Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
stryker99

Wessex

Recommended Posts

We are about to head into the Anarchy period and I am a little confused about Wessex in GPC. Wessex plays a major role, but I cannot find it anywhere on a map. I know it's supposed to be south between Sussex and Cornwall, it seems it should be sharing a border with Salisbury as Wessex is going to be a major problem in this period to my Salisbury knights. One of the things I am finding most difficult about running the GPC is how important NPC's and regions just pop up suddenly in the narrative with no previous explanation. I have tried mapping things out with spreadsheets and notes, but it is a monumental task and Wessex in the Anarchy has me stuck.

The counties neighboring Salisbury are Somerset/Somerland, Jagent, Dorset, and Hampshire/Hantonne. All maps I have of the southwest coast show Logres covering it all west of Sussex.

The maps my players are familiar with are here for reference (I am trying to place Wessex for them in this context): https://thegreatpendragoncampaign-2.obsidianportal.com/maps

Help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, stryker99 said:

One of the things I am finding most difficult about running the GPC is how important NPC's and regions just pop up suddenly in the narrative with no previous explanation.

I am curious about this. (And terrified of it too!)

One of the things I have been advised is to read at least the full Period I am about to run ahead of time. Are you finding you might need to read at least two full Periods to feel like you've got a grasp on things?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have read well ahead (I think I have read in detail up to around 540). The problem is information overload, I am having difficulty digesting it all, it had been a couple months since I read through the Anarchy in detail. Thus the spreadsheets and separate notes,  my notes regarding Wessex failed me. A search on "Wessex" didn't work as the section on Cerdic never mentions "Wessex"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just took a look at the GPC, doing a word search in the PDF file. Did you have a chance to do that? 

I ask because when I type in Cerdic? I ask because he is referred to several times as "Cerdic of Wessex."

The maps are a problem. The "496-500 Events Map" has a patch of land labeled "Cerdic" (I understand that it is actually naming the man leading the troops, but still.. one might be looking for the word Wessex.)

And then the 505 Events Map has I think the label "Wessex" on it (for the Battle of Levcomagus) but the "x" is hard to make out.

So... yeah. Finding it on the map is, while not impossible, is difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stryker99 said:

Yeah, I have read well ahead (I think I have read in detail up to around 540). The problem is information overload, I am having difficulty digesting it all, it had been a couple months since I read through the Anarchy in detail. Thus the spreadsheets and separate notes,  my notes regarding Wessex failed me. A search on "Wessex" didn't work as the section on Cerdic never mentions "Wessex"...

One thing I'd advise is to avoid filling in all the blanks for these things for your players. Most of the time they don't want or need to know exactly what is going on, and you can get by just dropping a few hints. That allows you to avoid painting yourself into a corner.

 

RE: Wessex: I think part of the difficulty here is that the Saxon kndoms mentioned on pages 71-32 (Anglia, Deira Essex, Kent, Nohaut, Sussex, and Wessex) do not match up exactly with the Saxon Kingdoms on the table on page 72 (Kent, Sussex, Essex, Angles, Port and Wessex). 

The map in the GPC on Page 78 shows Cerdic to be in control of what I'd expect to be Port. So, as best as I can figure it out:

Wessex seems to be Hampshire, especially southern Hampshire, around Portsmouth, at least during the Anarchy. Perhaps these were two kingdoms that were merged into one prior to 495, since Port isn't mentioned in the GPC?  Part of the problem with the term Wessex is that is actually refers to the region of Britain that they PKs are occupying, and doesn't really come into existence until after Arthur.

Deira is along the coast between Lindsey and Nohaut.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for the quick help, it's all coming together now. We will likely get to the PKs meeting Cerdic tonight and I think I have it all mapped out so that I can adequately answer the players questions about all this...

My Hate (Saxons) 18 PK is going to be squirming again. He is shaping up to be one of the most influential knights in Salisbury during the Anarchy so I have a pretty good feeling what the future holds for Salisbury. It's a little prophetic that he just spent 36 Librum on a full Motte-and-Bailey, he's likely going to get quite a bit of use out of it!

Bonus questions:

Am I reading Book of the Estate right that a complete Motte-and-Bailey can be completed in one year?

And what happens to the old Large Wooden Hall when a full Motte-and-Bailey is built? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Bonus questions:

Am I reading Book of the Estate right that a complete Motte-and-Bailey can be completed in one year?

And what happens to the old Large Wooden Hall when a full Motte-and-Bailey is built? 

Motte-and-bailey castles were popping up like mushrooms after the Norman Conquest, so historically, they are pretty quick to build, too. So yeah, I would be fine with the PK completing one in a year, no problem.

What happens to the old hall depends where you built the motte-and-bailey. Naturally, the hall doesn't magically teleport to the top of the motte (nor would a large hall likely even fit there), so the obvious choice is to do what they historically did: build the bailey around the manor hall, and the last refuge is the tower on top of the motte. It is not for everyday living, the manor hall in the bailey is for that. Of course, you can build the bailey so that the manor hall remains outside of it, but why would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Wessex seems to be Hampshire, especially southern Hampshire, around Portsmouth, at least during the Anarchy. Perhaps these were two kingdoms that were merged into one prior to 495, since Port isn't mentioned in the GPC? 

Port is mentioned p. 83 when he arrives to the scene. Neither Wessex nor Port's little kingdom existed prior to 495.

Cerdic's arrival is clearly to Hampshire, and explicitly to Hantonne: "...the knights of Hampshire were destroyed. The enemy king, Cerdic, has taken the city of Hantonne." The GPC maps are, unfortunately, not so great. Cerdic's invasion and initial extent of Wessex in particular is mistakenly around Portsmouth like Atgxtg said in above, but it should be around Hantonne, and then expand north and east from there, with westward expansion depending on the PKs and Salisbury. Cerdic is clearly identified as the King of Wessex on p. 72 (and in the text p. 70).

Chichester should be taken by Aelle and his son, Cissa, after whom the place is named, during the early years of the Anarchy, IMHO. Then it would fit the history much better. Port should be taking/establishing Portsmouth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, stryker99 said:

Am I reading Book of the Estate right that a complete Motte-and-Bailey can be completed in one year?

As Morein states it can. But what I ususally do is limit the amount that can be built in one year without outside help to the income of the estate. So in my campaign an M&B castle would probably need to be built over -4 years unless the PK wants to pay extra for addtional work crews. An estate holder or other noble, with at least 36 income per year could still build an M&B in one year. I think this matches up okay with the norman conquest, since the M&Bs were generally built by those who held more than just one manor.

22 hours ago, stryker99 said:

And what happens to the old Large Wooden Hall when a full Motte-and-Bailey is built? 

Nothing, unless you build on top on it, in which case it's buried under the Mott. I have allowed PKs to take apart and rebuild structure at half cost, but that's not RAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Morien said:

The GPC maps are, unfortunately, not so great. Cerdic's invasion and initial extent of Wessex in particular is mistakenly around Portsmouth like Atgxtg said in above, but it should be around Hantonne, and then expand north and east from there, with westward expansion depending on the PKs and Salisbury. Cerdic is clearly identified as the King of Wessex on p. 72 (and in the text p. 70).

That makes more sense. The maps, text, and tables do not match up and it makes it all more confusing that it really should be. Maybe one day we could get a revised map with the Kingdoms mentioned in the GPC marked?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think this matches up okay with the norman conquest, since the M&Bs were generally built by those who held more than just one manor.

Wikipedia actually has a note on the man-day estimates for Mottes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_castle#Construction_and_maintenance

"The largest mottes in England, such as Thetford, are estimated to have required up to 24,000 man-days of work; smaller ones required perhaps as little as 1,000.[28]"

So assuming a 1-manor one is closer to the small ones, and you'd have 50 laborers (the able-bodied men who are not busy with a craft or sick or malingering) from the village, it would be just 20 days to construct. Add Sundays and such and you could do it in a month, if the men are not otherwise occupied. So doing it over the year (obviously not in the middle of winter or during the harvest or other such intense periods) ought to be well within the possibility. YPWV, though. :)

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe one day we could get a revised map with the Kingdoms mentioned in the GPC marked?

One can hope. The best I can point to at the moment is Book of the Warlord, p. 33, which is a map dated 505 (tenth year of the Anarchy). It doesn't distinguish Port as his own, but then again, he and Cerdic are allied by 507, so no biggie. And you can just cut a chunk of the eastern bit of West Seaxe (Wessex) off for Port. Even then, the actual western border of Wessex at this time would surely depend on the PKs, too.

And no map is perfect. Both Summerland and Jagent ought to be under Cornish control if we go by GPC. That being said, Greg changed Summerland a LOT from Somerset. Somerset gets invaded by Cornwall twice in GPC, but when Uther does it in BoU, he ends up calling it a victory even though it was much more of a draw, hastening out of there.

Naturally, this map is focused on Logres, so it is missing Deira and Nohaut. However, those two are portrayed in Book of Sires, p. 116.

There is also Saxons! p. 36 map, which, while rather lacking in details (and covering way too large a timespan; for example Deira and Nohaut are shown at their maximum extent when Colgrim was holding Eburacum for a winter), still manages to give an idea where all the kingdoms are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Morien said:

One can hope. The best I can point to at the moment is Book of the Warlord, p. 33, which is a map dated 505 (tenth year of the Anarchy). It doesn't distinguish Port as his own, but then again, he and Cerdic are allied by 507, so no biggie. And you can just cut a chunk of the eastern bit of West Seaxe (Wessex) off for Port. Even then, the actual western border of Wessex at this time would surely depend on the PKs, too.

Yes, I was wondering what route Cerdic took to Wessex. Through Kent or Portsmouth?

8 hours ago, Morien said:

And no map is perfect....

No, and in most cases it doesn't matter so much. It's just that in this particualr case the maps, tables, and text do not align with each other. Unfornately it's in a place where it sort of matters for the rest of the anarchy period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw a wrench in there, most historians now suspect that Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire and (if he wasn't simply a British leader) ruled the Gewisse in the Thames Valley around Silchester instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, I was wondering what route Cerdic took to Wessex. Through Kent or Portsmouth?

GPC is pretty clear that he lands near Hantonne and takes it after a brief battle: "Messengers from Hampshire, panicked and worried, ask for help to resist a new fleet that has landed in the south." & "...there was already a battle and that the knights of Hampshire were destroyed. The enemy king, Cerdic, has taken the city of Hantonne." While it is possible that he could have landed somewhere else on the southern coast of Hantonne, like near Portsmouth, given that his initial conquest is at Hantonne, it makes more sense to me that he lands near Hantonne. See also below.

In our campaign, he actually took Hantonne by a ruse, by sending some of his Gewessi knights ahead to gain entry to the city, and then attacking the gates from within, allowing his Saxons to pour into the city.

10 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Just to throw a wrench in there, most historians now suspect that Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire and (if he wasn't simply a British leader) ruled the Gewisse in the Thames Valley around Silchester instead.

Yeah, but we have what we have. KAP leans heavily on HRB & Anglo-Saxon Chronicles when it comes to the Saxons, and taking the establishing myths of the Saxon Kingdoms more or less at face value.

"A.D. 495. This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called Cerdic's-ore. And they fought with the Welsh the same day."

As for where Cerdic's-ore or Cerdices-ore/ora was, opinions vary, but there is this one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=oRA2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA254&lpg=PA254&dq=Cerdices+ore&source=bl&ots=_vKJ8oc-P_&sig=ACfU3U22QjQv9bKyenCQM3XqdYgvRJYTYw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjuyr2iqIDnAhXIK80KHfISDk4Q6AEwA3oECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Cerdices ore&f=false

which puts it between Southampton Water and Beaulieu river, just southwest of Southampton/Hantonne, perhaps even at Calshot Castle.

Edited by Morien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jeffjerwin said:

Just to throw a wrench in there, most historians...

Not a wrench to me, because I would put it back in the tool box and ignore it. Here's my brief foundational text for the "history" of the King Arthur Pendragon RPG and The Great Pendragon Campaign:

Quote

It befell in the days of Uther Pendragon...

A man who never existed, written about in the game's primary source material by a man writing about a time period a thousand years before he was born without the tools or concerns about getting history "right."

For me, all other historical details are flexible and icing on the cake. Details of history that start making getting the game going more difficult, with no other value than they are "historical," are of little use to me.

What I do need is the text, charts, and maps of a decidely and by definition ahistorical campaign setting to be consistent for ease of use. When they are not I need to poke around these forums. Luckily, these forum are here and we can sort this stuff out.

I do understand that for some people the trying to square actual history with the ahistorical events of the Matter of Britain are part of the sport. And I wish them pleasure in their efforts! But for others, like me, not so much.

Edited by creativehum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

Not a wrench to me. Here's my brief foundational text for the "history" of the King Arthur Pendragon RPG and The Great Pendragon Campaign:

A man who never existed, written about in the game's primary source material by a man writing about a time period a thousand years before he was born without the tools or concerns about getting history "right."

It's not necessarily about getting the gamer to align with real history, but instead getting the pseudo history of the game to be internally consistent. There are more than one version of this tale, and the GPC incorporates bits from several sources, and they don't alwys fit nice with each other. Greg has also changed some things along the way, and that has other ramifications.

In this case, the OP was trying to figure out who was where among the Saxon Kings threatening Salisbury during the anarchy.

 

 

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

For me, all other historical details are flexible and icing on the cake. Details of history that start making getting the game going more difficult, with no other value than they are "historical," are of little use to me.

What I do need is the text, charts, and maps of a decidely and by definition ahistorical campaign setting to be consistent for ease of use. When they are not I need to poke around these forums. Luckily, these forum are here and we can sort this stuff out.

What do you do when the text, charts and maps contradict each other? That the situation here with the GPC. The various Kingdoms don't matchup with each other in the GPC. People were usually the historical information to try and figure out the best solution for the situation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

but instead getting the pseudo history of the game to be internally consistent.

Absolutely.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In this case, the OP was trying to figure out who was where among the Saxon Kings threatening Salisbury during the anarchy.

Yes. I know. I was one of the first people to respond to the OP, offering information found in the text of the GPC.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That the situation here with the GPC. The various Kingdoms don't matchup with each other in the GPC. 

Yes. I know. As noted in posts of mine above. And as I noted in the posts above I find this frustrating.

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

People were usually the historical information to try and figure out the best solution for the situation.

I disagree this will produce the best solution. As jeffjerwin himself point out, adding more details from recent historical research throws a wrench in the situation, obscuring, contradicting, complicating the text of the GPC even further. 

56 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What do you do when the text, charts and maps contradict each other?

The solution, in my view (which hardly seems a mystery from my posts), is to clarify, clean up, and square the material already present in the text rather than adding new info that contradicts what is already there which will result in a new round or two of clean up because of the new information. (Obviously some posters above have already dealt with the matter exactly this way.)

The fact that information is historical does not necessarily make it more beneficial for clarity when working with an ahistorical RPG sourcebook based on fictional series of events. What matters is that the sourcebook is consistent within itself. History may, or may not, help in this regard. 

Introducing the notion that "Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire" certainly is going to overcomplicate the question of "Where did Cerdic, leader of Saxon forced, land?" Yes? It certainly doesn't help clarify the question at all. That's why he refers to it as throwing a wrench into the works.

(None of this is a knock on jeffjerwin, who is, as far as I can tell, only adding an interesting point. But for the interests of actually helping straighten out the details of the GPC it is, of course, a nonstarter.)

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I disagree this will produce the best solution. As jeffjerwin himself point out, adding more details from recent historical research throws a wrench in the situation, obscuring, contradicting, complicating the text of the GPC even further. 

Well to get any sort os soultion you have to start from somewhere. For somethin g like "What is Wessex" history is really the only way to find an answer. 

24 minutes ago, creativehum said:

The solution, in my view (which hardly seems a mystery from my posts), is to clarify, clean up, and square the material already present in the text rather than adding new info that contradicts what is already there which will result in a new round or two of clean up because of the new information. 

Except that the material presented already contradicts itself in places. So any attempt to clarify, clean up, and sqaure the material is going to require deciding which stuff to keep and which stuff to alter to fix the stuff being kept. And to do the best job of that we really should look at the sooruces, like Greg did.

Greg did pull all of this stuff out of thin air, he read a lot of Arthurian and historical literature and crafted the world of Pendragon from that. If we want to fix the desceprancies that exist, we should adopt the same methods if we want good results.

 

24 minutes ago, creativehum said:

The fact that information is historical does not necessarily make it more beneficial for clarity when working with an ahistorical RPG sourcebook based on fictional series of events. What matters is that the sourcebook is consistent within itself. History may, or may not, help in this regard. 

Yes, but since the sorucebook isn't always consistent within itself is exacly when looking elsewhere helps. Be it historical soruces or other Arthurian ones. 

24 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Introducing the notion that "Cerdic was never ruler of the Saxons around Hampshire" certainly is going to overcomplicate the question of "Where did Cerdic, leader of Saxon forced, land?" Yes? It certainly doesn't help clarify the question at all. That's why he refers to it as throwing a wrench into the works.

It's a minor wrench and it might be worth considering, seeing as the situation is messed upo anyway, and any attempt to fix it is going to require some changes. So it's worth looking at the whole siutation and deciding if a given change has merits that make it worth the trouble. In this particular case probably not, but dismissing historical data out of hand is cutting off a good soruce for adventures and story ideas. A lot of the location specfic adventure in the GPC and elsewhere are based upon real world legends and accounts that are not tied to King Arthur in anyway, but instead are just good stories that Greg decided to incorporate into Pendragon because he could. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, creativehum said:

 

(None of this is a knock on jeffjerwin, who is, as far as I can tell, only adding an interesting point. But for the interests of actually helping straighten out the details of the GPC it is, of course, a nonstarter.)

Pretty much. However, other details of the GPC _can_ be elucidated by reference to history (and variant Arthurian texts, and folklore, etc. - I'd say they all weigh about the same in solving these things.

In Geoffrey of Monmouth, of course, the Saxons (including Cheldric/Cerdic) are found primarily in Cumbria and the North, and only attack or occupy Logres _after_ they are defeated at Lincoln and/or the Caledon Forest.

So the introduction of Cerdic as a chieftain or king of Wessex (rather than of 'Germany') is a historical interpolation into the legend anyway. In this case the AS Chronicle is chosen as the key text.

However, Greg also accepted that Cerdic was a son or grandson of Vortigern and Rhonwen/Rowena, which was a suggestion (not founded on anything historical) made by Geoffrey Ashe, because Cerdic is obviously the Brythonic name Caradoc or Ceredig.

Welsh legend does conflate Cerdic with Caradoc Freichfras, who in Welsh tradition, was 'earl of Gloucester' and king of 'Ewyas' (Ewyas being substituted for Geoffrey of Monmouth's Gewisse), though Caradoc is usually a hero for the Welsh ('Karados the Great' from the Vulgate may be a variant, villainous version). Cerdic is almost certainly a leader of the Gewisse, who have been identified as the Thames Valley Saxons, and in certain ways, it makes more sense for Vortigern's part-Saxon heir to rule there than a strip of coastline. The Gewisse are also an obvious foe for Badon if it's placed in the area that KAP does.

But... while I would certainly make these changes in KAP when running things for myself - making Cerdic effectively the Earl of Silchester and ruler of the Barruc Saxons (and thus making his claim to being a possible High King even stronger, and him by default more sympathetic) - I wouldn't go in and change the GPC; it seems like unnecessary meddling. The last time I ran the Anarchy I was running a Cornwall game so Cerdic's location really wasn't that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks, 

I would never suggest not looking to history to help ground King Arthur Pendragon -- in both setting and play. As I've said across many threads even in Malory there is a tension between the grounded information Malory brings to the day-to-day business of combat and tack and bridles and such, and the fantastical elements of his tale.

Moreover, the game draws from customs of actual historical times, and chooses to set itself within a framework of laws and customs that we can read about in history books. After all, KAP did not create its own setting! So clearly working from history -- when it makes sense for the setting and play -- is a good idea.

My point was, in the specific case at hand,  trying to work in new discoveries by historians about Cerdic that would flatly contradict details already established in the GPC wouldn't be worth incorporating. If I can use what is in the book with a couple of clarifications to address the matter of where Cerdic lands (which has already been taken care of upthread) rather than rummage around in notions that mean reworking lots of material, I'm going to take the easier path even if it is not historically accurate.

This, first and foremost, was my  point. Le Morte D'Arthur isn't historically accurate. Historia Regum Britanniae isn't historically accurate. These are the books King Arthur Pendragon primarily leans on, and I'm stating I'm fine with continuing with King Arthur Pendragon's tradition of drawing on historically inaccurate material and building historically fanciful tales.

More broadly my point was an expansion of this notion: that first and foremost King Arthur Pendragon is a Romance, not a history, given that since the first edition it has been stated clearly that Le Morte D'Arthur is the primary source of the game. It's as plain as that. If I can add in "real history" at the expense of tearing up floorboards of work that already works for the game, I'll pass on that.

That doesn't mean a dismissal of history as an aid to the game or the setting. (See the first part if this post). It's about the balance of the choice, which divining rod will I use. Clarity of structure, themes, and patterning for the tale being create will alway win out for me... and I know for a fact it is easier to do that with fictional details trumping history. Not a dismal of history,  but a choice about what the design parameters will be.

Phyllis Ann Karr begins her Forward to the second edition of The Arthurian Companion (originally published by Chaosium, later Green Knight) with these words:

Quote

Arthurian enthusiasm takes two forms--research and storification--and  divides into two schools: the realistic and the romantic. This volume is based primarily on the romantic storifications...

I would suggest KAP is the same. As is the GPC.

Now, I don't think the divide in stark. (After all, again, I'm all for using history in KAP). But I do think people lean toward one form, or are more interested in one form or the other, or emphasize one over the other.

But clearly I lean toward the romantic form. Other people lean differently. And that's fine.

But clearly we're talking proportions here, since we can't be sure there even was an Arthur, and we certainly aren't expecting a game involving wizards, spells, Grail Quests, and men wearing full plate in the 6th century to be true.

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Username said:

@stryker99 If this helps, here's the map I made for the year 502. I think it's pretty accurate to the setting described in the GPC for the middle of Anarchy. Most of the fine folks on this board advised me on it's creation.

Britain Political Compressed 502.pdf 5.15 MB · 4 downloads

This is great.

thanks so much!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...