Talk:Wetham (Realm)

Re: Wetham's claim on South Bakker. How long does "long been a claim of" mean, considering that Assassins have held the region practically since the island started three years ago, and only lost it within the past few months? Sure, Wetham happened to hold it when the claims system went active, but is that an accurate historical representation as befits a wiki entry, or a subjective viewpoint more suited for a newpaper page? Disclaimer: I don't have characters in either realm, and thus have no stake in this. I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind the assertion. -- Murakama 13:30, 14 January 2007 (CET)

Admittedly, it's a non-reality based assertion, just going on the idea that any time someone tries to take over another area in the real world, they claim that in the distant past, it used to be part of their country. Feel free to alter it. Remember, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. -- Wmcduff 15:09, 14 January 2007 (CET)

The claim on South Bakker is not the cause of the war. That happened long after the war started. From Wetham's point of view, the war started when the Assassins attacked Hulaferd. (Which they claimed was an accident, though Wetham does not believe it.) If I understand correctly, the Assassins think the war started long before that, when Wetham attacked Hulaferd. A rogue Wetham troop leader entered the region on murderous setting while the Wetham army was peacefully (set on defensive) moving through to OT. This unfortunate event happened on the same turn as an undead uprising. The resulting battle caused massive casualties on both sides, including wounding the King of Wetham. This event might have be smoothed over, except that a few days later Hulaferd revolted, joining Wetham. The Assassins believe the battle was created purposefully by Wetham to get that result. This all happened so long ago that only a few people on both sides can remember it. I would put this into the wiki myself, but I do think think I could be objective enough. (I could also be completely wrong.) --Kureshtin 02:22, 27 February 2007 (CET)