HOME | DD
Drocan — Medieval Misconceptions
by
Published: 2006-12-08 06:15:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 6614; Favourites: 123; Downloads: 16
Redirect to original
Description
Heavy, cumbersome swords- The issue of weight seems to be one of the most commonly mistaken aspects of medieval combat. Smiths all made swords slightly differently and each fighter had his own preferences. It is impossible to generalize when it comes to the technology of an entire continent from c/ 500-1500 AD, and both very heavy and very light swords existed. In terms of what was typical, though,, here’s a rough guide to averaged:
Single-handed sword (aka sword) - 2.5 pounds
Hand-and-a-half (aka bastard sword) 2.5-3 lbs
Two-hander (aka longsword) - 3 to 3.5 pounds.
The absolute largest swords still rarely hit the 5-pound mark. These were designed to serve very specific tactical functions on the battlefield and were not intended for general-use purposes. Experience showed smiths and warriors that this was the ideal weight range for their weapon. It’s essentially natural selection at work: people whose swords were too light or too heavy went off to battle and didn’t come back. Those with properly weighted swords did. Any heavier and it becomes unwieldy. Any lighter and it lacks the momentum to hit with sufficient force.
Conversely, most Japanese Swords weighed slightly more than European swords relative to their length. Once again, though, keep in mind that this is not a bad thing, nor does it imply that they were slow or relied on brute strength over skill. Quite the opposite, in fact, as the sword's weight gives the fighter the power he needs so he can devote his muscle to technique. Light swords are not very effective when it comes to penetrating any armor, be it plate, chain, or leather. (Fencing foils and other ultralight weapons only came about after gunpowder caused armor to die out, and the heavier two-handers hit their prime when armor was at its fullest.)
In practice, the weight variation is not significant enough that it would make a noticeable difference in combat, but it is there. The Japanese smith would face the exact same system of natural selection as the European one, but due to different environmental conditions the result came out slightly different.
Heavy and cumbersome armor
- A full suit of high quality plate armor weighed on average 55-65lbs. Though there was variation based on the technology available from one century to another or according to one's financial means, this remains a decent rule of thumb from the legionnaires of ancient Rome to knights in full plate to modern Marines. The logic is the same as it was for determining the weight of a sword: You want as much protection as you can possibly afford without it becoming unwieldy. For a well-trained, fit man this limit is around 60 lbs.
There are records in the Middle Ages of people in full plate (i.e. 1350 and later) being able to climb ropes, roll, cartwheel, and even jump onto their horses without using the stirrup. Modern tests confirm these reports.
There are stories about knights needing cranes to get on their horse, or needing squires to help them if the fall on their back. Neither of these stories have any real historical basis. If armor were such a liability, nobody would have worn it, let alone spend a fortune on it. The very fact that it exists in number and for such a long time is proof enough that it is better than going unprotected.
Fighters with swords on their backs
-It is physically impossible for a human to draw a straight, average-length sword from their back while in its sheath. A sword worn on the back is usually curved or short. Cases of back-sheaths were virtually unheard of in Europe and rare elsewhere. (In those cases, the swords were very short. A Roman Gladius or modern machete would still be too long to draw with any degree of comfort.) A fighter might plausible wear a sword in this manner if he had absolutely no intention of fighting any time soon, since it is arguably easier to move around and sit down without it getting in the way.
Archers with quivers on their backs
-This is almost the same as the previous misconception, but it is even more common to hear about. Arrows can be gripped in the middle and are thus possible to draw, but the motion is much more slow and awkward than a draw from the hip, or even better, by sticking the arrows into the ground ahead of time. That being said, images of quivers are still extremely rare in medieval artwork and were simply not used in combat situations in Medieval Europe. Speaking of archers…
Fast and slim medieval archers
- A quality longbow back in the middle ages was made of yew or ash, and needed to have an effective range of up to 300 yards and enough power to penetrate mail. A bow that meets these requirements is going to have a draw weight of somewhere between 120 - 180 pounds. That's like lifting a grown man with three fingers. If anything, an archer was likely to be bigger and stronger than the frontline soldiers. Excavations reveal that the skeletons of medieval archers were permanently warped from the strain of such repeated and imbalanced muscle stress. They did not wear much armor only because archers were never nobility, and therefore couldn't afford any.
Shiny, battle-ready swords
- No matter how well polished, high-carbon steel (the metal swords were made of) just isn’t all that shiny. A common metal for modern decorative swords is stainless steel, which is conveniently rust resistant as well as attractively bright. It is also very hard. Which seems like a good thing, until your realize that so is glass. A real medieval sword has to be able to bend slightly in order to help absorb shock, and a sword that is too hard will be rigid and more prone to snap or shatter. A harder sword can keep a nice straight cutting line and hold an extra sharp edge better, but it also runs the risks mentioned above. The Japanese sword was developed in a less armor-intensive environment, so they can afford to place less emphasis on durability in favor of a keener edge. Often, Japanese swordsmanship techniques involve "using the opponent's energy against them." This is partially because it is an effective technique, but it is also to protect the weapon from taking too many direct hits.
Related content
Comments: 97
Awesome. And of course I do have other resources. There are quite a few novels of medieval literature I enjoy. Who knows I might add some magic elements.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Medieval novels? As in period texts, or what? I've been pretty had pressed to find a book with swords in it that isn't categorized under "fantasy." Medieval historical fiction is quite rare as far as I know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ah, of course, you are right, sorry
But like I wrote, I only referred to those late full-armor-types. I didnt meant ALL types of medieval armor.
Well, Im not really into modern military. I dont want to say something though I know nothing about it. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well the types you referred to came about after the 15th century, meaning it was pretty much the end of the middle ages and the beginning of the Renaissance. And during the Renaissance, due to gunpowder, people got rid of armor in general (except for the conquistadors, because the Aztecs didn't use guns), leading to the dualist/musketeer/pirate look, with really light swords and no armor. That awkward transition you were referring to was an attempt to keep armor going after its time had ended. It didn't take long for them to figure out that it wasn't working (mostly when the people using them started dying). So you're talking about maybe 10-30 years out of the entire 700-800 years that marked the Middle Ages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hehe, I have seen those cranes a few weeks ago in a documentary and they looked pretty dumb. The fact that they have never "really" existed (or only at those jousts you mentioned) goes well with me. I mean, how stupid have the szenery to look like...
Hm, but it could be possible that in a battle the knights were so exhausted, that they couldnt get up alone because of the extra weight of the armor, so that the squires had to help them. Couldnt it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, squires never gave assistance during battle. A squire wasn't armored, so to have them running around on the battlefield like that would probably just get them killed. As I said, knight's armor wore much less than the gear that soldiers carry in modern wars, and those soldiers don't have squires to help them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, yes, in the first part I just referred to this armor type, because I know those crane- and squire-stories only in connection with them
I guess there was a misunderstanding
The protection granted by the armor was always (and mainly prior to the introduction of the full-armor later) the prime reason to wear one. What is sure that no other culture made their armor as robust and resistant as Europe.
The crusades are quite another matter, because the Muslims were not so stupid as not to use the disadvantages of the europeen armor.
They developed their weapons and strategies, which clearly showed an effect.
Beside them was the heat "main opponent" in the Middle East. A common cause of death should have been the death of suffocation under the helmet, a heat stroke or dehydration. Which not only happened because of the armor but of the many other layers of clothing (gambeson, vest, shirt, doublet). Whereas the doublet and shirt partly should prevent the armor from overheating and were mainly used and modified to protect it from the sun and to keep in that way the body heat down.
So, I hope I didnt wrote nonsense and that its still on topic
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Squires were used to help put on the armor, yes, but only because it sometimes buckled in places that were difficult to reach, not because it is too heavy. It's kind of like how women usually need help lacing up corsets. As for the crane, there have never been any historical examples of that happening, except in the case of maybe some later jousts or very, very late plate armor, but neither of those types were very effective for fighting anyway, since one was just for sport and the other was for stopping bullets.
This is an Italian piece I drew that would represent armor at its most effective point, just before the use of gunpowder became common, during the mid 1400s [link] Something like this would weigh about 65 lbs (A little less than 30 kg). Furthermoe, that weight was distributed fairly evenly across the body, so it's not like all the weight was on the shoulders. That made if feel even lighter than it actually was, making it entirley possible to do things like push ups and cartwheels. (The Tower of London actually did an experiment to test the maneuverability of a piece much like this one. Those were just two of the things they did. I believe I mentioned that in my article.)
As for the heat effect you discussed, you are exaclty right. Armor was designed for use in a relatively mild European climate, as a result, they produced a higher protection-to-mobility ratio than any other culture in the world. It was only once they left that climate when its disadvantages became apparent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
True words
But in one point I cant agree with you. There were many armor types in the middle ages and with a whole-body-armor I dont believe that one can do push-ups
If the armor is too light then its completely useless, because the protection exists no longer.
And the protection was one of the main points to wear such a thing during battles.
(Other cultures(which had often way more effective strategies than europe)feared the knights because their weapons often didnt showed the desired effect against the armor.)
( Oh, its so difficult to write my thoughts in english... I apologise for grammar mistakes 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A person can do push ups in full body armor meant for combat. I have done it and seen it done. The only times a person could not do it would be really late in the middle ages, because that was when gunpowder came into use and they had to make their armor extra thick to stop it. However, it became so thick that they could not move properly in it, and so eventually they stopped using it altogether. So after gunpowder was the only time armor was not maneuverable. Also, some armor was designed for jousts and not for combat, and because you never had to get off you horse and walk around they might not care about maneuverability there, either.
But for normal, combat armor in the middle ages, one could most certainly do push ups, though they would get tired a lot faster.
We never really got to see the affect that knights had on very many different cultures very well. In the case of the Crusades, the knights were certainly feared because swords did not work very well against the armor they wore. However, the crusades were earlier in the middle ages, so it was mostly chain mail aromor and very little plate. Chain, while an effective armor type against slashing, is not the best against piercing weapons like arrows and spears, and they didn't wear plate for two reasons: It wasn't invented back then, and heavy armor does not allow body heat to escape very well, leading to overheating on and off the field of battle.
The mongols also came before plate armor became common, so their arrows could still pierce the chain in the few battles they had in eastern Europe.
Thanks a lot for your input. I really appreciate it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One word: Awesome.
You should write more about the medieval period. It makes facinating reading. 
Hehe, and with the wearing swords and quivers on the back, I actually learned that more from experience. 
I'd definetly like to hear more stuff on sieges. Battle tactics. Anything really. Really, you just seem to be a great fountain of European history with great love and enthusiasim for it, which is great. Heheh, I wish I met more people who were into it too. 
I typically don't 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I liked the idea of doing a misconceptions deal because I feel that wrong information is worse than no information: You can't spread ignorance nearly as quickly as false knowledge. I've wanted to do another misconceptions piece for a while, and I realize siege, architecture and society are topics I haven't covered, but there also aren't as many misconceptions about them, so it's taking longer to come up with something substantial. Even so, I've got some, and the Crusades, though they're a little earlier in the Middle Ages than is my focus, are certainly part of them. I've got a few basic concepts written down already. It's just a matter of elaborating and rephrasing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How about another misconception idea? (and one that BUGS THE SNOT out of me more than any other about this period) Here it is: "People of the medieval period were extremely superstitious, stupid, dirty and knew absoultely nothing of sophisticated science."
Right. No one seems to remember that the University was invented in the Middle Ages. Or that, ho-hum, the only reason *we* know so much about science, mathematics, philosophy, etc is because we stand on the backs of giants. We all owe the geniuses of the Ancient times and those of the Middle Ages a great debt of knowledge. After all, the Rennisance didn't just "happen".
Heheh.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's already on my list. Don't worry, I've got it covered. If you've got any other suggestions, whether you know them to be false or whether you're just not sure (like on the strength vs skill thing) fire away, and I'll see if I can include them.
The superstition thing is absolutely one, though. Take 1600-1800s America, for example. We were all way more superstitious then than they were in medieval europe, and that was supposedly during and after the renaissance. People seem to believe that they took everything at face value, but they knew Merlin was a fictional character, and a lot of those stories they told had the same purpose as things like Aesop's fables: To tell a story, provide entertainment, and teach a moral lesson. I won't go into it too much or I'll run out of material for the actual sequel, which should come up in a week or so, once I'm done with midterms. I just finished the one for my medieval studies class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh I know, I mean, does anyone want to talk about the Puritans? Well, let's not even go there.
Because I've always been ealy into history, I never really liked the whole idea that the ancients were stupid people. If anyone wants to dispute that, I'll point them over to Archimede's Cattle Problem. 
But anyway, what really tipped me off was when I started reading this great book by Thomas E. Woods called How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. [link] It's was really great; kind of the way you have this idea in your head and finally someone articulates your feelings back to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The places people get that idea from was mostly the early middle ages, like the year 1000 (The time Beowulf occurred, as a reference). That was the more barbaric time after the fall of rome but before any other real civilizations had risen to take its place. The other time was during the plague after 1348. With half the population dying off, it's hard not to get a little panicky. I mean I can't see us being much different in the event of, say, a nuclear war or the like, which would be the closest equivalent I can think of in terms of death-rates. It sort of makes sense that government wouldn't be as strong at that time. Yet while we slowed down some, we didn't stop advancing altogether, and while divine wrath was a suspicion, it's not like they didn't realize that things like hygiene and quarantines didn't slow the spread.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even then though, I think the people of the Middle Ages handled the plague better than we probably would if we had a nuclear war. (But, then again, plague doesn't cause radiation)
When did the Carolingians take over? *scratches head* I thought that was pretty early on.
You know what I find amazing? The fact that from 0 A.D. - 1000 A.D. we don't really read a whole lot about it. I mean, that's a whole millenium! Why don't we hear a lot about it? It's not like things didn't happen either, it's just, not there. History books kind of gloss over it. Like...then Rome fell...and...blah, blah, blah, huns, barbarians, Byzantium somewhere in there and oh yeah! the birth of Islam.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, but the plague does sit around in bodies for a good while, and causes a good number of other side effects in victims that make the parallel pretty thorough, the main difference being that it didn't come from any one nation in particular, or at least not intentionally. Otherwise I see them as being pretty identical in regards to their effect on society and the world as a whole.
And The Visigoths' sack of Rome in 410 to the beginning of the Middle Ages in 768 with the beginning of the rule of Chalamagne was called the Dark Ages for a reason. After Rome, not much happened for about 350 years, though I wouldn't go as far as to say a millennium. Rome was petering out, but nobody had risen to take its place until our buddy Charles in the late 8th C. He was of the Karling line, which began a little over a hundred years earlier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Heheh, good point.
Know what's rather funny? The only reason I really ever knew about the Carolingian period was because I was looking through books of ancient to modern fashions for some clothing inspirations for my art. And ta-da! Carolingian court dress! 
Another thing I find amazing that a lot of people don't really credit, is how long the Roman Empire lasted! I mean. Wow. (Counting the Eastern half as well of course)That's a long time. Can you imagine a civilization lasting that long nowadays? Or even just one modern country? Not even counting the days of the early Roman republic, but just the Empire itself. Began what, something like 40 B.C? Until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (I believe anyway, I'm not a big date-memorizing person
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My thanks. I have total respect for fantasy films, books, and video games, but I felt that in all their popularity many people were forgetting the reality that they are loosely based upon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not against fantasy at all, but I do like having a certain amount of realism in any genre.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, or what's the point of bothering with swords and castles at all?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A lot of fantasy writers just don't seem to understand that a world needs to have rules. Oftentimes realism in fantasy is just too much to ask for. It's sad to say that's the main reason I've stopped reading fantasy and playing D&D.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Likewise. It was fun until I started reading nonfiction and noticing the discrepancies.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Glad I could help. I understand that the thickness of the armor is a safety regulation, and in these situations that has to take a priority over accuracy. My only real problem with the SCA is their policy that has you get on your knees when it in the legs, or stop using an arm if hit there. Realistically, you would be in enough pain that even if you weren't killed, you wouldn't be able to properly defend yourself. So I'm pushing for a "kill" counting as any solid hit anywhere.
Otherwise, I love the SCA too. It's a great place for like minded individuals to gather, or to educate those who don't seem to be able to seperate the history from the fantasy. I'm a loud complainer, but I do love the SCA. If I didn't, I wouldn't be a member now, would I?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh I love it too. I learned my longsword from much more "historically accurate" focused groups, but the sport the SCA has is valid in a couple of ways, and it's crazy fun. In our kingdom they've just authorized Unarmored combat, and a lot of that is much more like what I know, so I'm getting into that as well as Rapier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This has totally set me straight on a number of points thanks. I'm interested in getting involved in rennaissance faires and the like but just haven't had the chance yet. This is really good. I had better add you so i can see if you come up with any more things liike this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I'll do my best. My own knowledge is constantly evolving, so if I discover enough new information that I think needs to be cleared up with the general public, I'll share it with a Medieval Misconceptions v2. Maybe one on castles or general lifestyle, or another one on the fighters if I can.
In the meantime, looking at your gallery, I think I'll add you as well. I love traditional art, but I seem to be having a tough time finding anyone on this site whose work I consistently like. If your current gallery is any indication, you just might fill that slot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks very much. Glad you like my work and keep adding those medieval fact sheets!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hehehe, i love historical accuracy. My GM tries to run realistic games often and I sometimes help in the research.
I like it that your giving everyone a chance to think about the reality of the fantasy and find out for themselves if its plausible or not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OMG SCA-ER I love you more now. I used to belong, for a short but almost wonderful time, to it's retarded younger brother, Amtgard. Huzzah..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To which I would like to add: Please don't hate me for that. I do love the uber-fantasy aspects for the story edge that it adds, but I'm not the "elf ears + ren-fair" type. I'm a huge history and realism buff, and so to see something like this written made me very happy!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, both you and geohazard seem to have misinterpreted my feelings, which more likely means that I have miscommunicated them. I like fantasy in addition to historical realism. It's just that I feel that the general public doesn't seem very aware of the difference between the two. I don't mean to slam fantasy as much as stress that it's just that: fantasy. It's a very interesting opportunity for movies, books, and games, but it shouldn't be used as a reference for actual medieval times like many seem to feel that it is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hehe thanks for the reply but no it was most like me who miscommunicated, cause I share your opinion entirely XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well either way, it's cleared up. New signature, by the way? I recognize dum spriro spero as While I breathe, I hope... the second part is familiar to me as the motto of my family name traced back to Ireland, also the state motto of Minnisota. I seek what lies beyond.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes, they're both latin state mottos, but i thought that combined they made beautiful poetry. I'm also from Minnesota so that's especially why I picked that one. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well wherever they come from, it sounds good and that's all that really matters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It's really cool that you're into the medieval period but you're not a....uh, dweeb. Seriously.
"A real medieval sword will bend slightly in order to help absorb shock, and an inflexible sword may snap or shatter."
^that's really interesting.
I learned a lot from this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
To be faire, there is a bunch of us so-called "DnD- and Tolkien-junkies," and "fantasy nerds" who do our research and still manage to enjoy ourselves in our pasttimes. I, myself, have been reenacting the renaissance for many years and have been actively involved with the SCA (as a reenactor, not a "stick-jock"). I wouldn't think twice about donning a duster and attending a SciFi con as a browncoat, or dying my hair green and going as Spike to an Anime con, or even *gasp* gluing on spock ears and attending DragonCon as an elf. These activities on their own do not make me uniformed.
I too have encountered people who wear "pointy ears" and look like what my wife refers to as "Galadriels-in-prom-dresses" (thank God I've never encountered anyone in Klingon Garb. Demons! 
However, chances are that the group of people who wear velour, Simplicity gowns, and halloween costumes are, in their ignorance, the group of people most receptive toward learning and becoming more involved. I try to resist the temptation to judge. Afterall, I used to be *shudder* just like them.
There will always be ignorant people. It's up to those of us in the know to set them straight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I suppose an open minded approach would likely be a little more productive, and I may have come on a little strong. Overall though, I suppose what I really meant was not that I don't support fantasy so much as I support its accepted sepreation from the fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah. Separation. I see your view.
Consider mine.
What is historical role-playing but fantasy? We create characters, some of us more elaborate than any pen-and-paper character from a tabletop RPG. I got involved with renaissance reenactment (specifically street acting)as an excercise in staying sharp for theater, found out that I rather enjoyed it, and made it a major part of my life. Dragons and magic don't have to be involved for fantasy to apply (Don't get me started on my ranting about "fantasy" elements at renaissance faires).
A lot about what makes me me started early with Science Fiction and Fantasy. My father would read Tolkien's "Hobbit" to us at bedtime. Growing up without a TV meant that I had a lot of spare time, and I devoted it to reading. My parents would take us to area renaissance faires, and I would drink it up, wishing I could be a part. Nobody ever invited me, however, and my parents stopped attending when I was still young. Later in college I got involved with theater, got my first gig at Shrewsbury Faire in OR, and the rest is, heh, history. A lot of people like me who get involved with our addiction to history get their interest from the fantasy realm, be it reading or watching tv.
I used to have a pretty closed-minded approach to Reenactment. I was married at the time to a garb-nazi seamstress, and was very judgemental when it camed to others and their attempts to look period. I would gaze down from on high, with my nose in the air at the people who would wear Simplicity halloween costumes to faire, and would gig pretty exclusively with only people as well-dressed as me. One day, an old hag (and I mean that in the most loving sense) named Mad Meg, who spends most of her time at
faire in an iron cage reenacting bedlam, took me aside and explained to me the error of my ways. This woman wore tattered, faded garb, ate dry crusts and old fruit, smeared herself with oatmeal, and did other crazy things. She got people to watch, to approach, and to play. She didn't care wether they were wearing chiffon, jeans, or period velvet; she played with/for everyone. She would use her schtick as a technique to teach people about how the mentally ill were treated during the Ren, and would reach out to those most likely to get involved in reenactment, to point them in the direction they needed to go. I must admit I was humbled.
I suppose that my point here is that whatever your opinion about "fantasy" vs. "history" those of us that reenact for fun (and/or to stay sane) need to be careful about how we treat people who "aren't in the know." By all means, teach! But I caution not to discourage while doing so.
*climbs down off of soap box*
I hope I haven't offended you with my perspective.
I saw a sign once that said, "Chivalry is not dead. It's just been castrated by feminism."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Offended? Try inspired. I haven't had any sort of eye opening experiences or the like, so I may still be tied down by habits and my own prejudices, but who am I if I can't at least give this whole "open ended" thing a try?
I guess what I mean (well maybe that's not what I mean, but it's what I mean now) is that fantasy is great, and if fairs were devoted to nothing but the most devoted, then I would probably be the only one there. More people make for a more interesting experience, and busy market square full of people in jeans is probably more accurate than a period-accurate empty one. I guess my complaint is not with fantasy, but with those who think that fantasy is all there is. Perhaps it is the duty of the devoted not to discourage fantasy enactment, but to point out that historical enactment can be fun, too. Maybe if I see someone with a shiny sword that I know I could snap over my knee, then rather than think poorly of him I can instead just think of where he’s coming from: someone who’s into this as a fun, casual thing, who isn’t willing to spend the $200 on a sword they never intend to fight with anyway.
When I go to fairs I frequently find myself mistaken for someone who works there. Once I was asked to teach a group of kids on a field trip about armor. Maybe I can take those opportunities to point out the differences between movies and real history, something that will stand out in their young minds. Such a position puts me in an important place, not as a judge, but as a teacher.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |