The Medieval thread

[Blood and Thunder]

 

[ferrisjso]

How was life any better for a goat herder or farmer in the middle East compared to a farmer in Europe?

After the first Crusade many went back to Europe thinking their job was done. What stayed behind to defend was hardly enough to fight all the surrounding enemies that were vast in number.

The holy Roman Empire united them and they were able to establish the Crusader States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire
The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany

How were things socially the same as they are today? If you mean just in the Middle East then I agree things haven't changed much lol.

There's a lot more architectural marvels than you're making it out to be. So many castles and fortresses.

The Germanic tribes after being civilized by the Romans savaged their way in and used the remnants of the empire to make their own ethnic groups and kingdoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_Period
The Migration Period was a period that lasted from 375 AD (possibly as early as 300 AD) to 538 AD

By 1204 they sacked Constantinople.

Europeans held off the Ottomans and advanced further than anyone after that. There are people still getting medieval on each others asses in the Middle East.

They wouldn't be as isolated from the outside world and would likely have a greater life expectancy. They'd also probably have been more options for them to not be a goat herder where in Middle Age Europe there were 2 jobs and 1.5 of the best 2 were hereditary(church didn't always require priests to be abstinent so families dominated church as well and it caused the church to be a political clusterfuck, that's the actual practical reason priests can't get married rather than all that being married to god bs etc).

The Holy Roman Empire after the first 100 years or so, only existed in a legal sense. It was ran by hundreds of autonomous feudal lords who more or less did whatever the fuck they pleased. The Emperor was elected by three priests and four dukes(the ORIGINAL electoral college) who tended to vote for the person who was most likely to allow them to do whatever the fuck they pleased.

In the Middle East things are not the same. Middle East is in their version of Europe's middle ages right now. Middle East was more civilized than Europe(with the exception of the Byzantines, Spanish) until the industrial revolution or in same areas maybe 100-200 years before the industrial revolution. The issue with the Middle East, same as Europe was the destruction of the empire that controlled the region and decentralization in some ways it was worse in Europe(divided into more pieces), in same ways it's worse in the Middle East(no respected religious authority forcing people to play nice).

Think when you say castle you and many people mean palace. Castles were mostly for military necessity, palaces were fancy places were kings lived. Not sure whether they are architectural marvels or more so look cool. The most famous palaces mostly came later. There also was especially early on taking apart fixtures of classical buildings to use. Generally rulers just had less resources at their disposal so this shit took a long time and all these buildings we discussed are usually only required in quantities of one(a cathedral for a city, a castle for a town, a palace for a king).

The Germanics being "civilized" by the Romans is an oversimplification that would mainly apply to religion and identity more so than likeness to the actual Romans. Which was the opinion of the actual Romans in Greece. Also Italy was complicated cause the Romans from the Roman Empire never really left Italy they were just taken over by Germanics temporarily eventually much of urban Italy was ruled by the Pope and the North was taken by Lombards later on(hence why the areas called Lombards). These areas had a level of continuity with the Roman Empire in terms of the existing architecture and culture the rest of Europe never had. People see the Roman Empire as a Euro Empire but besides Italy and Greece, Europe was really the backwater regions, Germany,Scandanavia, Scotland, Ireland and the Balkans were not even on the map, kind of like the place in the Lion king where "you must never go there" and were built from scratch while the Italians and maybe even some of the Frence were maintaining an already built to live in world. This is why the "Renaissance"(which is pretty darn close to being made up) is such bs.

And ethnic groups didn't really exist in Europe for a very long time with a few exceptions(like the Hungarians who came from Magyars), French who were unified first developed an identity by like the 1400s but everyone else took a longer time. Back then people were identified by their ruler who owned the Kingdom or Duchy they lived in, not an ethnicity, in the reformation maybe that included religion. But while there might have been a "Kingdom of Germany", German and Italian weren't identity's the ancestor of any German or Italian pre mid 19th century would recognize at all. Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor and Kingdom of Italy were political vehicles by which the Holy Roman Emperor TECHNICALLY ruled those groups but practically didn't. German emperors real power extended as far as the land he personally ruled which tended to be the Duke of Austria at the end who ruled about a third of the empire if we're being generous probably more like a quarter or a fifth. And if you say that's bs well the Germanics were the one's who took over Rome and were civilized, Germanics=(most Europeans who came in the Great Migration) while Germans are people who lived in the former Holy Roman Empire when nationalism came to be. Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain are all the unification of a bunch of smaller countries from the Middle Ages that no one identifies with most of today that took time.

Our modern perception of country's and politics really started in 1648 which was not in the Middle Ages, before that that people weren't exactly property in the slave sense but they were fixtures on a person's property(like a tree that could walk). That's the main way life in the Middle Ages worked. Now the classical era tended to be more like modern life where you had citizens, sports/entertainment/vacationing/travelling with generally the main limitation being that the industrial and medical revolutions hadn't started yet. That's what I mean by socially people in Latin would be having sherdoggish type conversations if not for the lack of the internet etc. In Middle Age Europe there were mainly three jobs, fighting(protecting everyone and getting your soul saved and food in exchange), the priesthood(saving everyone's souls which in a world where everyone were literal believing Christians is an important one, getting food and protection in exchange ) and farming(feeding everyone and being afforded protection and your soul being saved in exchange). Life in the Middle Ages were really just different variations of that exchange of goods. When I say the classical world was more like ours than that, I mean the more complex social relationships and choice of profession(which in turn leads to society becoming more advanced), in an agrarian society I just listed the only three things you could really do.

For example look to when the first universities were founded. While the first ones were in the 1000s and 1100s most countries in Europe didn't get their first until the 1300s or 1400s.

And if anyone makes a snarky comment about "I'm not reading all of that" go on twitter you'll be happier there.

 

[Blood and Thunder]

They wouldn't be as isolated from the outside world and would likely have a greater life expectancy. They'd also probably have been more options for them to not be a goat herder where in Middle Age Europe there were 2 jobs and 1.5 of the best 2 were hereditary(church didn't always require priests to be abstinent so families dominated church as well and it caused the church to be a political clusterfuck, that's the actual practical reason priests can't get married rather than all that being married to god bs etc).

The Holy Roman Empire after the first 100 years or so, only existed in a legal sense. It was ran by hundreds of autonomous feudal lords who more or less did whatever the fuck they pleased. The Emperor was elected by three priests and four dukes(the ORIGINAL electoral college) who tended to vote for the person who was most likely to allow them to do whatever the fuck they pleased.

In the Middle East things are not the same. Middle East is in their version of Europe's middle ages right now. Middle East was more civilized than Europe(with the exception of the Byzantines, Spanish) until the industrial revolution or in same areas maybe 100-200 years before the industrial revolution. The issue with the Middle East, same as Europe was the destruction of the empire that controlled the region and decentralization in some ways it was worse in Europe(divided into more pieces), in same ways it's worse in the Middle East(no respected religious authority forcing people to play nice).

Think when you say castle you and many people mean palace. Castles were mostly for military necessity, palaces were fancy places were kings lived. Not sure whether they are architectural marvels or more so look cool. The most famous palaces mostly came later. There also was especially early on taking apart fixtures of classical buildings to use. Generally rulers just had less resources at their disposal so this shit took a long time and all these buildings we discussed are usually only required in quantities of one(a cathedral for a city, a castle for a town, a palace for a king).

The Germanics being "civilized" by the Romans is an oversimplification that would mainly apply to religion and identity more so than likeness to the actual Romans. Which was the opinion of the actual Romans in Greece. Also Italy was complicated cause the Romans from the Roman Empire never really left Italy they were just taken over by Germanics temporarily eventually much of urban Italy was ruled by the Pope and the North was taken by Lombards later on(hence why the areas called Lombards). These areas had a level of continuity with the Roman Empire in terms of the existing architecture and culture the rest of Europe never had. People see the Roman Empire as a Euro Empire but besides Italy and Greece, Europe was really the backwater regions, Germany,Scandanavia, Scotland, Ireland and the Balkans were not even on the map, kind of like the place in the Lion king where "you must never go there" and were built from scratch while the Italians and maybe even some of the Frence were maintaining an already built to live in world. This is why the "Renaissance"(which is pretty darn close to being made up) is such bs.

And ethnic groups didn't really exist in Europe for a very long time with a few exceptions(like the Hungarians who came from Magyars), French who were unified first developed an identity by like the 1400s but everyone else took a longer time. Back then people were identified by their ruler who owned the Kingdom or Duchy they lived in, not an ethnicity, in the reformation maybe that included religion. But while there might have been a "Kingdom of Germany", German and Italian weren't identity's the ancestor of any German or Italian pre mid 19th century would recognize at all. Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor and Kingdom of Italy were political vehicles by which the Holy Roman Emperor TECHNICALLY ruled those groups but practically didn't. German emperors real power extended as far as the land he personally ruled which tended to be the Duke of Austria at the end who ruled about a third of the empire if we're being generous probably more like a quarter or a fifth. And if you say that's bs well the Germanics were the one's who took over Rome and were civilized, Germanics=(most Europeans who came in the Great Migration) while Germans are people who lived in the former Holy Roman Empire when nationalism came to be. Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain are all the unification of a bunch of smaller countries from the Middle Ages that no one identifies with most of today that took time.

Our modern perception of country's and politics really started in 1648 which was not in the Middle Ages, before that that people weren't exactly property in the slave sense but they were fixtures on a person's property(like a tree that could walk). That's the main way life in the Middle Ages worked. Now the classical era tended to be more like modern life where you had citizens, sports/entertainment/vacationing/travelling with generally the main limitation being that the industrial and medical revolutions hadn't started yet. That's what I mean by socially people in Latin would be having sherdoggish type conversations if not for the lack of the internet etc. In Middle Age Europe there were mainly three jobs, fighting(protecting everyone and getting your soul saved and food in exchange), the priesthood(saving everyone's souls which in a world where everyone were literal believing Christians is an important one, getting food and protection in exchange ) and farming(feeding everyone and being afforded protection and your soul being saved in exchange). Life in the Middle Ages were really just different variations of that exchange of goods. When I say the classical world was more like ours than that, I mean the more complex social relationships and choice of profession(which in turn leads to society becoming more advanced), in an agrarian society I just listed the only three things you could really do.

For example look to when the first universities were founded. While the first ones were in the 1000s and 1100s most countries in Europe didn't get their first until the 1300s or 1400s.

And if anyone makes a snarky comment about "I'm not reading all of that" go on twitter you'll be happier there.

Europeans could also be black smiths, horse trainers and breeders, masons, carpenters, etc. So I don't see how they didn't have as many options.

Still the Holy Roman Empire was able to get the primitive rabble to take Jerusalem.

I agree the Middle East was a part of many empires throughout its history. Europe not so much but they were both still very violent places.

This looks like an architectural marvel to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corvin_Castle

What does construction time have to do with anything? Are you saying people in the middle east built stuff faster?

The Germanic tribes adopted many aspects of Roman culture and way of life.


Many ethnic groups existed in Europe with some being absorbed to form new larger groups or to join a preexisting group. The Normans are a good example of this.

 

[original doom]

Except his arrows wont kill anyone. He has a weak bow made for trick shots. He is a trick shooter, and nothing more, a great trick shooter though.

sooo that wasnt possible in the past ?

 

[ssBaldy]

sooo that wasnt possible in the past ?

Why, I guess trick shooting goes back a long way.

 

[original doom]

They wouldn't be as isolated from the outside world and would likely have a greater life expectancy. They'd also probably have been more options for them to not be a goat herder where in Middle Age Europe there were 2 jobs and 1.5 of the best 2 were hereditary(church didn't always require priests to be abstinent so families dominated church as well and it caused the church to be a political clusterfuck, that's the actual practical reason priests can't get married rather than all that being married to god bs etc).

The Holy Roman Empire after the first 100 years or so, only existed in a legal sense. It was ran by hundreds of autonomous feudal lords who more or less did whatever the fuck they pleased. The Emperor was elected by three priests and four dukes(the ORIGINAL electoral college) who tended to vote for the person who was most likely to allow them to do whatever the fuck they pleased.

In the Middle East things are not the same. Middle East is in their version of Europe's middle ages right now. Middle East was more civilized than Europe(with the exception of the Byzantines, Spanish) until the industrial revolution or in same areas maybe 100-200 years before the industrial revolution. The issue with the Middle East, same as Europe was the destruction of the empire that controlled the region and decentralization in some ways it was worse in Europe(divided into more pieces), in same ways it's worse in the Middle East(no respected religious authority forcing people to play nice).

Think when you say castle you and many people mean palace. Castles were mostly for military necessity, palaces were fancy places were kings lived. Not sure whether they are architectural marvels or more so look cool. The most famous palaces mostly came later. There also was especially early on taking apart fixtures of classical buildings to use. Generally rulers just had less resources at their disposal so this shit took a long time and all these buildings we discussed are usually only required in quantities of one(a cathedral for a city, a castle for a town, a palace for a king).

The Germanics being "civilized" by the Romans is an oversimplification that would mainly apply to religion and identity more so than likeness to the actual Romans. Which was the opinion of the actual Romans in Greece. Also Italy was complicated cause the Romans from the Roman Empire never really left Italy they were just taken over by Germanics temporarily eventually much of urban Italy was ruled by the Pope and the North was taken by Lombards later on(hence why the areas called Lombards). These areas had a level of continuity with the Roman Empire in terms of the existing architecture and culture the rest of Europe never had. People see the Roman Empire as a Euro Empire but besides Italy and Greece, Europe was really the backwater regions, Germany,Scandanavia, Scotland, Ireland and the Balkans were not even on the map, kind of like the place in the Lion king where "you must never go there" and were built from scratch while the Italians and maybe even some of the Frence were maintaining an already built to live in world. This is why the "Renaissance"(which is pretty darn close to being made up) is such bs.

And ethnic groups didn't really exist in Europe for a very long time with a few exceptions(like the Hungarians who came from Magyars), French who were unified first developed an identity by like the 1400s but everyone else took a longer time. Back then people were identified by their ruler who owned the Kingdom or Duchy they lived in, not an ethnicity, in the reformation maybe that included religion. But while there might have been a "Kingdom of Germany", German and Italian weren't identity's the ancestor of any German or Italian pre mid 19th century would recognize at all. Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor and Kingdom of Italy were political vehicles by which the Holy Roman Emperor TECHNICALLY ruled those groups but practically didn't. German emperors real power extended as far as the land he personally ruled which tended to be the Duke of Austria at the end who ruled about a third of the empire if we're being generous probably more like a quarter or a fifth. And if you say that's bs well the Germanics were the one's who took over Rome and were civilized, Germanics=(most Europeans who came in the Great Migration) while Germans are people who lived in the former Holy Roman Empire when nationalism came to be. Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain are all the unification of a bunch of smaller countries from the Middle Ages that no one identifies with most of today that took time.

Our modern perception of country's and politics really started in 1648 which was not in the Middle Ages, before that that people weren't exactly property in the slave sense but they were fixtures on a person's property(like a tree that could walk). That's the main way life in the Middle Ages worked. Now the classical era tended to be more like modern life where you had citizens, sports/entertainment/vacationing/travelling with generally the main limitation being that the industrial and medical revolutions hadn't started yet. That's what I mean by socially people in Latin would be having sherdoggish type conversations if not for the lack of the internet etc. In Middle Age Europe there were mainly three jobs, fighting(protecting everyone and getting your soul saved and food in exchange), the priesthood(saving everyone's souls which in a world where everyone were literal believing Christians is an important one, getting food and protection in exchange ) and farming(feeding everyone and being afforded protection and your soul being saved in exchange). Life in the Middle Ages were really just different variations of that exchange of goods. When I say the classical world was more like ours than that, I mean the more complex social relationships and choice of profession(which in turn leads to society becoming more advanced), in an agrarian society I just listed the only three things you could really do.

For example look to when the first universities were founded. While the first ones were in the 1000s and 1100s most countries in Europe didn't get their first until the 1300s or 1400s.

And if anyone makes a snarky comment about "I'm not reading all of that" go on twitter you'll be happier there.

can you elaborate why rome wasnt really a european empire ?

 

[original doom]

Why, I guess trick shooting goes back a long way.

so that style wasnt possible with war bows ?

 

[ssBaldy]

so that style wasnt possible with war bows ?

Most definetely. One will not be able to generate enough power to draw a war bow like that. Bows used at Agincourt varied from 1.7 to 2.1 meters in length and required 120-130 lbs drawing force, what that guy has in his hands is a sports/hunting bow with draw power of around 50 lbs, he says that in description of his own video, along with that he could not shoot a war bow in such manner. That manner of shooting would only be effective against enemies who wear no armor.

 

[ferrisjso]

can you elaborate why rome wasnt really a european empire ?

Most of Europe wasn't in it. The parts of Europe that were in it except Greece and Italy were the least developed parts, while North Africa, Egypt, Turkey and Israel/Syria were the most developed parts. Germany, Scandanavia and all of Eastern Europe not to mention Scotland, Ireland and much of Spain might as well have not existed to the Romans.

 

[original doom]

Most of Europe wasn't in it. The parts of Europe that were in it except Greece and Italy were the least developed parts, while North Africa, Egypt, Turkey and Israel/Syria were the most developed parts. Germany, Scandanavia and all of Eastern Europe not to mention Scotland, Ireland and much of Spain might as well have not existed to the Romans.

hang on, is this a geographic discussion or an ethnic one ?

is rome middle eastern ?

 

[original doom]

Most definetely. One will not be able to generate enough power to draw a war bow like that. Bows used at Agincourt varied from 1.7 to 2.1 meters in length and required 120-130 lbs drawing force, what that guy has in his hands is a sports/hunting bow with draw power of around 50 lbs, he says that in description of his own video, along with that he could not shoot a war bow in such manner. That manner of shooting would only be effective against enemies who wear no armor.

ah yes i see now.

 

[ferrisjso]

hang on, is this a geographic discussion or an ethnic one ?

is rome middle eastern ?

Geographic Rome(at least after a little bit) wasn't an ethnic state(especially since it branched out from a city state), couldn't have become as powerful as it did otherwise. Best way to describe it is Mediterranean.

 

[original doom]

Geographic Rome(at least after a little bit) wasn't an ethnic state(especially since it branched out from a city state), couldn't have become as powerful as it did otherwise. Best way to describe it is Mediterranean.

i disagree. are you italian ?

 

[ferrisjso]

i disagree. are you italian ?

?

 

[Blood and Thunder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurdy-gurdy

 

[Blood and Thunder]

Armenians have had a pretty rough history.

 

[Blood and Thunder]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Africa
The Sicilian conquest of Africa began under Roger II in 1146–1148. Sicilian rule consisted of military garrisons in the major towns, exactions on the local Muslim population, protection of Christians, and the minting of coin. The local aristocracy was largely left in place, and Muslim princes controlled the civil government under Sicilian oversight. Economic connections between Sicily and Africa, which were strong before the conquest, were strengthened, while ties between Africa and northern Italy were expanded. Early in the reign of William I, the Kingdom of Africa fell to the Almohad Caliphate (1158–1160). Its most enduring legacy was the realignment of Mediterranean powers brought about by its demise and the Siculo-Almohad peace finalised in 1180.

 

[Blood and Thunder]

@Bacco

If you haven't seen it yet. The Japanese apparently used a similar shield to those crossbowmen but it was larger.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

They wouldn't be as isolated from the outside world and would likely have a greater life expectancy. They'd also probably have been more options for them to not be a goat herder where in Middle Age Europe there were 2 jobs and 1.5 of the best 2 were hereditary(church didn't always require priests to be abstinent so families dominated church as well and it caused the church to be a political clusterfuck, that's the actual practical reason priests can't get married rather than all that being married to god bs etc).

The Holy Roman Empire after the first 100 years or so, only existed in a legal sense. It was ran by hundreds of autonomous feudal lords who more or less did whatever the fuck they pleased. The Emperor was elected by three priests and four dukes(the ORIGINAL electoral college) who tended to vote for the person who was most likely to allow them to do whatever the fuck they pleased.

In the Middle East things are not the same. Middle East is in their version of Europe's middle ages right now. Middle East was more civilized than Europe(with the exception of the Byzantines, Spanish) until the industrial revolution or in same areas maybe 100-200 years before the industrial revolution. The issue with the Middle East, same as Europe was the destruction of the empire that controlled the region and decentralization in some ways it was worse in Europe(divided into more pieces), in same ways it's worse in the Middle East(no respected religious authority forcing people to play nice).

Think when you say castle you and many people mean palace. Castles were mostly for military necessity, palaces were fancy places were kings lived. Not sure whether they are architectural marvels or more so look cool. The most famous palaces mostly came later. There also was especially early on taking apart fixtures of classical buildings to use. Generally rulers just had less resources at their disposal so this shit took a long time and all these buildings we discussed are usually only required in quantities of one(a cathedral for a city, a castle for a town, a palace for a king).

The Germanics being "civilized" by the Romans is an oversimplification that would mainly apply to religion and identity more so than likeness to the actual Romans. Which was the opinion of the actual Romans in Greece. Also Italy was complicated cause the Romans from the Roman Empire never really left Italy they were just taken over by Germanics temporarily eventually much of urban Italy was ruled by the Pope and the North was taken by Lombards later on(hence why the areas called Lombards). These areas had a level of continuity with the Roman Empire in terms of the existing architecture and culture the rest of Europe never had. People see the Roman Empire as a Euro Empire but besides Italy and Greece, Europe was really the backwater regions, Germany,Scandanavia, Scotland, Ireland and the Balkans were not even on the map, kind of like the place in the Lion king where "you must never go there" and were built from scratch while the Italians and maybe even some of the Frence were maintaining an already built to live in world. This is why the "Renaissance"(which is pretty darn close to being made up) is such bs.

And ethnic groups didn't really exist in Europe for a very long time with a few exceptions(like the Hungarians who came from Magyars), French who were unified first developed an identity by like the 1400s but everyone else took a longer time. Back then people were identified by their ruler who owned the Kingdom or Duchy they lived in, not an ethnicity, in the reformation maybe that included religion. But while there might have been a "Kingdom of Germany", German and Italian weren't identity's the ancestor of any German or Italian pre mid 19th century would recognize at all. Kingdom of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor and Kingdom of Italy were political vehicles by which the Holy Roman Emperor TECHNICALLY ruled those groups but practically didn't. German emperors real power extended as far as the land he personally ruled which tended to be the Duke of Austria at the end who ruled about a third of the empire if we're being generous probably more like a quarter or a fifth. And if you say that's bs well the Germanics were the one's who took over Rome and were civilized, Germanics=(most Europeans who came in the Great Migration) while Germans are people who lived in the former Holy Roman Empire when nationalism came to be. Spain, Germany, Italy and Britain are all the unification of a bunch of smaller countries from the Middle Ages that no one identifies with most of today that took time.

Our modern perception of country's and politics really started in 1648 which was not in the Middle Ages, before that that people weren't exactly property in the slave sense but they were fixtures on a person's property(like a tree that could walk). That's the main way life in the Middle Ages worked. Now the classical era tended to be more like modern life where you had citizens, sports/entertainment/vacationing/travelling with generally the main limitation being that the industrial and medical revolutions hadn't started yet. That's what I mean by socially people in Latin would be having sherdoggish type conversations if not for the lack of the internet etc. In Middle Age Europe there were mainly three jobs, fighting(protecting everyone and getting your soul saved and food in exchange), the priesthood(saving everyone's souls which in a world where everyone were literal believing Christians is an important one, getting food and protection in exchange ) and farming(feeding everyone and being afforded protection and your soul being saved in exchange). Life in the Middle Ages were really just different variations of that exchange of goods. When I say the classical world was more like ours than that, I mean the more complex social relationships and choice of profession(which in turn leads to society becoming more advanced), in an agrarian society I just listed the only three things you could really do.

For example look to when the first universities were founded. While the first ones were in the 1000s and 1100s most countries in Europe didn't get their first until the 1300s or 1400s.

And if anyone makes a snarky comment about "I'm not reading all of that" go on twitter you'll be happier there.

I read all of that and it was very enlightening

 

[Bacco]

@Bacco

If you haven't seen it yet. The Japanese apparently used a similar shield to those crossbowmen but it was larger.

Yeah, tbh i consider it more a mobile barrier, but the concept it's mostly the same

To be honest i ever found japanese warfare a bit overrated as well as theyr straight martial ability (this extend to east asian on general), but can't deny it's a charming culture

On other hand they evolved to theyr context, 9 times out 10 it was Jap vs Jap, so it's unfair play the X and Y would have wrecked them