Today shall be the day that the Old English thread is revived! And since I've kept you all away from this hallowed knowledge for so long, I'm going to give you a real treat... my paper!
Yes, as soon as it's completed today, I'll post my paper in this forum and you all shall revel in the glory of knowledge-making!
EDIT: And, here it is! Part 1, anyway.
One Nation Against Satan: Satan as a Military Figure in Old English Poetry
The presentation of Satan as a military figure in Old English poetry seems to have survived into our own cultural conceptions today. Even though most of Christian tradition states that his rebellion took place before humans existed, one modern conception is a battle between two armies dressed in armor and wielding swords and spears. Such an account is not Biblical, so its later introduction was likely informed by the culture in which it was constructed. In this paper I hope to show through an analysis of two battle poems, “The Battle of Maldon” and “The Battle of Brunanburh”, that the poets who composed them connected battle with a unifying national identity. I will then argue that depictions of Satan as a military figure in “Genesis B” and “Christ and Satan” perform a similar function and, utilizing this connection between battle and national identity, unite the English in spiritual warfare against Satan.
I must first, however, address the conception of 'national identity' as I plan on using it. Recent scholarship has brought into question the possibility of a cohering national identity in the Anglo-Saxon period. The peoples of England, after all, were not united into one nation at the time these texts were written and often competed with each other fiercely. Kathleen Davis examines the work of scholars who hold that the idea of nation was not possible to Medieval people. This view states that, because of their conception of time and its separation from cause and effect, "the medieval community could not imagine an abstract nation made up of anonymous citizens who move, simultaneously, along calendrical time" (Davis 613). But then Davis critiques this viewpoint through her examination of Alfred's Preface to the Pastoral Care, stating that though medieval people certainly did not view nationhood as we do today, there were nevertheless multiple forces at work that allowed for a conception of the Anglo-Saxons united as a people.
She first points to language. One of Alfred's goals in translating Latin works into English was to increase the overall wisdom in the country. She notes that Alfred does not denigrate the vernacular language, but instead treats it as "one among many languages in which wisdom can be conveyed" (Davis 615). It would seem, then, that when an Anglo-Saxon read, listened to, or (perhaps most importantly in this paper) wrote a work in English it generally would not have been perceived as an inferior language. Instead, it likely bound the reader/listener/writer to a broader group, whether unconsciously or otherwise, especially since there existed another language against which English was pitted (Latin). Of course, dialectical differences might have prevented an overall Anglo-Saxon language bonding, but this effect still would function for people in the same dialect. I do not propose that common language brought about an idea about nationhood on its own—Davis warns against this explicitly. I do think, however, that it is one of many aspects that combined to form nameless feelings of nationality in certain texts.
She points next to the unifying role of Christianity. She again references the work of several scholars, all of whom point toward various aspects of an English nation bound together by the influence of the Church: "Wormald attributes the ideological production of England to a conception of communal identity originating with an ecclesiastical gens Anglorum, and credits this foundation with the staying-power of the English nation" (Davis 618). It is clear that not only was a national religious identity possible, but did in fact exist to some degree.
Further evidence for a common religious identity can be found by examining stories of martyred female saints. Andrea Rossi-Reder discusses how Aelfric's use of female saints in his Lives of Saints displays this desire to connect religion with a national identity. She claims that the violation of these women by foreign officials is meant to symbolize foreign powers raping the English homeland. The nationalizing message behind these tales was particularly important for Aelfric, "during whose lifetime came a renewal of Danish attacks in England, threatening the unity that Alfred has moved toward establishing in the preceding century” (Rossi-Reder 185). These accounts seem to have been written as a call to arms: just as in the story a band of angry nationals rise and eject the offender, so too should the English as a united, Christian people rise and eject foreign invaders from their shared homeland.
This conception of a consolidated national force is present throughout both "The Battle of Maldon" and "The Battle of Brunanburh". Though each poet details a battle waged in the name of a particular lord—Aethelstan in "Brunanburh" and Aethelred in "Maldon"—both poets also refer to the armies by their national identities. Both West Saxons [Wesseaxe] (20b) and Mercians [Myrce] (24b) are mentioned in "Brunanburh" and East Saxons [Eastseaxena] (73a) in "Maldon". Furthermore, the "Brunanburh" poet nostalgically speaks of the Anglo-Saxons' triumphant conquering and settlement of England in a past age:
þaes þe us secgað bec,
ealde uðwitan, siððan eastan hider
Engle ond Seaxe up becoman,
ofer brad brimu Brytene sohtan,
wlance wigsmithas Weales ofercoman,
eorlas arhwate, eard begeatan.
(according to what the books say to us, from the old authorities, since from the east to here the Angles and Saxons came ashore over broad seas and sought Britain, proud warsmiths came over to Wales, glorious warriors, conquered the country) (68b-73).
Whether the Anglo-Saxon settlement of England actually produced a coherent national identity is irrelevant here. What is important about these lines is that they point to the poet's conception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement as the starting point in the formation of a nation united in battle.
Not only do both poets identify the English armies through national associations, so too do they unite their foes in the same way. In "Brunanburh" the enemies are named as Scottish people [Sceotta leoda] (11a) and Norsemen [Normen] (53a) and in "Maldon" the Vikings are referred to by many names: wicinga, saemann, Brimmann, etc. The effect of these categorizations is to produce in the reader strong associations between combat and nationality. According to this mindset, battle is not an amalgamation of thousands of warriors each fighting for his own (or others') reasons, but is the warring of two hostile nations through its warriors. Thus, an English-speaking audience who hears a tale of their nation in battle told through their language is invited to identify themselves as part of a greater whole united against "laþe gystas [the hated strangers]" (86b).
Also, hints of an army united in religion as well as nationality are present in "The Battle of Maldon". First is a speech in which Byrhthnoth identifies the vikings as “hæþene [heathens]” (55a). The Vikings, already alienated through their nationality, are further identified as enemies through their non-Christianity. The poet has identified all members of the invading army as foreigners, and all are heathens. Thus, they are doubly the enemies of any English warrior and by extension any English person who comes in contact with the poem. Second is the poet's use of utterances to God. Byrhthnoth's thanksgiving after he is first wounded is a representative example:
_ Se eorl wæs þe bliþra
hloh þa, modi man, sæde metode þanc
þæs dægweorces þe him drihten forgeaf.
(The earl was then happier, he laughed then, courageous man, and gave thanks to the Creator for the day's work which the Lord had given to him) (146b-148).
Byrhthnoth simply assumes that slaughtering Vikings was God's intended plan for him, implying that the English army is something of a 'chosen people' warring against the enemies of God. This treatment by the poet further symbolizes Byrhthnoth and his armies for the audience: through them, the Anglo-Saxon people stand united in Christianity against the foreign foe.
I now wish to turn to two Old English treatments of Satan with this idea in mind. Biblical depictions of Satan are sparse and certainly don't give the amount of detail found in "Genesis B" or "Christ and Satan", which perhaps accounts for some of the culturally-specific imagery found within. The "Genesis B" poet in particular portrays Satan as an Anglo-Saxon battle-lord similar to Byrhthnoth and Aethelstan. He measures much of his strength in the power of his "folcgestælna [companions in war]" and assures himself that he might overcome God through the might of his army:
Bigstandað me strange geneatas, þa ne willað me æt þam striðe geswican,
hæleþas heardmode. Hie habbað me to hearran gecorene,
rofe rincas; mid swilcum mæg man ræd geþencean,
fon mid swilcum folcgesteallan.
(Strong companions stand beside me, who will not abandon me in the struggle, hard-minded fighters. They have crowned me as their lord, the renowned warriors; with such may one take counsel, seize the prize with a standing army like this) (284-287a).
These military images surface again when Satan plans his revenge against God: he exhorts his followers to think about that "fyrde [campaign]" (408b), and the demon who is sent to the Garden of Eden prepares by donning a "hæleðhelm [helmet]" (444a).
This portrayal of Satan as a military foe seems to serve a similar function as the portrayal of the Vikings in "The Battle of Maldon" and the Scots and Norsemen in "The Battle of Brunanburh". These armies are presented as a united foe against which the Anglo-Saxons must fight with both weapons and national unity and so Satan and his demons function as a united force against which the Anglo-Saxons together must spiritually battle. This might serve two purposes: first to remind estranged individuals to return to the Church so that they might have compatriots in the battle against a dark army. As I mentioned above, Christianity was one of the few institutions that bound the English together as a nation. As such, there were likely many stories that connected ideas of a powerful nation with a shared spirituality. Second, it might also have served to characterize Satan in a more familiar and therefore comfortable way. An English audience would likely be familiar with how to combat an enemy army through battle poems such as "Maldon" and "Brunanburh", and so portraying Satan as such would make him seem conquerable. More abstract portrayals decrease the ease with which he may conceptually be fought, and in a religious worldview in which one must constantly fend off the Devil's advances, it seems more plausible that the poet would pick a portrayal which could be more easily defended against.
The poet's use of battle imagery in "Christ and Satan" lends further weight to my argument. Instead of Satan being presented as a potent military foe, however, it is now the forces of Christianity that wage battle against the Devil and his minions. When Christ begins his harrowing of Hell, Satan bemoans the onslaught of the "þegen mid þreate, / þeoden engla [warrior with his legions, Lord of Angels]" (386). In freeing souls from Hell, Christ is presented as a warlord leading a troop against the forces of a powerless Satan. The "Genesis B" poet depicted Satan as a scheming warlord to warn audiences of what power Hell had and how they might combat it. This poet, however, presents the eventual military victory that must result from that depiction. This portrayal also may be an attempt to show the power inherent in a nation united spiritually.
Of course, I do not argue in this paper about how these poems may have actually been received by an Anglo-Saxon audience. My concern here is a common theme that these poets seem to have been following. "The Battle of Maldon" and "The Battle of Brunanburh" poets craft a binary that pits an English national identity against foreign invaders and in doing so invite their audiences to unite under a common nationalistic banner. In a similar manner, the "Genesis B" and, to a lesser extent, "Christ in Satan" poets construct Satan as a military enemy to unify the English in spiritual battle. Satan's weapons are not swords and spears, however, but words. Obviously the poets did not intend for their audience to physically unite and lead an army into hell. Instead, it seems one of their desires was to cast Satan in the guise of a familiar enemy so that the English people might further cohere as one nation united spiritually against the forces of evil.
Cassidy, Frederic G. Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader. 1971. Ed. Richard N. Ringler. 3rd ed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006.
Davis, Kathleen. "National Writing in the Ninth Century: A Reminder for Postcolonian Thinking about Nation." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28.3 (1998): 611-637.
Dendle, Peter. Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Rossi-Reder, Andrea. "Embodying Christ, Embodying Nation: Aelfric's Accounts of Saints Agatha and
Lucy." Sex and Sexuality in Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Carol Pasternack and Lisa M.C. Weston.
Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2004. 183-202.
Note: All translations are my own. Translation of “Genesis B” was assisted by consulting the online translation cited above.
Maybe God and Satan have an epic Pokemon battle to determine the fate of all souls.
Actually, that's really cool. I never put much thought into it, but I guess I always assumed it was a swords/armor battle between the two. Literature and culture seem to hint at that, so I always assumed it without really thinking about it.
He's a Clefairy guy at heart, but I imagine he also comes at you with the three Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, and a hacked Mew all jacked up to 100 with duplicated rare candies he got off Cinnabar Island.
He's a Clefairy guy at heart, but I imagine he also comes at you with the three Legendary Birds, Mewtwo, and a hacked Mew all jacked up to 100 with duplicated rare candies he got off Cinnabar Island.
Yeah. He's one of those trainers.
That'll bite him in the ass in the end, since Pokémon leveled up through Rare Candy are much weaker than the same Pokémon leveled up through battling. The game uses the number of opponents battled as well as their species and individual stats as a factor to determine how much stat gain is received upon level-up.
Personally, on the teams I use throughout pokmon games, I tend to stray away from gift-wrapped pokemon such as legendary pokemon. They come at such a high level and often make hard parts of the game annoyingly easy. Most of the pokemon I'll use I refuse to start with at a level higher than 20.
Anyone else agree?
That'll bite him in the ass in the end, since Pokémon leveled up through Rare Candy are much weaker than the same Pokémon leveled up through battling. The game uses the number of opponents battled as well as their species and individual stats as a factor to determine how much stat gain is received upon level-up.
That'll bite him in the ass in the end, since Pokémon leveled up through Rare Candy are much weaker than the same Pokémon leveled up through battling. The game uses the number of opponents battled as well as their species and individual stats as a factor to determine how much stat gain is received upon level-up.
:tmyk:
Was that system present in Red, Blue, and Yellow, or did it emerge later?
Unlike a normal level up, a level up by Rare Candy does not factor in EVs when calculating the new stats, resulting in weaker stats for that level. Therefore, it is usually considered best to use a Rare Candy only after the Pokémon has maxed out its EVs.
Rare candies are fine, but only if your pokemon's EVs are already maxed out.
It's been around since the original game. And if you don't want to waste all your time calculating EV gain, just don't use Rare Candy and level up the old-fashioned way and you'll be just fine.
Exactly. This is the point I'm trying to make. Satan is the kind of gamer who would instantly max out his legendaries' levels as soon as he got them, thus never gaining the benefits of EV training.
Comments
Yes, as soon as it's completed today, I'll post my paper in this forum and you all shall revel in the glory of knowledge-making!
EDIT: And, here it is! Part 1, anyway.
One Nation Against Satan: Satan as a Military Figure in Old English Poetry
The presentation of Satan as a military figure in Old English poetry seems to have survived into our own cultural conceptions today. Even though most of Christian tradition states that his rebellion took place before humans existed, one modern conception is a battle between two armies dressed in armor and wielding swords and spears. Such an account is not Biblical, so its later introduction was likely informed by the culture in which it was constructed. In this paper I hope to show through an analysis of two battle poems, “The Battle of Maldon” and “The Battle of Brunanburh”, that the poets who composed them connected battle with a unifying national identity. I will then argue that depictions of Satan as a military figure in “Genesis B” and “Christ and Satan” perform a similar function and, utilizing this connection between battle and national identity, unite the English in spiritual warfare against Satan.
I must first, however, address the conception of 'national identity' as I plan on using it. Recent scholarship has brought into question the possibility of a cohering national identity in the Anglo-Saxon period. The peoples of England, after all, were not united into one nation at the time these texts were written and often competed with each other fiercely. Kathleen Davis examines the work of scholars who hold that the idea of nation was not possible to Medieval people. This view states that, because of their conception of time and its separation from cause and effect, "the medieval community could not imagine an abstract nation made up of anonymous citizens who move, simultaneously, along calendrical time" (Davis 613). But then Davis critiques this viewpoint through her examination of Alfred's Preface to the Pastoral Care, stating that though medieval people certainly did not view nationhood as we do today, there were nevertheless multiple forces at work that allowed for a conception of the Anglo-Saxons united as a people.
She first points to language. One of Alfred's goals in translating Latin works into English was to increase the overall wisdom in the country. She notes that Alfred does not denigrate the vernacular language, but instead treats it as "one among many languages in which wisdom can be conveyed" (Davis 615). It would seem, then, that when an Anglo-Saxon read, listened to, or (perhaps most importantly in this paper) wrote a work in English it generally would not have been perceived as an inferior language. Instead, it likely bound the reader/listener/writer to a broader group, whether unconsciously or otherwise, especially since there existed another language against which English was pitted (Latin). Of course, dialectical differences might have prevented an overall Anglo-Saxon language bonding, but this effect still would function for people in the same dialect. I do not propose that common language brought about an idea about nationhood on its own—Davis warns against this explicitly. I do think, however, that it is one of many aspects that combined to form nameless feelings of nationality in certain texts.
She points next to the unifying role of Christianity. She again references the work of several scholars, all of whom point toward various aspects of an English nation bound together by the influence of the Church: "Wormald attributes the ideological production of England to a conception of communal identity originating with an ecclesiastical gens Anglorum, and credits this foundation with the staying-power of the English nation" (Davis 618). It is clear that not only was a national religious identity possible, but did in fact exist to some degree.
Further evidence for a common religious identity can be found by examining stories of martyred female saints. Andrea Rossi-Reder discusses how Aelfric's use of female saints in his Lives of Saints displays this desire to connect religion with a national identity. She claims that the violation of these women by foreign officials is meant to symbolize foreign powers raping the English homeland. The nationalizing message behind these tales was particularly important for Aelfric, "during whose lifetime came a renewal of Danish attacks in England, threatening the unity that Alfred has moved toward establishing in the preceding century” (Rossi-Reder 185). These accounts seem to have been written as a call to arms: just as in the story a band of angry nationals rise and eject the offender, so too should the English as a united, Christian people rise and eject foreign invaders from their shared homeland.
This conception of a consolidated national force is present throughout both "The Battle of Maldon" and "The Battle of Brunanburh". Though each poet details a battle waged in the name of a particular lord—Aethelstan in "Brunanburh" and Aethelred in "Maldon"—both poets also refer to the armies by their national identities. Both West Saxons [Wesseaxe] (20b) and Mercians [Myrce] (24b) are mentioned in "Brunanburh" and East Saxons [Eastseaxena] (73a) in "Maldon". Furthermore, the "Brunanburh" poet nostalgically speaks of the Anglo-Saxons' triumphant conquering and settlement of England in a past age:
þaes þe us secgað bec,
ealde uðwitan, siððan eastan hider
Engle ond Seaxe up becoman,
ofer brad brimu Brytene sohtan,
wlance wigsmithas Weales ofercoman,
eorlas arhwate, eard begeatan.
(according to what the books say to us, from the old authorities, since from the east to here the Angles and Saxons came ashore over broad seas and sought Britain, proud warsmiths came over to Wales, glorious warriors, conquered the country) (68b-73).
Whether the Anglo-Saxon settlement of England actually produced a coherent national identity is irrelevant here. What is important about these lines is that they point to the poet's conception of the Anglo-Saxon settlement as the starting point in the formation of a nation united in battle.
Not only do both poets identify the English armies through national associations, so too do they unite their foes in the same way. In "Brunanburh" the enemies are named as Scottish people [Sceotta leoda] (11a) and Norsemen [Normen] (53a) and in "Maldon" the Vikings are referred to by many names: wicinga, saemann, Brimmann, etc. The effect of these categorizations is to produce in the reader strong associations between combat and nationality. According to this mindset, battle is not an amalgamation of thousands of warriors each fighting for his own (or others') reasons, but is the warring of two hostile nations through its warriors. Thus, an English-speaking audience who hears a tale of their nation in battle told through their language is invited to identify themselves as part of a greater whole united against "laþe gystas [the hated strangers]" (86b).
Also, hints of an army united in religion as well as nationality are present in "The Battle of Maldon". First is a speech in which Byrhthnoth identifies the vikings as “hæþene [heathens]” (55a). The Vikings, already alienated through their nationality, are further identified as enemies through their non-Christianity. The poet has identified all members of the invading army as foreigners, and all are heathens. Thus, they are doubly the enemies of any English warrior and by extension any English person who comes in contact with the poem. Second is the poet's use of utterances to God. Byrhthnoth's thanksgiving after he is first wounded is a representative example:
_ Se eorl wæs þe bliþra
hloh þa, modi man, sæde metode þanc
þæs dægweorces þe him drihten forgeaf.
(The earl was then happier, he laughed then, courageous man, and gave thanks to the Creator for the day's work which the Lord had given to him) (146b-148).
Byrhthnoth simply assumes that slaughtering Vikings was God's intended plan for him, implying that the English army is something of a 'chosen people' warring against the enemies of God. This treatment by the poet further symbolizes Byrhthnoth and his armies for the audience: through them, the Anglo-Saxon people stand united in Christianity against the foreign foe.
I now wish to turn to two Old English treatments of Satan with this idea in mind. Biblical depictions of Satan are sparse and certainly don't give the amount of detail found in "Genesis B" or "Christ and Satan", which perhaps accounts for some of the culturally-specific imagery found within. The "Genesis B" poet in particular portrays Satan as an Anglo-Saxon battle-lord similar to Byrhthnoth and Aethelstan. He measures much of his strength in the power of his "folcgestælna [companions in war]" and assures himself that he might overcome God through the might of his army:
Bigstandað me strange geneatas, þa ne willað me æt þam striðe geswican,
hæleþas heardmode. Hie habbað me to hearran gecorene,
rofe rincas; mid swilcum mæg man ræd geþencean,
fon mid swilcum folcgesteallan.
(Strong companions stand beside me, who will not abandon me in the struggle, hard-minded fighters. They have crowned me as their lord, the renowned warriors; with such may one take counsel, seize the prize with a standing army like this) (284-287a).
These military images surface again when Satan plans his revenge against God: he exhorts his followers to think about that "fyrde [campaign]" (408b), and the demon who is sent to the Garden of Eden prepares by donning a "hæleðhelm [helmet]" (444a).
This portrayal of Satan as a military foe seems to serve a similar function as the portrayal of the Vikings in "The Battle of Maldon" and the Scots and Norsemen in "The Battle of Brunanburh". These armies are presented as a united foe against which the Anglo-Saxons must fight with both weapons and national unity and so Satan and his demons function as a united force against which the Anglo-Saxons together must spiritually battle. This might serve two purposes: first to remind estranged individuals to return to the Church so that they might have compatriots in the battle against a dark army. As I mentioned above, Christianity was one of the few institutions that bound the English together as a nation. As such, there were likely many stories that connected ideas of a powerful nation with a shared spirituality. Second, it might also have served to characterize Satan in a more familiar and therefore comfortable way. An English audience would likely be familiar with how to combat an enemy army through battle poems such as "Maldon" and "Brunanburh", and so portraying Satan as such would make him seem conquerable. More abstract portrayals decrease the ease with which he may conceptually be fought, and in a religious worldview in which one must constantly fend off the Devil's advances, it seems more plausible that the poet would pick a portrayal which could be more easily defended against.
The poet's use of battle imagery in "Christ and Satan" lends further weight to my argument. Instead of Satan being presented as a potent military foe, however, it is now the forces of Christianity that wage battle against the Devil and his minions. When Christ begins his harrowing of Hell, Satan bemoans the onslaught of the "þegen mid þreate, / þeoden engla [warrior with his legions, Lord of Angels]" (386). In freeing souls from Hell, Christ is presented as a warlord leading a troop against the forces of a powerless Satan. The "Genesis B" poet depicted Satan as a scheming warlord to warn audiences of what power Hell had and how they might combat it. This poet, however, presents the eventual military victory that must result from that depiction. This portrayal also may be an attempt to show the power inherent in a nation united spiritually.
Of course, I do not argue in this paper about how these poems may have actually been received by an Anglo-Saxon audience. My concern here is a common theme that these poets seem to have been following. "The Battle of Maldon" and "The Battle of Brunanburh" poets craft a binary that pits an English national identity against foreign invaders and in doing so invite their audiences to unite under a common nationalistic banner. In a similar manner, the "Genesis B" and, to a lesser extent, "Christ in Satan" poets construct Satan as a military enemy to unify the English in spiritual battle. Satan's weapons are not swords and spears, however, but words. Obviously the poets did not intend for their audience to physically unite and lead an army into hell. Instead, it seems one of their desires was to cast Satan in the guise of a familiar enemy so that the English people might further cohere as one nation united spiritually against the forces of evil.
Works Cited
Genesis B Translation. Baldwin-Wallace College. 10 Dec. 2008 <http://homepages.bw.edu/~uncover/ oldrievegenesisb.htm>.
The Junius Manuscript. Ed. Tony Jebson. Labyrinth Library: Old English Literature. 10 Dec. 2008
<http://www8.georgetown.edu/departments/medieval/labyrinth/library/oe/junius.html>.
Cassidy, Frederic G. Bright's Old English Grammar and Reader. 1971. Ed. Richard N. Ringler. 3rd ed. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006.
Davis, Kathleen. "National Writing in the Ninth Century: A Reminder for Postcolonian Thinking about Nation." Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 28.3 (1998): 611-637.
Dendle, Peter. Satan Unbound: The Devil in Old English Narrative Literature. Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Rossi-Reder, Andrea. "Embodying Christ, Embodying Nation: Aelfric's Accounts of Saints Agatha and
Lucy." Sex and Sexuality in Anglo-Saxon England. Ed. Carol Pasternack and Lisa M.C. Weston.
Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2004. 183-202.
Note: All translations are my own. Translation of “Genesis B” was assisted by consulting the online translation cited above.
Actually, that's really cool. I never put much thought into it, but I guess I always assumed it was a swords/armor battle between the two. Literature and culture seem to hint at that, so I always assumed it without really thinking about it.
Yeah. He's one of those trainers.
That'll bite him in the ass in the end, since Pokémon leveled up through Rare Candy are much weaker than the same Pokémon leveled up through battling. The game uses the number of opponents battled as well as their species and individual stats as a factor to determine how much stat gain is received upon level-up.
:tmyk:
Anyone else agree?
And that's why he lost heaven.
Was that system present in Red, Blue, and Yellow, or did it emerge later?
EDIT: Wait a sec...