Cuthish–Mascyllary enmity: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Lindenau Accords caricature.png|190px|thumb|right|Johann Tenzel: ''[[Mascane]] am Marterpfahl'', ''Fackel'' magazine of 7 August 1906]] | [[File:Lindenau Accords caricature.png|190px|thumb|right|Johann Tenzel: ''[[Mascane]] am Marterpfahl'', ''Fackel'' magazine of 7 August 1906]] | ||
'''Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary enmity''' ('''Hytek–Mascyllary''' or '''Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary hateship''') ({{wp|Latvian language|Hytek}}: ''Ienaidnieks Hitekijuznijas–Masiljas'', {{wp|German language|Hesurian}} '' | '''Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary enmity''' ('''Hytek–Mascyllary''' or '''Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary hateship''') ({{wp|Latvian language|Hytek}}: ''Ienaidnieks Hitekijuznijas–Masiljas'', {{wp|German language|Hesurian}} ''Hitekojusnisch–maskillische Feindschaft'') was a concept and idea of unavoidable hostile and waring relations between the [[Mascyllary Kingdom|Mascyllary]] and [[Hytekojuznia|Hytekojuznik]] people, arising in the early 19th century with the [[Saarow War]] and subsequent conflicts. How Hytekojuznik dealt with Mascylla after the wars have also alienated the Mascyllary with the forced signing of the Lindenau Accords in 1906, which prompted sworn vengeance. Driven by mutual {{wp|revanchism}} and {{wp|ultra-nationalism}}, Mascylla would go on to openly confront Hytekojuznia politically and economically, making in an important factor in the [[Continental War (Gaia)|Continental War]], [[Great Game (Gaia)|Great Game]], and [[Erdaran Union|formal integration of Erdara]]. After the [[Hytekojuznik Civil War]], relations eased and warmed and yet remain the key to long-lasting peace in Erdara. | ||
Presented by author Markus Aschfahl in 1857, it describes how the geography of both nations reinforce a possible chance of regional hegemony, and thus are forced to compete and rival over it. Despite his detailed work, reasons for the rivalry are not uniform and have been mulitply interpreted. Factors such as cultural, linguistic and political differences have been raised as possible causes, though others see its origin in the semi-personal relationships of the respective leaders of the monarchies. | Presented by author Markus Aschfahl in 1857, it describes how the geography of both nations reinforce a possible chance of regional hegemony, and thus are forced to compete and rival over it. Despite his detailed work, reasons for the rivalry are not uniform and have been mulitply interpreted. Factors such as cultural, linguistic and political differences have been raised as possible causes, though others see its origin in the semi-personal relationships of the respective leaders of the monarchies. | ||
[[Category:Mascylla]] [[Category:Hytekia]] | [[Category:Mascylla]] [[Category:Hytekia]] |
Revision as of 18:29, 5 March 2020
Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary enmity (Hytek–Mascyllary or Hytekojuznik–Mascyllary hateship) (Hytek: Ienaidnieks Hitekijuznijas–Masiljas, Hesurian Hitekojusnisch–maskillische Feindschaft) was a concept and idea of unavoidable hostile and waring relations between the Mascyllary and Hytekojuznik people, arising in the early 19th century with the Saarow War and subsequent conflicts. How Hytekojuznik dealt with Mascylla after the wars have also alienated the Mascyllary with the forced signing of the Lindenau Accords in 1906, which prompted sworn vengeance. Driven by mutual revanchism and ultra-nationalism, Mascylla would go on to openly confront Hytekojuznia politically and economically, making in an important factor in the Continental War, Great Game, and formal integration of Erdara. After the Hytekojuznik Civil War, relations eased and warmed and yet remain the key to long-lasting peace in Erdara.
Presented by author Markus Aschfahl in 1857, it describes how the geography of both nations reinforce a possible chance of regional hegemony, and thus are forced to compete and rival over it. Despite his detailed work, reasons for the rivalry are not uniform and have been mulitply interpreted. Factors such as cultural, linguistic and political differences have been raised as possible causes, though others see its origin in the semi-personal relationships of the respective leaders of the monarchies.