Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: Nagashino-And Oda victory without the Arquebuisers?

  1. #1
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    There is the question guys, would Oda Nogunaga have conceived a victory against Takeda Shigen at the battle of Nagashino without the 3000 or so Arquebusiers? For those that have no clue what Nagashino was, it was a battle between the Takeda and the Oda in which the famous Takeda Cavalry was slaughtered by the many guns used by the Oda. That is just a breif overview of the happening within this huge battle, which made a turning point in Japanese warfare.

    Since this battle, the way of the Samurai slowly disappeared as the guns were brought in. However, for the Daimyo, the loss of the way of life was of little importance now they had the key to gaining the title of shogun for their own. After the slaughter at Nagashino the nation woke up and realised, guns were the way, and infact, the way to expand their armies. What many overlook is the fact, Ashigaru's were commonly used, but poorly trained, because obviously, real skill needed to be learned over time, were as they were just poorly skilled and used the weapons to the best of their knowledge. Guns were, however, powerful but easy to use weapons, which meant Ashigaru became much more vital to their campaign as now they neeeded their people more than ever, to use these awesome weapons, and use them over a vast amount of troops.

    But back to Nagashino. What if Oda had no guns, would he have been able to stand against the might of a Takeda Cavalry charge? Or would he have met his end? It is interesting to think how exactally the war would have turned out if Oda had not the gun power he did. Now it's time for you to discuss you views, would they have still become victorious? Or would Japan have no Oda shogunate?
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  2. #2

    Default

    Nobunaga would not have stood a chance. Cavalry charges should be used against a breaking enemy or a line without pikes (in a defensive position) or men with FIREARMS. Nobunaga was a genius because he immediately grasped the uses of things like volley fire and the deploying of gunpowder equipped troops. Even if nobunaga had 3000 more yari soldiers to replace his gun powder troops in my opinion he still would not be successful because of the physical impact of long range musket fire and the psychological impact it causes
    Shoot straight you bastards and don't make a mess of it!
    Executed by firing squad.
    ~~ Harry Harbord "Breaker" Morant, Australian poet & national hero, d. 1902

  3. #3
    Standing Up For Rationality Senior Member Ronin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Lisbon,Portugal
    Posts
    4,952

    Default

    Well it┤s a dificult question.
    The gun was very important in that battle since it was able to break the takeda charge but after that there was still several hours of regular fighting.

    So the question is could the Oda army take the takeda charge and still win????
    well considering that the longest distance between the forest that the Takeda calvary came out of and the Oda lines was kinda short not really space to get a lot of speed, and the fact that there was a small river( a creek really) that did have some steep banks that would have slowed the horses down i don┤t really think the charge would have been that much efective anyway.

    But i really think that the error on the part of the Takeda was the decision to attack the Oda army.I think that the Takeda once they here aware of the Oda army presence they should have made a last ditch effort to take the garrison( with they could have done guiven their superiority in numbers) and use the Nagashino castle as a defensive position against the Oda forces.

    ------------------
    "yama yama tani tani"- Oda Nobunaga.
    on every montain and in every valley!
    "If given the choice to be the shepherd or the sheep... be the wolf"
    -Josh Homme
    "That's the difference between me and the rest of the world! Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand euphoria!"
    - Calvin

  4. #4

    Default

    Not a chance. Remember the Takeda cavalry did reach the gunners, it slaughtered the first line and then they got caught in the palisade, where their foot soldiers piled up as corpses.

    Without guns Oda wouldnt have stood a chance against a professional force like the Takeda. HOWEVER, It was Katsuyori leading the Takeda forces that day.. and that guy was a blockhead. He may have made a stupid mistake and lost because of it.


  5. #5
    Senior Member Senior Member Zen Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA (newly relocated)
    Posts
    781

    Default

    This is a good question mate....
    And one must remember a few things first....

    1. The casualties WERE EXTREMELY lopsided...
    2. It was not a "surprise" attack (the initial-siege- was, but not the charge)
    3. The numbers were not favorable... 3:1 or 4:1...

    therefore, it seems likely that two VERY experienced commanders such as Ieyasu and Nobunaga would not have squandered there huge advantage... perhaps....

    My opinion, a decisive Oda/Tokugawa victory with maybe..... half as many casualties for the Takeda as they recieved with guns present...
    So instead of something like 80% casualties... probably close to 40-50% casualties.
    Reason: Hand to hand routing allows men to escape with a reargaurd... Range fire with retreat does not allow a "tactical" retreat.

    anyways, The Takeda were doomed when Katsuyori DID NOT listen to the advice of most of his VERY veteran generals.

    -Zen Blade

    ------------------
    Zen Blade Asai
    Red Devil
    Last of the RSG
    Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
    SHS Core Member
    Zen Blade Asai
    Red Devil
    Last of the RSG
    Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
    SHS Core Member, Retired
    Derelict from an older age.

  6. #6

    Default

    Goodday.

    I am just wondering, that movie, Kagemeshu, I think, how reliable is it, in a hostorical perspective?

    Ok, I have heard that there was several of hours fighting after the charge, which is not in the movie. Also the "so-called-creek". Are there any other major factors, there should be taken in consideration?

    If not, and remember my oppinion is based upon the battle in the movie, I would say: The Takeda would have won. Mainly because, if the Asigaru's would not have had the arquebuisers, they should have faught in hand-to-hand battle, and probaly they would have routed, because their live was at stake.
    But I am certain, that if Oda Nobunaga did not have had arquebuisers, he would have used a completly other strategy.
    Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens

  7. #7
    Member Member CEWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    OR, USA
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I read somewhere that the '3000' arquebusiers might have just been a 'typo', and that the original number was maybe 1000. A problem when it was transcribed or something, and as FWseal pointed out to me, no other battle that Nobunaga participated in had nearly that many gunners, so it may well have been a 'typo'. If that is the case, then Takeda lost due to the fact that they were horribly outnumbered and had lost the element of surprise, and the guns may not have been as important as thought. Which is funny, because Nagashino is always remembered exclusively for its use of guns.
    "I'm telling you, Kakizaki, there is a man living in my toilet!"
    "I'm sure there is, Tono, now let's go a little lighter on the sake next time, okay?"


    - Uesugi Kenshin and Kakizaki Kageie, 1578

  8. #8
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    It was 3000, it says so in many books, or around 3000.

    ------------------
    Give me your heart, and I'll break it.
    Give me your virginity and Iyou'll lose it.
    Give me your money, and I'll keep it.
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  9. #9
    Naughty Little Hippy Senior Member Tachikaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    3,417

    Default

    The battle for Kagemusha was simplified for drama, as all of Kurasawa's military battle sceens. It was longer than it appeared in the film, and there was more engagement. If I remember right, there were no casualties on the Oda/Tokugawa side in the movie.

    I tend to dismiss arguements that the quality of weapons determines victory, except in extreme examples. I think other factors, such as training, leadership, communications, location, etc. have much greater impact. I would agree with the notion that the Takeda had a greater chance with another leader other than Katsuyori. He had proven himself previously, but he screwed up at Nagashino.


    Screw luxury; resist convenience.

  10. #10

    Default

    respectfully tachi i disagree the quality of the weapons can be the deciding factor obviously the ability of a general to use them is even more important but the weapons themselves can make that small key differenece in that battle

    ------------------
    Shoot straight you bastards and don't make a mess of it!
    Executed by firing squad.
    ~~ Harry Harbord "Breaker" Morant, Australian poet & national hero, d. 1902
    Shoot straight you bastards and don't make a mess of it!
    Executed by firing squad.
    ~~ Harry Harbord "Breaker" Morant, Australian poet & national hero, d. 1902

  11. #11

    Default

    true. Even a moron with 3000 muskets under his command, even if they were poorly trained musketeers, are still a grave danger to an able general with highly trained swordmen.

    The whole battle would be literally decided on the first volley. Kind of what like happened in Nagashino. After the first wave of Takeda troops charged and was utterly massacred, the Oda instantly gained the upper hand. Any and all future charges or attempts to attack met the same fate, even their cavalry.

  12. #12
    Member Member CEWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    OR, USA
    Posts
    153

    Default

    You missed my point totally: the normally accepted number 3000 is suspected to be a misprint, or 'typo' - when the koyogunkan was transcribed after the death of the author, and it was really 1000, but 3000 has become so accepted that no one has tried to verify it. Nobunaga never used 3000 muskets in any battle before or since, so I think there is some validity to the suspicion. every other battle he uses a few hundred or up to 1000, then suddenly uses 3000, then after that goes back to using less than half?
    So it is thought that the "3000, it says so in many books, or around 3000" may be off by 2000.

    IF that is the case, then the question of whether Katsuyori would have stood a chance against less than 3000 guns would be invalid, and the fact that he lost the tactical advantage of surprise and was also outnumbered would have been the deciding factor.

    Even WITH 3000 gunners, one has to wonder how well trained and disciplined they were - Nobunaga was a notorious user of Ashigaru -- farmers and the like. 3000 farmers firing barrel-loading guns in the heat of battle in the face of a calvalry charge would probably only get through the first volley 'successfully', with the remainder of the battle an undisciplined load-and-fire-as-fast-as-you-can-before-the-guys-on-horses-get-close-enough-to-run-me-through type tactic. The more I think about it, the more I suspect it was just poor decision making on the part of Katsuyori that lost the battle - or I should say the decision to fight was a poor one.

    [This message has been edited by CEWest (edited 04-26-2002).]
    "I'm telling you, Kakizaki, there is a man living in my toilet!"
    "I'm sure there is, Tono, now let's go a little lighter on the sake next time, okay?"


    - Uesugi Kenshin and Kakizaki Kageie, 1578

  13. #13

    Default

    CeWest.. as any military would do today, if you are planning on meeting your foe in battle, you prepare for it. This wasnt the usual sengoku period war where 1 clan raised an army, raised supplies and went to take over the land of their enemies.. and they didnt know IF or when or where the enemy clan would meet them in combat.

    In nagashino, Nobunaga knew Takeda had to meet him in a fight and he was very prepared...witness the palisade (something almost unheard of until that day) and the choice of the terrain.. Oda chose all those. Oda planned the battle around his gunners, so it wouldnt be a sin to infer that he quite possible brought all the guns and gunners in his clan to fight this battle. He may have used a regiment of gunners on his other battles, but for this particular one, he needed all the firepower he had. So I do believe he had 3000 guns in that battle.

  14. #14
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    You forget that the "peasants" had guns whichw ould slaughter a oncoming charge and they were behind some sort of protection (Spikes of fences) which would help protect them and impale the horses on them.

    ------------------
    Give me your heart, and I'll break it.
    Give me your virginity and you'll lose it.
    Give me your money, and I'll keep it.
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  15. #15
    Member Member CEWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    OR, USA
    Posts
    153

    Default

    I'm not saying it didn't happen with 3000 by any means, just bringing up a plausible theory I heard that it was less than 3000 (it's not my theory ). 38,000 vs. 15,000 is poor odds no matter how you look at it - even with the takeda calvalry.



    [This message has been edited by CEWest (edited 04-27-2002).]
    "I'm telling you, Kakizaki, there is a man living in my toilet!"
    "I'm sure there is, Tono, now let's go a little lighter on the sake next time, okay?"


    - Uesugi Kenshin and Kakizaki Kageie, 1578

  16. #16
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    Yes, I did realise this and understood what you said dude

    ------------------
    Give me your heart, and I'll break it.
    Give me your virginity and you'll lose it.
    Give me your money, and I'll keep it.
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  17. #17
    Senior Member Senior Member Zen Blade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA, USA (newly relocated)
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Ok, guys with regards to West, if he says that then I believe him.

    It makes NO SENSE to use 3000 one battle, win amazingly, and then not use 3000 the next battle or after that.

    And also, those who think that Takeda loss solely b/c of guns don't understand warfare and the fact that samurai-armor does NOT equal knight armor... A samurai on horseback is MUCH easier to kill than a knight on horseback.... Therefore, when horses charge spearmen the spearmen have a MUCH greater chance of winning the fight than in Europe.

    -Zen Blade

    ------------------
    Zen Blade Asai
    Red Devil
    Last of the RSG
    Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
    SHS Core Member
    Zen Blade Asai
    Red Devil
    Last of the RSG
    Clan Tenki Council-Unity, Retired
    SHS Core Member, Retired
    Derelict from an older age.

  18. #18
    Yorkist Senior Member NagatsukaShumi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    York, England
    Posts
    2,246

    Default

    I do realise the basics and the advanced tatics of medieval and ancient warfare, I was saying would they win without the guns regardless of whether you believe they weren't vital, and I'm saying this without been rude.

    ------------------
    Give me your heart, and I'll break it.
    Give me your virginity and you'll lose it.
    Give me your money, and I'll keep it.
    RIP TosaInu
    Ja Mata

  19. #19

    Default

    "It makes NO SENSE to use 3000 one battle, win amazingly, and then not use 3000 the next battle or after that."

    On the contrary, it makes a lot of sense. Read what I said. Oda PLANNED to use his guns as the main fighting unit of his army on that battle alone. He brought the palisade just so enemy troops would be slowed down enough to get blasted away (just like today we use barbed wire in military firebases). That battle would give him total victory over the Takeda.. so yes, using all his guns would make all the sense in the world. He still used guns a lot on his battles after that, but he distributed his gunners amongst his various flanks, he never again concentrated the guns for one battle though.

  20. #20
    Member Member CEWest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    OR, USA
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Here is a new article that was submitted to the Samurai Archives a few days ago, it is an examination of the battle of Nagashino. Unfortunately, the author was forced to keep it within a 5-page limit by the professor, so it isn't as in-depth as he would like, but it is a very good examination of the events of the battle. Maybe it will give a new perspective with which to decide if Katsuyori would have won if there were less guns. Assuming the scholarship on the article is solid, it looks like Nobunaga used the terrain in the utmost, taking away any advantage a calvalry would have: http://www.samurai-archives.com/ban.html
    It isn't attached to the main site yet, you guys get the first look. The author has also promised to deepen the analysis when he gets a chance. It is a military analysis, which is a refreshing change from a purely historical analysis, but as I said earlier, he was forced to cut it at 5 pages, and so didn't get as deep as he wanted. It is still worth a look. If anyone has any opinions on it, I'll forward them on to him.
    "I'm telling you, Kakizaki, there is a man living in my toilet!"
    "I'm sure there is, Tono, now let's go a little lighter on the sake next time, okay?"


    - Uesugi Kenshin and Kakizaki Kageie, 1578

  21. #21
    Senior Member Senior Member Jaguara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atop a high horse
    Posts
    2,274

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CEWest:
    I'm not saying it didn't happen with 3000 by any means, just bringing up a plausible theory I heard that it was less than 3000 (it's not my theory ). 38,000 vs. 15,000 is poor odds no matter how you look at it - even with the takeda calvalry.
    [/QUOTE]

    I agree with CEWest on both points. Errors such as the one he describes are not exactly infrequent. This was hardly the most significant battle that Oda Nobunaga participated in, if he had that many gunpowder troops, why did they not appear in more significant battles?

    Even without the guns, I think Takeda would have had to fight brilliantly to stand a chance...but for him to fight on ground that favoured the enemy, against 2 to 1 odds...well, it is clear that this was not Takeda Shingen. Would Shingen have won this battle? No, because Shingen would not have fought this battle.

    Jaguara
    Toda Nebuchadnezzar : Trust Jaguara to come up with the comedy line

    "The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance"

  22. #22
    Naughty Little Hippy Senior Member Tachikaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    3,417

    Default

    The article that CEWest linked to was a good lunchtime read. The author brought up a point I was going to add. Takeda Katsuyori was a "one-trick pony". He relied too much on the Takeda cavalry. When a commander gets stuck on one tactic or strategy too long, he becomes predictable. This is a big no-no, according to Su-Tzu and common sense.

    This has happened to me in online ancient/medieval tactical gaming. My main opponents realized I favor cavalry and archers, and eventually formed their armies accordingly. I had to learn to be flexible. This did, however, give me one good game when I suddenly changed my army composition and hit their anti-cavalry troops with shock infantry, but Katsuyori didn't have the luxury of multiple encounters as I did.

    Katsuyori's biggest mistake was attacking the Oda/Tokugawa exactly as the defenders planned, which makes him look very foolish in hindsight. This may be excusable if he had outnumbered them, but at the odds they had, he had no business engaging at that time and place.

    ------------------
    Asante sana
    Squashed banana
    Wewe nugu
    Mimi apana


    Screw luxury; resist convenience.

  23. #23
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default

    So not to be a one trick pony and relie on 'camping' which is not the way to win strategically. Oda would have had to have not used all of his gunners like that again.

    Otherwise you would just surround him and let him charge or starve.

    or
    march off and pillage etc

    Essentially Oda would have to give up the initiative and surprise factor from then on if he continued with the pallisade/gunner trick. Also he may have not wanted to have encouraged his opponents down that track or maybe he didn't want an elite ashi gunner corps shooting at him if it rebelled because of mistreatment.

    (IF STW was played with a campaign all those campers would find pretty soon that defending a single province does not help when the attackers are drawing from half a dozen)
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  24. #24
    Member Member Dwimmerlaik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Does anyone know what kind of strength the Takeda clan would have been able to field? Or was Kastuyori's 15000 its full muster?

    To plug the case for Takeda Katsuyori a little, his decision to attack a superior force was clearly a no-no, but without Oda Nobunaga's entrenched gunners wouldn't he have stood a good chance of winning, especially with such generals as Baba Nobufusa in his general staff?

    Granted the terrain was not particularly suited to the famous Takeda cavalry charge, but remember also that even with the guns, the battle was not completely decided in Nobunaga or Ieyasu's favour... Ah well, we can speculate what if's for years...the fact is if it could have happened, it would have.. RIP Takeda.
    Not born, not destroyed,
    Not stained, not pure,
    Without loss, without gain.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Senior Member Jaguara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atop a high horse
    Posts
    2,274

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Dwimmerlaik:
    Does anyone know what kind of strength the Takeda clan would have been able to field? Or was Kastuyori's 15000 its full muster?
    [/QUOTE]

    I would refer you to the article linked above. It states that this was apx. half of his army as the rest was engaged against the Uesugi in the north. One would expect, if the article is correct, that this would peg his total strength somewhere in the 30K range. With full strength, he might have stood a chance...

    But as I said, every general knows that you must have at least a couple of factors in your favor...if outnumbered, at least choose the ground for the battle. Against overwhelming numerical advantage, Takeda decided to attack on ground that was about as bad as it could get for the troops he was deploying.

    Quote but remember also that even with the guns, the battle was not completely decided in Nobunaga or Ieyasu's favour... [/QUOTE]

    Though the battle raged on for some time, the casualty rates speak for the decisiveness of this battle, and demonstrates that it really wasn't that close. Remember as well, that though Takeda had some good generals with him, Nobunaga and Ieyasu were not exactly hacks either...and had experienced generals as well.

    To finish off, I agree that this is all speculation... strange things sometimes happen in battle, and on occasion, force have prevailed against the worst odds...but it is rare.
    Toda Nebuchadnezzar : Trust Jaguara to come up with the comedy line

    "The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance"

  26. #26
    Senior Member Senior Member Jaguara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atop a high horse
    Posts
    2,274

    Default

    I thought I would add something else...

    I have noticed that a lot of people on here seem to have enshrined the Takeda clan with some sort of mythical status. I also am wooed by the romanticism of elite cavalry ruling the battlefield. And I have great respect for Takeda Shingen. However, it seems that if anything is said about them that might imply they were not all-powerful, it tends to be met well, poorly.

    For those who feel that gunpowder was the sole undoing of the cavalry...then why was cavalry still used right up until World War One? The French cavalry had a great reputation...and could be very effective...if used properly.

    I would propose that Takeda Katsuyori, unlike his father, lacked the inginuity to adapt cavalry tactics to the changing environment of the art of war.

    Jaguara
    Toda Nebuchadnezzar : Trust Jaguara to come up with the comedy line

    "The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance"

  27. #27

    Default

    heck the polish cavalry even did a charge against german panzers in WW2.

    I think they succeeded in disabling 1 tank.. after its tracks became clogged with horseguts.

  28. #28
    Senior Member Senior Member Jaguara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atop a high horse
    Posts
    2,274

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Tac:
    heck the polish cavalry even did a charge against german panzers in WW2.

    I think they succeeded in disabling 1 tank.. after its tracks became clogged with horseguts.
    [/QUOTE]

    Whoa! The last one I knew about was in early WW1 when the French charged German machine guns with cavalry...I would have thought that the Polish would have learned from that fiasco.

    Cavalry is still useful to partisans though...the Afghans used horsemen to some effect against the russians...just not in the traditional sense of cavalry.

    Jaguara
    Toda Nebuchadnezzar : Trust Jaguara to come up with the comedy line

    "The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance"

  29. #29
    Naughty Little Hippy Senior Member Tachikaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    3,417

    Default

    Well, sure cavalry remained important after the introduction of the musket. Charge with infantry to draw fire and flank with cavalry.

    ------------------
    Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.


    Screw luxury; resist convenience.

  30. #30
    Senior Member Senior Member Jaguara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Atop a high horse
    Posts
    2,274

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
    Well, sure cavalry remained important after the introduction of the musket. Charge with infantry to draw fire and flank with cavalry.
    [/QUOTE]

    Or deploy the cavalry to force the infantry into squares, so that your infantry can sweep them away nicely...

    My only point was that the musketeers alone were not the end of Takeda cavalry, but that Katsuyori was. He demonstrated an inability to innovate...to make the changes needed to adapt to the changing nature of warfare in Japan. Instead he relied on the old tactics developed by his father, for use in a different age.

    Also, I still do not understand how he could have reasoned that this battle was in his interest. Both horrendously outnumbered, and on ground chosen by the enemy.

    Jaguara
    Toda Nebuchadnezzar : Trust Jaguara to come up with the comedy line

    "The only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO