Jump to content

===[TASK]=== Kushite Arsenal


m7600
 Share

Recommended Posts

Fourth contribution.
Not sure if you also want the ambient occlusion file, the source file, and the actor file. I'm including them here, like before. But if they're superfluous, I'll only include the .dae file in future contributions, and I'll leave the texture baking and actor editing to you.

Screenshot from 2020-07-21 15-17-57.png

kush_workshop.png

kush_workshop.dae kush_workshop.blend workshop.xml

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stan` said:

It's pretty nice, I would add more props under the roofs though. and maybe in the courtyard,  it feels a bit empty right now :)   Sadly they only have siege towers else I'd have suggested to add parts.

 

Thanks! I'll fix it later today or tomorrow. I admit that I have no idea what siege weapons the historical Kushites used. @Sundiata, a little help here please?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, m7600 said:

I admit that I have no idea what siege weapons the historical Kushites used. @Sundiata, a little help here please?

We know very little about Kushite siege warfare, and even less about specific equipment. The only direct reference we have is from Piye's victory stele describing his conquest of Egypt, which talks about the construction of a "moveable tower" and a raised platform for archers and possibly even catapults. The relevant excerpts from Piye's stele:

Quote

 

Then they fought against The-Crag-Great-of-Victories.

They found it full with an army made up of every brave soldier of North-land.

Then a movable tower was made against it,

its wall was overthrown,

(and) a great blood bath was made among them, the number (of dead) being uncountable,

 

 

And the following excerpt is also relevant. The translation of "catapults" is not entirely certain here:

Quote

 

A (counter-)wall was built to cover the (city-)wall.

A platform was built up to raise the archers as they shot arrows

and the 'catapults' as they cast stones,

(thus) slaying men among them daily.

After (some) days Hare-town [Hermopolis] stank to the nose,

being without its usual (fresh) scent.

Then Hare-town placed itself on its belly,

 

 

Archaeology has also shown the use of sapping (digging at the foundation of walls), going back to the Kerma Period.

I must note that the current siege tower in-game is a place holder. We don't know exactly what it really looked like, but if it looked anything like Egyptian siege towers, of which we only have a single extant period depiction (tomb of Intef I, Thebes, 11th Dynasty), then it may have been an open design. Basically a scaffolding on wheels. 

Egyptian siege tower.jpg

 

Intef Siege Tower thebes tomb.jpg

"A siege tower with disk wheel is depicted in the tomb of Intef, dating to the Eleventh Dynasty (© H. Köpp-Junk; drawing: A. Kireenko, after B. Jaroš-Deckert, Grabung im Asasif 1964-1970 V: Das Grab des Jnj-jtj.f. Die Wandmalereien der 11. Dynastie [Mainz: Zabern, 1984], folding map 1)."

Of course, Intef's tomb predates Piye's stele by well over a millennium! Notwithstanding that Piye himself actually predates 0AD's timeframe by 2 centuries. There's no way to know how siege towers developed over all those centuries. Maybe Piye's tower looked exactly the same, maybe it was far more developed. I really can't say...

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 4:48 AM, Sundiata said:

And the following excerpt is also relevant. The translation of "catapults" is not entirely certain here:

Maybe the text was referring to ''stone-throwers'' (As in troops throwing rocks with slings or their hands) and it was mistaken with a mechanical stone thrower?

This passage from the Bible is sometimes interpreted as evidence for catapults; but may also be a description of murder holes:

Quote

In Jerusalem he made devices invented for use on the towers and on the corner defenses so that soldiers could shoot arrows and hurl large stones from the walls.

 

Edited by Ultimate Aurelian
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stan` said:

What is wrong with them?

It's mostly aesthetics. Some are look good and visually form a single structure (e.g. brit, gaul, maur), others are too open for my taste (e.g. cart, mace, ptol). Anyway, I'm not asking for the existing content to be redesigned, merely that the new kush actor should aim to be above average.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

Maybe the text was referring to ''stone-throwers'' (As in troops throwing rocks with slings or their hands) and it was mistaken with a mechanical stone thrower ?

That's what I first thought. These must just be referring to slingers. By the way, I think Kushites might have actually had slingers, but I'd have to research a little deeper again. Heliodorus actually mentions slingers, but it's from a romance, not a work of history. The thing is that the people who did the translation are very capable people. I think they would have discussed the possibility/probability of human stone throwers. I think it's because the text might be referring to a "thing", an inanimate object that casts stone, as opposed to people. Otherwise they would have just translated it as slingers. 

6 hours ago, Ultimate Aurelian said:

This passage from the Bible is sometimes interpreted as evidence catapults; but may also be a description of murder holes:

Quote

In Jerusalem he made devices invented for use on the towers and on the corner defenses so that soldiers could shoot arrows and hurl large stones from the walls.

 

I've brought up this exact argument before as well (search forum for "Uzziah"). Just a generation before Piye, we find the account of King Uzziah using "machines" or "devices" to hurl stones from the walls of Jerusalem, and within a generation Jerusalem was within the Kushite sphere of influence. There was ample opportunity for cultural exchange here, and there were actually resident Kushites in Judah shortly after Piye. Introduction of catapults from the Levant is speculative, but not impossible. Not even that improbable, considering the explosion of "Egyptian" influence in the Levant and the tributes sent from the Levant to Kush, shortly after Piye's rule. It's just that the chronology is a little funky. When Piye was sieging those Egyptian cities, he hadn't conquered Lower Egypt yet, and contacts up to that point with the Levant must have been indirect. Then again, it just takes one knowledgeable person to spread the know-how, so who knows? For now, it will remain in the realm of speculation until we find more tangible clues. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Nescio said:

Anyway, I'm not asking for the existing content to be redesigned, merely that the new kush actor should aim to be above average.

Nescio, you make some fair points, but allow me to say that these are my first contributions to the main game, so I wouldn't expect them to be above average :D I do appreciate the vote of confidence though, I'll try to do my best :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sundiata so any siege weapons we could depict ?

Sorry for the delayed review.

The building looks okay, but still feels empty see this one has interesting things to look at in every corner, There could be some pottery under the arches, some shelves maybe between two arches You might also want to add some tools, hatchets, hammers etc

image.png

Other than that you need to optimize the polycound of your planks, a lot of faces are not visible, and yet do not need to be added :)

image.png

The weels are not round :)

Keep up the good work!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 11:15 AM, Sundiata said:

That's what I first thought. These must just be referring to slingers. By the way, I think Kushites might have actually had slingers, but I'd have to research a little deeper again. Heliodorus actually mentions slingers, but it's from a romance, not a work of history. The thing is that the people who did the translation are very capable people. I think they would have discussed the possibility/probability of human stone throwers. I think it's because the text might be referring to a "thing", an inanimate object that casts stone, as opposed to people. Otherwise they would have just translated it as slingers. 

See the footnote at the page 283 (or page 11 of the pdf):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25150056

https://sci-hub.tw/

image.thumb.png.f4e6b95e5b919087219c55a11733eda6.png

image.thumb.png.39b8982cc7a37bafd9cc0e05c22db80b.png

 

The translation of Emmanuel de Rougé in 1876 says "throwers" as well. However it is a feminine noun in French, like it could be applied to a device. Nevertheless, it is done in the purpose to kill "a man a day" or slaying men daily as in your translation.

645677273_Chrestomathie_gyptienne_par_M_le_...Roug_Emmanuel_bpt6k6369953m_45.thumb.jpeg.6a836d566a52b0c72f5bd7ef6a1cde5a.jpeg

Edited by Genava55
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 4:09 AM, Ultimate Aurelian said:

This passage from the Bible is sometimes interpreted as evidence for catapults; but may also be a description of murder holes:

In Jerusalem he made devices invented for use on the towers and on the corner defenses so that soldiers could shoot arrows and hurl large stones from the walls.

On 7/24/2020 at 11:15 AM, Sundiata said:

I've brought up this exact argument before as well (search forum for "Uzziah"). Just a generation before Piye, we find the account of King Uzziah using "machines" or "devices" to hurl stones from the walls of Jerusalem, and within a generation Jerusalem was within the Kushite sphere of influence. There was ample opportunity for cultural exchange here, and there were actually resident Kushites in Judah shortly after Piye. Introduction of catapults from the Levant is speculative, but not impossible. Not even that improbable, considering the explosion of "Egyptian" influence in the Levant and the tributes sent from the Levant to Kush, shortly after Piye's rule. It's just that the chronology is a little funky. When Piye was sieging those Egyptian cities, he hadn't conquered Lower Egypt yet, and contacts up to that point with the Levant must have been indirect. Then again, it just takes one knowledgeable person to spread the know-how, so who knows? For now, it will remain in the realm of speculation until we find more tangible clues. 

The passage in question is 2 Chronicles 26:15. The two books of Chronicles form a prose narrative covering the time from Adam to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to Jerusalem (c. 535 BC). They're literary texts belonging to a religious tradition and written for a contemporary audience. Based on textual and linguistic grounds, modern scholars agree Chronicles was probably written in the second half of the 4th C BC. The Uzziah passage is reflective of the time it was written: Alexander besieged Tyre (332 BC) and Gaza (332), during which both sides reportedly had torsion engines, and those two cities were in the same region as and had ancient ties with Jerusalem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stan` said:

So, ballista or no ballista?

For the Kushites? No ballista. :) Some ladder or siege tower, see the image @Sundiata posted earlier.

On 7/24/2020 at 11:15 AM, Sundiata said:

That's what I first thought. These must just be referring to slingers. By the way, I think Kushites might have actually had slingers, but I'd have to research a little deeper again. Heliodorus actually mentions slingers, but it's from a romance, not a work of history. The thing is that the people who did the translation are very capable people. I think they would have discussed the possibility/probability of human stone throwers. I think it's because the text might be referring to a "thing", an inanimate object that casts stone, as opposed to people. Otherwise they would have just translated it as slingers. 

2 hours ago, Genava55 said:

See the footnote at the page 283 (or page 11 of the pdf):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25150056

Slingers would make sense. Likewise, large amounts of sling stones have been found at Celtic hill forts, but Caesar does not mention Celtic slingers in field battles, so perhaps they're used only in siege warfare? Due to the stationary nature the impracticle size or weight of stones is not an issue, moreover they could be stockpiled in advance, and in siege warfare slings actually have a clear advantage, because they could release projectiles at any angle.

Just a thought, feel free to shoot. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Stan` said:

So, ballista or no ballista?

No one ever argued that Kushites should have ballistae. Just discussing sources :) 

It's possible they had, but we don't have any secure, or period sources that provide any definite answers (yet). Just possible clues and indications, but as I said a little earlier:

Quote

For now, it will remain in the realm of speculation until we find more tangible clues. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2020 at 1:42 PM, Nescio said:

but Caesar does not mention Celtic slingers in field battles, so perhaps they're used only in siege warfare?

Caesar talks very often of projectiles thrown in a general meaning, without specifying anything.

Although I found a contradictory piece of evidence in the book 5, chapter 35. Ambiorix made an ambush for the Romans that left their camp (5, 31), the ambush is set in the forest in a valley and the lieutenant Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta is wounded by a sling. Therefore, this is not only used in siege warfare.

 

Edited by Genava55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Genava55 said:

Although I found a contradictory piece of evidence in the book 5, chapter 35. Ambiorix made an ambush for the Romans that left their camp (5, 31), the ambush is set in the forest in a valley and the lieutenant Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta is wounded by a sling. Therefore, this is not only used in siege warfare.

You're right, Caesar Commentarii de Bello Gallico 5.35.8:

Lucius Cotta legatus omnes cohortes ordinesque adhortans in adversum os funda vulneratur.

Here it's clearly Celts using slings in a forest ambush, unlike in e.g. 5.43.1 or 7.81.2, when Gauls attacking Roman camps use slings, amongst other things.

After searching through several articles and books I read in the past months I found what probably made me write that sentence:

The sling is only mentioned in passing and does not feature in any set-piece battle. In Britain, however, there is ample archaeological evidence for its use as a defen­sive weapon at hillforts. Huge stockpiles of carefully selected sling pebbles found near the gates of Maiden Castle and Danebury were kept in readiness, and the gates and earthworks seem to have been designed to facilitate the use of the sling to drive away attackers. That slings were also used in attacks upon hillforts is specifically mentioned by Caesar, who, in describ­ing Gaulish warfare, says that the missile volley was employed to drive defenders from the ramparts. In such contexts, slings would have been particularly effective, but were much less useful in open warfare.

— B. W. Cunliffe The Ancient Celts (2nd edition: Oxford 2018) 217–218

It's not exactly the same I wrote, which shows that relying on memory is unreliable; mea culpa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, guys, I keep getting distracted with other stuff...

On 8/5/2020 at 11:12 AM, Nescio said:

The passage in question is 2 Chronicles 26:15. The two books of Chronicles form a prose narrative covering the time from Adam to Cyrus, the Persian king who allowed the Jews in exile in Babylon to return to Jerusalem (c. 535 BC). They're literary texts belonging to a religious tradition and written for a contemporary audience. Based on textual and linguistic grounds, modern scholars agree Chronicles was probably written in the second half of the 4th C BC. The Uzziah passage is reflective of the time it was written: Alexander besieged Tyre (332 BC) and Gaza (332), during which both sides reportedly had torsion engines, and those two cities were in the same region as and had ancient ties with Jerusalem.

Actually Chronicles may date to anywhere between 539 BC/400 BC and 250 BC. It's still hotly debated last time I checked. Dating it to the second half of 4th century BC is just as contentious as dating it to the early 4th century BC. You don't need to view non-Greek sources through a Classicist lens.  

There's a common assumption that ranged siege equipment was invented by the Greeks, particularly under Dionysius I of Syracuse in around 399 B.C. But I feel like there is a double standard with regard to assessing these Greco-Roman sources, vis-a-vis non-Greco-Roman sources. I feel the need to emphasize that, the idea that siege equipment like catapults and balistae were invented under Dionysius, rests not on some 4th century BC period source, but in a 1st century BC source by Diodorus Siculus, well over 3 centuries later...

I want to also emphasize that this source is in conflict with another, 1st century BC source, Pliny's Natural History, where he states that among missile engines the scorpion was invented by Pisaeus, the catapult by the Cretans, the ballista and the sling by the Syrophoenicians. Pliny's Natural History has many thoroughly fantastical elements, including in the relevant chapter, but it just goes to show that even in the 1st century BC, there was no consensus that Dionysius invented ranged siege engines, although he probably did make considerable improvements. The 2nd century author, Polyainos, also wrote a fanciful description of the siege of Peleusium in 525 BC, where he places stone throwing catapults among the defending Egyptians. 

Also, using a 1st century BC source, to dismiss the mention of stone throwing machines in a 5th-3rd century BC source should naturally feel awkward.

Here's a very interesting and relatively quick read: The Origin of Greek and Roman Artillery, by Leigh Alexander, which discusses the Chronicles passage in more detail. It's a little old, but I still see it being cited in contemporary works. He draws a different conclusion than you do:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3291885?read-now=1&seq=1

 

And that source even predates the discovery of archaeological clues at several sites, such as the early 5th century BC Achaemenid Persian siege mound outside of the walls Paphos on Cyprus, containing heavy stone balls, suggested by some to be artillery balls:  

St. Andrew's University with Liverpool City Museum excavated the site of Kouklia from 1950 to 1955.[7] The so-called Siege Mound was discovered outside the walls at Marchellos and containing heavy stone balls, large numbers of weapons such as spearheads and arrows, and many architectural fragments and slabs in the Cypriot syllabic alphabet. This was thought to be a mound reported by Herodotus[8] as built by the Persians during a siege of the city in the Ionian Revolt in 498/497 BC and used as a ramp to launch projectiles inside the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kouklia 

There are even contentious claims of catapults used among the Assyrians, but this is still very speculative. 

 

 

 

With regard to the (for now unanswerable) question of ranged siege equipment among the Kushites specifically, it's important to understand context. It's important to understand that traces of trebuchets have actually been found at various ancient Nubian sites, some apparently dating as far back as late Antiquity (4th -6th century AD), during the post-Meroitic period, just before and just after the conversion to Christianity, placing these devices even among the pre-Christian Kingdoms of post-Meroitic Sudan. So-called trebuchet sockets are known from Banganarti, Suegi West, Shofein, Haraz, Usheir fort and Selib. Not much information is available, but these were probably traction trebuchets (mounted on the walls), predating the traditional date for the adoption of such siege engines in the Eastern Mediterranean, and potentially necessitating us to push back the date for the adoption of these types of trebuchets in Eastern Mediterranean as well. 

Recently read some interesting stuff about these 4th to 6th century fortifications (which have some explicit similarities to less well preserved Napato-Meroitic fortifications):

Quote

 

"Almost one hundred monumental defensive structures, dating back to the 4th-th c. AD, are built in an area stretching from today’s south of Egypt to the central Sudan. Polish archaeologists have just discovered some of their functions.

“The archaeological landscape of Egypt is dominated by the pyramids, and Sudan by stone defensive structures from the time just before and just after the Christianisation of pagan kingdoms in the mid-6th c. They are literally all over the whole valley of the Middle Nile,” Prof. Bogdan Żurawski explained to PAP. Mr Żurawski is head of head of the Department of African Cultures at the Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures of the Polish Academy of Sciences.

Some of the ramparts were several meters high and several meters wide. Depending on the place, they were made of stones or mud bricks, sometimes combining both techniques. All blocks were bonded with mud mortar. Walls covered an area of several hectares. “The scale is unbelievable,” Prof. Żurawski said.

As part of the subsidy granted by the Foundation for Polish Science in the MASTER programme Prof. Żurawski with a two-member team deals with this issue in the context of the formation of the Christian kingdoms in the valley of the Middle Nile in the 4th-6th c. “After the last research season, we are certain that the majority of the fortresses studied by our team originally served as refuges, which means that in times of unrest local population would find refuge behind the huge walls,” Prof. Żurawski explained. He added that in times of peace, people lived in villages along the Nile, close to the fields.

Research was also carried out in Selib, a rectangular walled structure with a church and a well in the middle. Until now the function of this place was not clear. The surrounding wall did not have corner towers, and was relatively thin, so the scientists doubted that it was used as a defensive wall. However, this year’s survey dispelled those doubts: Researchers discovered stone stairs leading to the top of the wall and thus offering an easy way to climb to the top of the wall. This discovery led archaeologists to the conclusion that the structure had a defensive function. The wall itself turned out to be much higher than previously thought.

Furthermore, in several fortresses researchers found traces of trebuchets, ballistic devices that tossed stones at distances up to 100 m.

According to Prof. Żurawski, the lack of evidence of houses points to the refugial function of these structures. The only brick building was the church. “In medieval mentality the church was the best defence ‘machinery’: it offered a divine protection. Episodes of the [second] Arab Siege of Constantinople, decribed in the Chronicles, show the wonderful role of Divine Providence in the defence of the walls,” Prof. Żurawski noted. In one case, the church of an abandoned fortress was in use until the 17th century.

In the 4th century, following the collapse of the Kingdom of Meroë, the borders were unguarded and the danger was real, according to Prof. Żurawski.

Defensive structures were built 20-30 km apart from one another. Between them were observation towers that allowed early detection of impending danger.

Researchers plan to continue excavations within a few defensive structures."

https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2016/08/01/riddle-defensive-structures-middle-nile-solved/

These are 2 of the more than 100 4th to 6th century AD fortresses described (there are hundreds from later periods as well):

4th to 6th century Nubian fort fortification Sudan Africa history architecture medieval 2.jpg

4th to 6th century Nubian fort fortification Sudan Africa history architecture medieval.jpg

4th to 6th century Nubian fort fortification 1.jpg

Trebuchets are not only useful defensive machines for these type of fortifications, they're useful offensive machines against them as well.

Trebuchets actually continued to be used in Nubia until at least the 17th century! 

Screen Shot 2020-08-17 at 12.41.06 copy.jpg

 

Kushites also faced Roman artillery in the 1st century BC, and possibly Ptolemaic artillery before that as well, so either way, they would have been familiar with ranged siege warfare even before the post-Meroitic period (that's if one dismisses the Piye stele). The big question is wether they used it themselves during the BC period, but clearly, this can not be easily confirmed nor dismissed. And there's too much circumstantial evidence not to take the question seriously. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Actually Chronicles may date to anywhere between 539 BC/400 BC and 250 BC. It's still hotly debated last time I checked. Dating it to the second half of 4th century BC is just as contentious as dating it to the early 4th century BC. You don't need to view non-Greek sources through a Classicist lens.  

Actually I'm not: when discussing the bible, one should consult biblical scholarship. As for the various datings of Chronicles and the reasons behind it, as well as why the 350–300 BC is the most likely, see e.g. Steven L. McKenzie Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: I & II Chronicles (Nashville 2004) 29–32.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

Here's a very interesting and relatively quick read: The Origin of Greek and Roman Artillery, by Leigh Alexander, which discusses the Chronicles passage in more detail. It's a little old, but I still see it being cited in contemporary works. He draws a different conclusion than you do:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3291885?read-now=1&seq=1

Interestingly Alexander 1946 also contains this sentence:

It is generally agreed by modern scholars that he lived and wrote no earlier than the fourth century, about 325 B.C., at the time of Alexander.

1 hour ago, Sundiata said:

There's a common assumption that ranged siege equipment was invented by the Greeks, particularly under Dionysius I of Syracuse in around 399 B.C. [...]

For a more detailed discussion, including the biblical and Assyrian ‘evidence’, see E. W. Marsden Greek and Roman Artillery : Historical Development (Oxford 1969), which is overall still very much the standard work on the subject. A more recent article is e.g. Duncan B. Campbell “Ancient Catapults: Some Hypotheses Reexamined” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 80.4 (October–December 2011) 677–700 https://doi.org/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0677

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Interestingly Alexander 1946 also contains this sentence:

It is generally agreed by modern scholars that he lived and wrote no earlier than the fourth century, about 325 B.C., at the time of Alexander.

Did you actually get the crux of the article?

Screen Shot 2020-08-17 at 15.20.01 copy.jpg

 

And:

Screen Shot 2020-08-17 at 15.16.06 copy.jpg

 

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

Actually I'm not: when discussing the bible, one should consult biblical scholarship. As for the various datings of Chronicles and the reasons behind it, as well as why the 350–300 BC is the most likely, see e.g. Steven L. McKenzie Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: I & II Chronicles (Nashville 2004) 29–32.

I haven't read it. Do you have a link? The point is that it's not a Greek source, and the sections on Uzziah don't necessitate the interpretation for any Greek source for the mention of stone throwers, neither are the stone throwers themselves a solid dating method for the text. It sounds like a circular logic. 

 

41 minutes ago, Nescio said:

A more recent article is e.g. Duncan B. Campbell “Ancient Catapults: Some Hypotheses Reexamined” Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 80.4 (October–December 2011) 677–700 https://doi.org/10.2972/hesperia.80.4.0677

I actually just read it earlier today, but I didn't see any discussion on the possible Eastern origin of ranged siege weapons, only a cursory mention. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...