Historically when they were at each others throats and had ways to gain power, you end up with succession crisis and wars the public get dragged into. United is worse till the public realise 'wait, there's more of us than them, the fuck are we doing?' And then you have a revolution...or several if your French...
A stalemate usually means there's ways to move up and down but trying to create an alliance risks opposing sides preemptively attacking and the costs of hostility outweighs benefits of neutrality.
This applies to a non retard world which is most things before WW1. Current times, there are no 'elites' just a lot of emperors without clothes and people with resources following them.
I'd go for a healthy stalemate more
Historically when they were at each others throats and had ways to gain power, you end up with succession crisis and wars the public get dragged into. United is worse till the public realise 'wait, there's more of us than them, the fuck are we doing?' And then you have a revolution...or several if your French...
A stalemate usually means there's ways to move up and down but trying to create an alliance risks opposing sides preemptively attacking and the costs of hostility outweighs benefits of neutrality.
This applies to a non retard world which is most things before WW1. Current times, there are no 'elites' just a lot of emperors without clothes and people with resources following them.