The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 68

What happened from 1650-1795?


jasinski 10 | 62
25 Sep 2010  #1
What are the reasons for how a empire(the commonwealth) could not only fall but take so long to do so. from what i read it was in a virtual state of anarchy for over a hundred years untill the partitions. i think the deluge had alot to do with it. but what was the politics? any insight or books on this period? i appreciate it. thanks.
plk123 8 | 4,150
25 Sep 2010  #2
info-poland.buffalo.edu/web/history/noble/link.shtml - Poland's History - The Noble's Republic (1572-1795)
David_18 68 | 982
25 Sep 2010  #3
The empire fell while the nobility lived on and keept their lands. Actually the nobility gained even more land when the empire fell.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
26 Sep 2010  #4
One reason for Poland's decline was the Saxon period: A za króla Sasa, jedz pij i popuszczaj pasa (During a Saxon king's reign eat, drink and loosen your belt).

The Roman empire also went into decline when the bywords of the day became: Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Many people today espouse a similar policy of vulgar consumerism or, if they are poor, of dreaming about vulgar consumerism.
Ironside 48 | 9,705
26 Sep 2010  #5
What happened ?
Chmielnicki's rebellion, supported by the Ottoman empire and Austria!
Weakened Poland had been invaded by Sweden, which in fact destroyed Poland's economic and democratic prosperity!
The reason for the poor management of the state affairs, was policy of the king Sigmund Vase - stupid fukker.
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #6
haha polonious and then shoot catapulted animals in mid air while stupid drunk. interesting. the funny thing is poland still managed to get most of those lands back after the deluge.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
4 Oct 2010  #7
The political structure was open to manipulation from the outside, given that a king was elected, this actively encouraged foreign powers to meddle in the affairs of the republic every election. This was OK so long as Poland's neighbors were weak and divided, once they became stronger and more cohesive trouble was the inevitable outcome. Furthermore central power was relatively weak within the state, the king basically had to go cap in hand to the nobility if he wanted something really noteworthy to be done. By contrast With the German, Russian and French nobility, if they objected the king would just give them a backhander and they would obey.

The nobility was more than happy to choose a foreign king, because the less he knew the better. What is more they did not like to see one of their own elevated above the rest. These are also partly the reasons why the English preferred foreigners as kings as well.
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #8
okay. so do you think poland suffered for being a democracy inbetween despots. a lion between wolves so to speak? Poland was always a buffer to russias asiatic barbarism and to the west they had the rampant vulgar displays of ego and paranoia of germany. paranoia that absolutely did NOT start with hitler and had been culminating a long time before.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
4 Oct 2010  #9
Yes in a sense they did, if the Republic had a more central state, which was based on one nation and not two-since you have to remember, that the Commonwealth was also know as The Republic of Two Nations. And if the king even though elected could exercise more power, then it might not necessarily have been a problem. But given the relative weakness of the king's position and his dependence on the nobility, as well as the wayward inclination of some of the Lithuanian nobles-he was bound to be ineffective because that is how the system was designed. According to Zamoyski en.wikipedia.org/wiki who was one of the author's of the Henrican Articles, "The King reigns but does not govern."Rex regnat et non gubernat.
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #10
what a absolutely amazing story poland is.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
4 Oct 2010  #11
I am not sure about the egotistic and vulgar bit when it comes to the Germans, you have to remember that they were only later to develop, after the Poles, a sense of national identity. In the meantime they probably bickered more amongst each other than they did with foreigners, in what can be described as, to borrow their own words Deutsche Wirtschaft.
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #12
very true. but you have to admit that they cant hold their vigour.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #13
okay. so do you think poland suffered for being a democracy inbetween despots. a lion between wolves so to speak? Poland was always a buffer to russias asiatic barbarism and to the west they had the rampant vulgar displays of ego and paranoia of germany.

Wot???

Maybe more like an idiot between smarties!

Russia asiatic barbarism?
Germany vulgar ego??

You have a way to describe other countries that is not only wrong but idiotic. No wonder
Poland stays the only country in Europe giving itself up to be partitioned to it's neighbours....
Truly an amazing story!

:(

What about polish barbarism invading Russia and besieging Moscow? What about polish vulgar ego during the commonwealth period! You might want to believe Poland is somewhat "better" but you aren't. Polish stupidity was the only thing what kept you from becoming a number in Europe for the longest time, nobody else!

I am not sure about the egotistic and vulgar bit when it comes to the Germans, you have to remember that they were only later to develop, after the Poles, a sense of national identity. In the meantime they probably bickered more amongst each other than they did with foreigners, in what can be described as, to borrow their own words Deutsche Wirtschaft.

Absolutely!

"German vulgar ego" my arse....
jwojcie 2 | 763
4 Oct 2010  #14
Of course it is a long period so many things happened. But among many others the most important were war with Kingdom of Sweden between 1650-1655. In military sense Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth has finally won, but it was Pyrrus victory. In economical, cultural and demographic sense it was total disaster. There are different estimations but Commonwealth lost about 1/3 of population (I'm not sure though if this number is about Polish Kingdom only). Countless castless and other important buildings were destroyed, entire country was pillaged to the naked bone. Every time I'm in some museum about something there is a map how it was, and then among the lines "but during war with Sweden most of it was destroyed or taken to Sweden", etc.

To give you some anectodical examples, yesterday I was in Paper Museum. There was a map with paper mills in Poland in XVII century and another map after the war with Sweden, where most of places were destroyed. One could think, "o paper, not important", well, maybe paper alone not, but when you realize that in muzeum after muzeum about x, y, z you see the same story, you see the disastrous effect of this war.

Another example: guess where are oryginal books by Coperinicus? In Upsalla taken there from Toruń (or Frombork?) somewhere between 1650-1655.
Overall many historians compares losses in 1650-1655 to losses that Poland suffered because of WWII.

To sum things up, war with Sweden was a turning point for Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth after wich negatives started prevailing over positives for this country.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #15
Sweden was also one of those countries devastating Germany during the 30 years war...how about Swedens "vulgar ego"...

My arse!
southern 75 | 7,097
4 Oct 2010  #16
The Swedish have several skeletons in their closets as we say here.
jwojcie 2 | 763
4 Oct 2010  #17
Sweden was also one of those countries devastating Germany during the 30 years war...how about Swedens "vulgar ego"...

Actually 30 years war in Germany was big factor in Commonwealth war with Sweden.
It can be said that Swedes trained in Germany and then went for Poland... They had costly and good army wich had nothing to do. So they took first opportunity to give this army some work... During that time Commonwealth looked like big and juicy fruit ready to pick. It was wealthy country sure that nobody can really endanger it.. well that was first mistake...
Ksysia 25 | 430
4 Oct 2010  #18
russdom.ru/node/3323

I think they mean here that Russia and Sweden had some business together.
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #19
hey now judging poland because of me is insanely idiotic. if i want to think(from what ive read) that germany and russia at one time were crazy despots that wouldnt leave their neighbors alone thats my own desicion. Idiotic? probably. A little bias absolutely. totally out of the question? hell no.
nott 3 | 594
4 Oct 2010  #20
Russia asiatic barbarism?

Exactly. With a touch of German vulgar ego, a deadly mix.

Germany vulgar ego??

Question of phraseology, yet you yourself were writing about the German national pride growing steadily since the 30 years war. 'Vulgar', I'd take it in the classical meaning, akin to 'plebeian'. New kid on the block, you wrote, looked down upon with disdain by the old bullies.

What about polish barbarism invading Russia and besieging Moscow?

You're joking. Batory was introducing a reasonable politics at last, similar to that dominating the world at all times.

Polish stupidity was the only thing what kept you from becoming a number in Europe for the longest time, nobody else!

Right. And you can't have it both ways. Either a barbarian invading innocent neighbours, or a pacifistic Commonwealth happy to grow corn and sell it to the warring Europe.

What about polish vulgar ego during the commonwealth period! You might want to believe Poland is somewhat "better" but you aren't.

It was, during the Commonwealth. Elsewhere unheard of period of stability and well-being, democracy at its best, tolerance and development.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #21
I have nothing against "ego" but "VULGAR"??? Oh pleeeeeaaaaaase

It was, during the Commonwealth. Elsewhere unheard of period of stability and well-being, democracy at its best, tolerance and development.

Every country (most) has these times of success and those of defeats...no country is inherently barbaric or has a "vulgar ego"...that is so stupid.

You just have to look on a time table and compare...
nott 3 | 594
4 Oct 2010  #22
I have nothing against "ego" but "VULGAR"??? Oh pleeeeeaaaaaase

That's why I modified the meaning. 'Vulgus' in Latin means 'common', the classical take. Like in 'Vulgata', the Common Bible. Every nation has/had it. I mean the ego.

nott:It was, during the Commonwealth. Elsewhere unheard of period of stability and well-being, democracy at its best, tolerance and development.

Every country (most) has these times of success and those of defeats...no country is inherently barbaric or has a "vulgar ego"...that is so stupid.

I am not going against Germany here, a country like any other, more or less. Russia, though, is an exception. It was a typical European country, with its local oddities, which was typically European too, until the Mongol conquest. Since then it went downhill, drastically, combining the worst of the two worlds.

'The touch of vulgar German ego' was about the period when Russia imported civilisation from Germany, and warped it in its own way. Vulgarised.

And Polish Commonwealth was another exception. I don't know about a comparable period of prosperity in any other European country. Might be my patriotic bias, but then please show me.

As for Polish barbaric invasion, again - Poland became the source of civilisation in Moscow, for a stretch. Polish in Moscow, then, was like French in Europe a bit later on.

Resuming, I'd say jasinski was right, in general. Swelling German ego on one side, Russian Asiatic barbarism on the other, and Poland in between, with democracy already degenerating, as it is, like, its natural way.
AdamKadmon 2 | 508
4 Oct 2010  #23
What happened from 1650-1795?

1) Triumph of the Counter- Reformation
2) Cultural decline due to a medievialism of Polish Catholicism
3) The nobles came to embrace a Catholic identity, identifying their state and nation with the Catholic Church

In such a diverse country like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and with protestant, ortodox and muslim powers surrounding it, subdueing the country to the control of the Catholic interests only, and to the control of the Jesuit Order can be seen as one of the causes of the fall of the Commonwealth.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #24
Swelling German ego

Well...I can live with that! ;)

3) The nobles came to embrace a Catholic identity, identifying their state and nation with the Catholic Church

Sounds like a catholic Taliban state to me...theocracies are not my cup of tea

*binds pagan helmet more firm*
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #25
yes their growing national pride or the steadily increasing idea that germans were superior(very popular among germans) and the anti semitism that came with it(which ever way you want to look at it i guess) in the nineteenth and leading up to the early/ mid twentieth century was what i was talking about.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #26
yes their growing national pride or the steadily increasing idea that germans were superior(very popular among germans)

Yeah...how uncommon in other people!
"Poland Christ of Nations" anybody???

Or that one:

what a absolutely amazing story poland is.

;)

Believe me Jasinski, every patriot feels that his people are special and somehow better than others.
(Add to that that Germans really have a long list to show off their achievements...much more than many other countries) ;)
nott 3 | 594
4 Oct 2010  #27
Sounds like a catholic Taliban state to me...theocracies are not my cup of tea

Only I would slightly disagree. The Catholic counter-reformation was a result rather. The main reason was the series of destructive wars, including those in which Poland formally did not take part. Destruction of cities, depopulation, fall of standards, a German king... :)

*binds pagan helmet more firm*

Are you into Asatru, just curious? :)

"Poland Christ of Nations" anybody???

you call it superior?

Well, in a way...
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,714
4 Oct 2010  #28
Are you into Asatru, just curious? :)

Yup...hey...you know about it? :)
OP jasinski 10 | 62
4 Oct 2010  #29
it was kind of a funny thing a english man or a frenchmen said along time ago about poland being a buffer to asiatic barbarism.(referring to russia.) dont care what you say i like it. and yes it was russians not mongols or huns.
nott 3 | 594
4 Oct 2010  #30
Yup...hey...you know about it? :)

A lil' bit... Wassail! :)


Home / History / What happened from 1650-1795?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.