that the North has a similar economic production to the Vale. Even tho the Vale is the 3rd most fertile of the kingdoms, the North is 3 times the size of the Vale, and can no doubt meet the standards of the Vale, on the yielding of crops. 

Where do we get the bolded part? North makes up a half or a third of the realm, this would make Vale 1/9 of the realm at least. Not possible.

Also no one save some bedouins breeding arab horses live in deserts of Dorne. The populations are centered around the fertile areas around such as rivers or Yronwood’s lands and the coasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Dorne probably doesn’t even have a quarter of the North’s population; Dorne is the least populated of 7K(II not included) and then Stormlands. I can see the North as the second highest population after Reach simply because they raise similar numbers to Vale and RL from a much larger region with a lower amount of “gold per person” if nothing else.

Binge watching the show “Vikings” this year (yes I know I’m a late adopter) made me do some research around that historical setting, and what struck was how small the armies of the time were. The Great Heathen Army likely numbered only 3000 warriors, for example.

This puts into stark perspective the type of logistical cost the North would have had to raise an army of 30k men under Torhenn. And that would just be in an area the size England. Raising that army over an area the size of the North, and logistically supporting it to march all the way to the Riverlands, well, that is beyond anything England could have achieved in a similar time period.

The armies of the War of the Roses did all their fighting in an area probably the size of the Barrowlands, or maybe just the Rills, even. Meaning each side had to march maybe a hundred miles - maybe two - maximum, with a far lower logistical cost than having to gather and march men for thousands of miles like Torhenn did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Binge watching the show “Vikings” this year (yes I know I’m a late adopter) made me do some research around that historical setting, and what struck was how small the armies of the time were. The Great Heathen Army likely numbered only 3000 warriors, for example.

Do this puts into stark perspective the type of logistical cost the North would have had to raise an army of 30k men under Torhenn. And that would just be in an area the size England. Raising that army over an area the size of the North, and logistically supporting it to march all the way to the Riverlands, well, that is beyond anything England could have achieved in a similar time period.

The armies of the War of the Roses did all their fighting in an area probably the size of the Barrowlands, or maybe just the Rills, even. Meaning each side had to march maybe a hundred miles - maybe two - maximum, with a far lower logistical cost than having to gather amd march men for thousands of miles like Torhenn did.

Exactly.

One thing worth noting is the North’s high proportion of heavy cavalry we see with Robb despite the region being poorer; I believe with what we see in F&B you’d agree at last when I say again(as I have been saying for a year or two now) that the norm is 1 in 10 being heavy cavalry( total cavalry proportion would be higher). 

Bringing in a higher proportion of heavy cavalry but with a lower overall number of men than you could raise in total makes it a more cost effective army for the North; they still pack the same punch with heavy cavalry numbers staying the same but have fewer idle mouths to feed on the long march south and let’s face it, these men, be it knight or men-at-arms, are just mouths with feet for thousands of miles until they finally reach the battlefield or at least warzone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...