Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 34

Targowice and Bar Confederations


ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
10 Jan 2009 /  #1
Here I beg my Polish hosts to express attitudes to these outstanding facts of Polish history. Please, describe your feelings you experience, hearing these names.

What they bequeathed to the posterity? Here in Russia we think that the legacy of both parties were, to put it mildly, very disputable, is it right?

I know about my poor reputation at forum, but please set aside your aversions to my person.
pawian 161 | 9,971  
10 Jan 2009 /  #2
Bar Confederacy was organized by patriotic Poles against Russian domination in Poland, among others. Took place 1768-1772. Was one of the pretexts for Russia, Austria and Prussia to divide Poland in the first partition.

Shortly speaking, Targowica was organized by pro-Russian Poles who decided to turn against their Polish King and abolish the reforms which were to strengthen the country at the end of 18 century. Russians invaded, the King gave up after a short campaign and surrendered the army. Poland experienced the 3rd partition and vanished from the map of Europe for 123 years.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448  
11 Jan 2009 /  #3
Without checking (books or Wikipedia), wasn't the Bar Confederacy accused of attempted regicide, the attempted abduction of the king?
Babinich 1 | 455  
11 Jan 2009 /  #4
Bar Confederacy was organized by patriotic Poles against Russian domination in Poland, among others. Took place 1768-1772. Was one of the pretexts for Russia, Austria and Prussia to divide Poland in the first partition.

Shortly speaking, Targowica was organized by pro-Russian Poles who decided to turn against their Polish King and abolish the reforms which were to strengthen the country at the end of 18 century. Russians invaded, the King gave up after a short campaign and surrendered the army. Poland experienced the 3rd partition and vanished from the map of Europe for 123 years.

This is how I pretty much remember it. One key fact I'd like to point out is that Frederick (Prussia) exploited this situation greatly by giving council to Catherine (Russia).
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
11 Jan 2009 /  #5
accused of attempted regicide, the attempted abduction of the king

As I remember correctly they really perpetrated abduction....

Shortly speaking, Targowica was organized by pro-Russian Poles who decided

So, you think that members of Targowice confideration were not polish patriots? May be they were just tricked?

I just want to express my point of view. No doubts, that members of Targowice confideration were Russian agents, but it were Bar Confiderates who triggered the final partition of Poland.
Borrka 37 | 594  
11 Jan 2009 /  #6
Targowice

Targowica.
Targowice sounds rather stupid to any person with at least elementary knowledge of history.

it Was Bar Confiderates who triggered the final partition of Poland.

Not true.
It was the Battle of Grunwald.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
11 Jan 2009 /  #7
Targowica.
Targowice sounds rather stupid to any person with at least elementary knowledge of history.

You know Borrka that my knowledge of polish history might be attributed as elementary.

It was the Battle of Grunwald.

How is that? Please clarrify!
Borrka 37 | 594  
11 Jan 2009 /  #8
Borrka:
It was the Battle of Grunwald.
How is that? Please clarrify!


Same way like "Bar Confiderates ... triggered the final partition of Poland". LOL
pawian 161 | 9,971  
11 Jan 2009 /  #9
So, you think that members of Targowice confideration were not polish patriots? May be they were just tricked?

Yes, they were tricked by Russian tsarina. They thought that it was possible to make a deal with Catherine the Great who would stop Polish reforms without further action. They were wrong as Russia and other states eventually decided it was more beneficial for them to carve Poland again in the second partition (1793) which was a catastrophy for the Polish state as it was to lose its historically Polish lands.

After the second partition there was Kosciuszko Insurection which collapsed and the third partition took place.

Targowica is commonly considered by Polish historians an anti-patriotic movement. A common Pole, hearing the word, gets an image of foul traitors. Really nasty ones, who still burn in hell. :):):)

BTW, A lot of them were hanged by an angry mob during riots in Warsaw during Kosciuszko Insurection.

Those who managed to escape, had their portraits hanged instead. Funny.



I just want to express my point of view. No doubts, that members of Targowice confideration were Russian agents, but it were Bar Confiderates who triggered the final partition of Poland.

Bar confederates couldn`t trigger the third partition. Look at the dates. They fought in 1968-1772, while the last partition took place in 1795. I think I wrote about it in my first post here - can`t you read in English? :):):)

I think you are mistaking Bar Confederacy 1768 with Kosciuszko Insurection 1795. Yes? :):):)

I think you need to apply to the moderator to change the title of this thread. :):):):):) When you do it, it will become a historical event, worth putting down in the Forum Chronicles/Annals. :):
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
11 Jan 2009 /  #10
Certainly it is not a question of dates and strict sequence of events. The Bar confederation might create hostility against Poland from the direction of Catherine.

And what is more, they were against legal king and against reforms. The maximum what they might achiev was a further degradation of Poland as state.
pawian 161 | 9,971  
11 Jan 2009 /  #11
Certainly it is not a question of dates and strict sequence of events.

No, in case of Polish events at the time, the dates and sequence are important.

The Bar confederation might create hostility against Poland from the direction of Catherine.

As if the Catherine had been friendly to Poland before. :):):):)
There is no friendship among states, especially in 18 century. Catherine didn`t need any anti-Russian rebellion in Poland to change her attitude to Poland. She was always intent on expanding Russian territory, just waited for a proper moment to do it, and as the Polish state was unable to prevent it, she happily cut it up together with other kings. The partitions would have taken place without any rebellions too.

And what is more, they were against legal king and against reforms. The maximum what they might achiev was a further degradation of Poland as state.

Certainly, the lost campaign weakened Poland. 14 thousands of confederates were captured and sent to Siberia, most never returned.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
11 Jan 2009 /  #12
Catherine didn`t need any anti-Russian rebellion in Poland to change her attitude to Poland. She was always intent on expanding Russian territory, just waited for a proper moment to do it, and as the Polish state was unable to prevent it, she happily cut it up together with other kings. The partitions would have taken place without any rebellions too.

Nay! I insist that Catherine did not have such monstrous idea as how to divide Poland, at the begining. It was exactly Bar confederates who frightened here by the mirage of new Pugachevschina. Exactly from this point, the fate of Poland was decided!
pawian 161 | 9,971  
11 Jan 2009 /  #13
Is it what Russian historians lecture on Polish Russian events????? :):):):):):)

Quite a snug explanation to pacify Russian remorse. Poles started a rebellion, lost Catherine`s trust, and eventually lost their country. :):):):)

I don`t think so. Don`t forget there were other predators waiting for injured Poland to bleed completely to tear her apart. Catherine had to take quick action, otherwise Prussian and Austrian kings would get their share without Russian participation. Such precedence took place at the second partition - only Russia and Prussia organized it, Austria was left behind.

With rebellions or without it, Catherine would have tried to get her share anyway.
Borrka 37 | 594  
11 Jan 2009 /  #14
Is it what Russian historians lecture on Polish Russian events????? :):):):):):)

They would rather prefer some more traditional version of mother Russia liberating "pravoslavni narod" from Polish pans' yoke.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
11 Jan 2009 /  #15
It's amazing Borya you got me right. We are really make a pair :) It should be my next point. Say, the dissident issue was main one in all this mess with partitions. Honestly, I would never believe that this issue hadn't had any real base, certainly orthodox believers were oppressed by catholics.
Borrka 37 | 594  
11 Jan 2009 /  #16
It's late evening in Poland but you must wait at least two hours with your fairy tales on intolerant Polish catholics, Kostik. Then my girl friend will kiss me good night and you can follow your (historical only) phantasies.

However I prefer Yershov's Konek-Gorbunok.

Not that I say we were always cream of the cream in sense of tolerance but at least we've tried to keep low profile on persecuting our Orthodox brothers.

It does not even compare to your Starovery slaughter not to mention West-European cuius regio...

So there were really not to much religious issues behind Polish - Ukrainian or Polish Russian conflicts.

Rather the Moscow's old craze of uniting all Slavs under czar's rule.

As for German bitch from Stettin ... she was only gung ho on expanding her great Euro-Asian farm.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
12 Jan 2009 /  #17
Oh, Borrka! OldBelievers here are not an issue, they had been burnt in the churches by themselves. I can feel reverence for their principes and their firm non-conformism, but suppousing in the same time that question how to cross, by two fingers or by three profanates true faith.

Moreover, we have never executed the policy of proselitism. Actually I don't have intention to disput about advantages and disadvantages of both branches, but even you Borrka should agree that Catholicism have produced more blood deeds than Orthodoxy. Anyway, all polish partitions had strong taste of religious quarrels. Otherwise how can you explaine Cossacs' upraisings? Bogdan Khmelnitskiy certainly had serious reasons for his mutiny. The character of your Sigismund Vasa gives a clue for reasons of Polish calamities in next century.
Borrka 37 | 594  
12 Jan 2009 /  #18
Oh Kostik, do you really believe proselytism and/or neglectable differences between the Orthodoxy and RCC are of any importance ?
It was just the thin red line dividing Russian imperialism and Polish noble obsession to civilize our Slavic brothers from the Asiatic steppes.
Just to make you more happy.

The only positive I can say about Sigismund Vasa is that he has moved our capital to Warsaw what was definitely right.
As for all Cossacs' uprisings ... a big part of so called "Cossacks" were bastardized Catholic runaways from Masovia. On the contrary their oppressors "Polish pans" were usually Orthodox or first generation Catholics like Yarema Wisniwiecki.

Religion was a distinguishing mark but hardly the reason of the conflict which was rather of social and political nature.
Just a new elite keen to gain some political power and playing smart the independence card.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
12 Jan 2009 /  #19
And surely, natural polish pans rejected to associate them as equals. That was a blindness of polish elite. Do you think that it was not because of their religion. But even more stupid was behaviour of you bishops and cardinals, who acted as if they lived in 14 century. Actually, your nobility began the process of abolishing polish state, but it were your clerics who succesefuly finished this process.
Borrka 37 | 594  
13 Jan 2009 /  #20
hat was a blindness of polish elite.

True but Rzeczpospolita's elite was hardly Polish .
The most influential part of it was Lithuanian - Belorussian.

In general I tend to see our previous involvement in Eastern issues as a big mistake.
Poland should have let our Eastern Slavonic brothers fight each other like we are watching it today.

I'm really pleased with situation when we don't have too much in common with your gas and oil wars, Brothers.
On the contrary to historical records now it's our turn to "protect" Ukrainians against Russian imperialism.
Verbally only, on some NATO and Union's forums.
I hope you will enjoy it.
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
13 Jan 2009 /  #21
Borrka you are sensible man and you should comprehend our motives. This is not a simple desire to reduce states and subdue nations, we have a lofty goal which directs all our moves. We just want to recreate united nation, the nation which existed many centuries ago.
pawian 161 | 9,971  
13 Jan 2009 /  #22
Religion was a distinguishing mark but hardly the reason of the conflict which was rather of social and political nature.
Just a new elite keen to gain some political power and playing smart the independence card.

I agree. This is a version commonly acknowledged by historians. Cossack risings broke up because they demanded the same priviliges that Polish gentry had and were continuosly turned down. Religion plays no role here at all.

And surely, natural polish pans rejected to associate them as equals. That was a blindness of polish elite.

Yes, it was. That is why Poland finally lost Ukraine and its own independence too.

Do you think that it was not because of their religion.

Of course not. Constantine, there was religious freedom in Poland of 7 century till the Swedish invasion in 1655. The greatest rising by Cossacks was in 1648. Before it, it hadn`t mattered if you were Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox.

And don`t try to make those Cossacks so religious people. They were bandits and renegades, religion mattered nothing to them.
David_18 68 | 982  
13 Jan 2009 /  #23
The only thing the Polish Magnates cared about was the money. A Polish state never existed, it was just an illusion. The Polish magnates made the biggest business empire of its time, and made up their own rules and choose their own kings. It actually reminds me how WTO (World Trade Organization) works.

And if you think Poland died with the partition of Poland you'r wrong. The polish Magnates just grew in power and gained more land. Believe me when i say that Russia/Austria/Prussia were the biggest asslicker of the polish magnates, the magnates had more privileges then the rest of the nobility inside these countries, the monarchs even gave the magnates titles just to make sure the magnates would sponsor them when they were broke as usual.

Of course Poland had it's "Patriots", but remember one thing folks. Cash is king!!
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
14 Jan 2009 /  #24
My friends, but what do you think about Wladislaw IV?
pawian 161 | 9,971  
14 Jan 2009 /  #25
Say first. :):):)
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
15 Jan 2009 /  #26
ConstantineK: My friends, but what do you think about Wladislaw IV?

Say first. :):):)

Actually he was tragic figure. Though I have special interest for some moments in history when the the state is on the break. When it seems that everythin is ok but some mortal illness is already inside the body and suddenly the state and society is blowing up. The same situation Was in Byzantine empire in times of Ioann II Komnin, here in Russia during Alexander III or in France in times of Louis XV.
pawian 161 | 9,971  
24 Jan 2009 /  #27
Not so fast. :):):) Władysław IV died in 1648. The first partition of Poland was in 1772.

Do you know how many kings ruled in Poland in the period? :):):)
They were all tragic figures..... :):):)
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
24 Jan 2009 /  #28
But most of them were Saxonians, well at least one. And you forgot about The Deluge. All partitions were less harmful than one deluge.
pawian 161 | 9,971  
25 Jan 2009 /  #29
But most of them were Saxonians, well at least one.

And what was Władysław IV`s descent? :):):) He was Polish in 25%.

And you forgot about The Deluge. All partitions were less harmful than one deluge.

:):):):):) Where do you get these opinions from??? They are really amazing :):):):)
OP ConstantineK 26 | 1,259  
25 Jan 2009 /  #30
Hmmm, Polish talent to choose wrong kings is a material for additional thread, Pawian. Your ancestors had wrong bid on mad Valuis dynasty, and what is more, they elected monarch from another deranged dynasty, Vasa.

Anyway Russians had never devastated Poland during partitions as your Swedish relatives had done it during deluge.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Targowice and Bar ConfederationsArchived