For you, which countries has the longest/ most important rivarly since X century

[Herezy92]

Lol u just waited to throw that 1 in lulz.

Also. Germany - France,

Germany - France ?
As rivalry ???
Only since 1870 to 1947.
It's quite short.

For sure it's not the longest/ most important rivalry since X century...

        Japan - China

It has been already said, and even fixed :

Japan / China

It was only in the late 19th century/early 20th century, Japan became powerful enough to be "rivals" with China ( China got rekt in WW2!!!)

As many would say, UK vs France/Spain imo was the most important rivalry.

[LordBerenger]

Germany - France ?
As rivalry ???
Only since 1870 to 1947.
It's quite short.

For sure it's not the longest/ most important rivalry since X century...



It has been already said, and even fixed :

It was only in the late 19th century/early 20th century, Japan became powerful enough to be "rivals" with China ( China got rekt in WW2!!!)

As many would say, UK vs France/Spain imo was the most important rivalry.

USA vs Rest of the world

[Franke]

Germany - France ?
As rivalry ???
Only since 1870 to 1947.
It's quite short.

For sure it's not the longest/ most important rivalry since X century...

Berenger is right (wut?), the fact that a unified German state only existed from 1871 on does not mean there wasn't a century-long rivalry. The first climax was reached in the XVIIth century with Louis's XIV interference on the 30-years war, followed by his constant expansion eastwards annexing Alsace, Lorraine et al. plus the devastation of the Palatinate. After the War of the Spanish Succession things calmed down a bit in the course of the XVIIIth century when France and Austria (which was a "German" power back then) even allied during the Seven-Years-War, but with the outbreak of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars heated up again.
After Napoleon was defeated, peace ruled in Europe but there were still tensions. Many people in Germany (that was not yet unified although more and more people already felt like belonging to one common nation that just needed to be politically unified) felt threatened by France's wish to extend to its "natural borders", which would have included to possession of the left bank of the river Rhine.

In German media, the term Erbfeindschaft ("hereditary enmitiy") is often used when describing the difficult relations between France and Germany prior to 1963.

For France as a classical colonial power, who had many rivals in the struggle for overseas territories, the Franco-German rivalry might not be something special, for the Germans, however, it surely is/was.

[LordBerenger]

Berenger is right (wut?), the fact that a unified German state only existed from 1871 on does not mean there wasn't a century-long rivalry. The first climax was reached in the XVIIth century with Louis's XIV interference on the 30-years war, followed by his constant expansion eastwards annexing Alsace, Lorraine et al. plus the devastation of the Palatinate. After the War of the Spanish Succession things calmed down a bit in the course of the XVIIIth century when France and Austria (which was a "German" power back then) even allied during the Seven-Years-War, but with the outbreak of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars heated up again.
After Napoleon was defeated, peace ruled in Europe but there were still tensions. Many people in Germany (that was not yet unified although more and more people already felt like belonging to one common nation that just needed to be politically unified) felt threatened by France's wish to extend to its "natural borders", which would have included to possession of the left bank of the river Rhine.

In German media, the term Erbfeindschaft ("hereditary enmitiy") is often used when describing the difficult relations between France and Germany prior to 1963.

For France as a classical colonial power, who had many rivals in the struggle for overseas territories, the Franco-German rivalry might not be something special, for the Germans, however, it surely is/was.

Germans be like...U guys had Napoleon...now you'll see Hítler. Checkmate.

[Herezy92]

Berenger is right (wut?), the fact that a unified German state only existed from 1871 on does not mean there wasn't a century-long rivalry. The first climax was reached in the XVIIth century with Louis's XIV interference on the 30-years war, followed by his constant expansion eastwards annexing Alsace, Lorraine et al. plus the devastation of the Palatinate. After the War of the Spanish Succession things calmed down a bit in the course of the XVIIIth century when France and Austria (which was a "German" power back then) even allied during the Seven-Years-War, but with the outbreak of the Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars heated up again.
After Napoleon was defeated, peace ruled in Europe but there were still tensions. Many people in Germany (that was not yet unified although more and more people already felt like belonging to one common nation that just needed to be politically unified) felt threatened by France's wish to extend to its "natural borders", which would have included to possession of the left bank of the river Rhine.

In German media, the term Erbfeindschaft ("hereditary enmitiy") is often used when describing the difficult relations between France and Germany prior to 1963.

For France as a classical colonial power, who had many rivals in the struggle for overseas territories, the Franco-German rivalry might not be something special, for the Germans, however, it surely is/was.

Germany isn't Prussia, (The late Prussia can be consider as Germany, but we arrive in late time period)
As Germany isn't HRE.
Sorry

But Franke, i got your point. For German states, French expansion was a threat.
Yes a threat. But not a rival.

That's a bit different.
There is no real rivalry between two long & stable entities.

Like for example : France (Bourbon) & Austria (Habsburg) had also a real and long rivalry.

Or like Prussia / Austria  had as well. (for the german domination)

[Havoco]

Here's one for panos: Sparta and Athens.

You could also probably throw in Moors and christian Iberian kingdoms

[Chosen1]

Of the ones that haven't been said:

Carthage and Rome,

Shia nations and Sunni nations,

Ireland and England,

India and Pakistan,

Serbia and Croatia,

and as a person of Peruvian descent, Peru and Chile. 

[ARN_]

I would say Sweden-Denmark , read some where that they have the most war fought between two nations, if it is so I don't know but back in the days they used to be at war with each other non-stop so it's very well possible.

[Joseph Porta]

The Netherlands / Neverland

Damn wannabes

Ging toch wel even stuk hierom

Mark Jutter

[Bulzur]

Well, France did have some issues with current Germany in the past, but those are irrelevant when compared to the hate we harbor to the english.
Even the 2 WW didn't change that, having to rely on english people was really tough on us, luckily, it was mainly the USA, with whom we've always been in good term that helped the most.

In all past 20th century conflicts, the first thing France looked at was the participants. If Britain is on one side, choose the other.


Though, i belive all this rivalry has come to a close now. It probably "was" the longest/most important rivalry, but is not any more.

In our current world, i'd say China vs Japan is pretty tense.

[Oberyn]

In all past 20th century conflicts, the first thing France looked at was the participants. If Britain is on one side, choose the other.

You got that exactly backwards. France never had the luxury of picking and choosing it's enemies, or any other continental euro country. The whole balance of power philosophy of the brits is what led to them opposing France constantly lest they become too powerful and dominate the continent. The exact same reason they became enemies of Germany from end of 19th to mid 20th century. Also the reason they have an almost heriditary loathing of the EU. A unified continental Europe means it isn't divided, fragmented and in constant conflict, which was their MO for centuries.

[Sniger]

Denmark / Denmark

(land was divided in clan territories and the clans battled eachother)

I like to think that the Scandi Vikings build and shaped (one of) the cornerstone(s) for our modern "society" (not saying its good)

[Panos_]

Here's one for panos: Sparta and Athens.

Greece was always split in half because of this rivalry.

Sadly people are led to believe that the Spartans were glorious, honourable and mighty warriors (thanks, Obama) but the truth is that the Athenians were always above the Spartans at everything, military, trade, culture, wealth, and that always annoyed the Spartans, made them envy the Athenians.

Apart from the glorious hold at the Hotgates, Spartans have done nothing else that actually justifies their huge reputation. They always sided with the enemy for gold and weapons, they would always cause problems at time of peace for no apparent reason.


Do yourself a favour and dont believe the crap that you read about spartans (no walls at sparta, the "If" reply to Phillip) all are lies.

[Oberyn]

Spartans were raised to literally be lying, thieving, violent scumbags. As soon as they got into any sort of position of authority they would use it to backstab "allies" and enrich themselves personally. Easiest way to deal with spartan kings (they had two at a time) was to bribe one or both, until their own people got angry and replaced them with yet another easily bribable thug with no sense of loyalty to anything but his own skin. Persians frigging loved them.
The american "reimagining" of spartans as freedom loving noble warriors is blatant projection of american values on a culture that had nothing similar to their own.

[Herezy92]

Greece was always split in half because of this rivalry.

Split in half ???
I would say split in tons of independant cities, fighting for their own interest & power.

Sadly people are led to believe that the Spartans were glorious, honourable and mighty warriors

Hmmm, the Spartans were zealots, fanatic warriors and raised in violence.
But yes i'm sorry, they were very good in the hoplite melee fight-style.

[...]but the truth is that the Athenians were always above the Spartans at everything, military, trade, culture, wealth, and that always annoyed the Spartans, made them envy the Athenians.

Where the spartans were excellent in only one thing : Hoplite melee fight,
The Athenians developped science, culture, philosophy & many technologies.

However, the Athenians who created their fresh democracy after kicking the last "tyran", had no dedicated army. (Time of the battle of Marathon)
The "Athenians-hoplite-civilian" equiped & bought their stuff by themself. They didn't grow in a life of violence with a permanent training. (as Sparta)

When Darius, invaded Thracia, Makedon and pushed to Greece, Athens sent diplomats in order to gather independant cities. Plataea accepted fast and sent soldiers.
Sparta accepted as well but they explained that they wont come till the end of their religious event. (which means too late to save Athens' city)

Miltiades (who was leading the "greek-league") proved to other greek states that the Athenians were also great warriors in ground battlefield with the great victory at Marathon.
Around 200 greeks died for 6.000 persians.

(click to show/hide)

(Pretty nice KD )

Sparta arrived 5 days after the victory of Marathon. And went back at home without glory.

Themistocles (who fought in Marathon as a strategoï for Athens) understood that the Persians will come back again.
He used the threat of their pirat greek neighbor to start building an important fleet. (which will save them when Xerses' fleet pushed into Greece)
At this point, Athens became a powerfull trading & naval city over Greece.

Apart from the glorious hold at the Hotgates, Spartans have done nothing else that actually justifies their huge reputation.

Yes, when Xerses surrounded the "greek-coaliltion" at the battle of the thermophiles, Sparta succesfully used this defeat as an act of sacrifice from their soldiers.

They always sided with the enemy for gold and weapons, they would always cause problems at time of peace for no apparent reason.

As i just wrote it above, it's not always the truth.
But when it was greek-wars, yes they rarely sided with Athens.
If they could make Athens weaker they would try it.

Do yourself a favour and dont believe the crap that you read about spartans (no walls at sparta, the "If" reply to Phillip) all are lies.

Yes, occidentals are still using propaganda, even if it's much more incidious, less retarded than the East, etc... But yes, we still have our own kind of propaganda, and USA is very good at it.