The Greatest King of Poland?

I for one think they should all be executed to show Ukrainians it doesnt pay to murder polish women and children.

What about the Ukrainian cities like Londonyshel, in the part of Ukraine currently known
as England, or Parisholm - Ukrainian city currently occupied by the French? :)


Exactly.

Last time I checked, the Ukrainian GDP per capita was still slightly lower than that
of Tonga and Namibia...

...and much lower than that of Angola (Ukraine's $6300 to Angola's $8300.)
So, maybe you should try to catch up with Angola first (and that's a lot of catching
up to do - about 32% difference in favour of Angola), before you start to phantasize
about "what is now called Eastern Poland" and Preremyshell :)

Nathan care to elaborate on why Kiev has only 37 internet cafes as compared to Warsaws 418? :]
My city of Wrocław has an anual GDP the size of Kiev and Lwów combined :))))

F*cking cavemen...

Yeh, I know. He happened to be a relative of our king. But he understood that his role is just to ensure familial enthronement and he made a wise choice by marching back as was of him expected.


Agree. Great point.


Poor Torq, what woke you up? I don't make claims on Polish lands a bit and you again try to impose on me your faulty interpretation. You seem to miss, though, your Polish Einsteins. But it is understandable. In Poland winds blow only in one direction.

"of what is now" expression is widely used because there was a lot of changes in the past century and things like "kresy" or "ziemie utracone" underlines it even further. Kholm was built by our king, but I am not saying that it should be given back. Keep it. I don't call these lands "kresy" or "utracone". In 1915 it was Austro-Hungarian empire and in 1940 part of Germany, so since multiple topics here are mentioning Kresy and similar BS, I don't see why I should not be using "of what is now Poland". Explain your steam, please. Where did I say about occupation? Torq, you are a grown-up, don't play in throwing up stuff like that. I believe it is below you. Regarding economy, it is not that bad, though, of course, isn't great. How it relates to the topic I have no idea, but, maybe, you see some connection :)


Because Poles have no computers at home? :]
Don't call them that, at least you people spend more time outside, in internet caves, sorry, cafes ;)

Any proof to that Sokrates?

At the stage of 1918-1921 he was only the head of military
All forms of official alliance/deals which were doen through the Sejm was thanks to Dmowski and his bunch

and after the coup in 1926 it was too late and he still didn't have enough support to go through with Creating Ukraine as people wanted to relax and celebrate an independant country, not going on conquest of righteousness and helping an newly created (maybe puppet?) state of Ukraine or even sharing lands with Nationalistic bunch of Lithuanians...

I think it's all a pitty that it didn't work out... But trust me if Piłsudski could, he would

Girls...we have a treaty, remember!

Nobody expected from Pilsudski to CREATE Ukraine :) We had and have enough of our own people. He went back on his word, that's all I meant. If you know you can't keep it, why make it? He used Petliura in his own aims - to show the Soviets their place - and then said I am sorry. Well. I understand your feelings about him. He is a Polish hero and I don't expect to change your opinion. But I see it a bit differently. He knew that his words are not worth a thing in that question and he as a true politian did what he did.


We still keep it, BB. I might raised some storm in a glass of water, but it doesn't infringe on our agreement. I think we should expend it a bit more - to cover some other historical aspects in the international relationships.

I bet that if the Polish-Soviet war went a bit different and that Petlura had a stronger standign with an Ukrainian army in Kiev... Then a lot more would had happaned! Don't you agree?


Ey ey ey I don't remember the treay all too well... But still I am only talking about histroical facts! (and their all about the Soviet-Polish war) which again derives from the question of Chrobry's conquests and if his aims were legitimate as their Polish now or not

I do. These were tough times of disputes, armies and forces in Ukraine. No one was able to unite the national idea with a reasonable support. I do blame my country in missing on forming a better defense. Let me say this: Pilsudski who "supported" idea of Trojga N. appeared on the same postcard with Stalin and Hitler. It might suggest his legacy in Lithuania. He did for his own country, I don't argue. Others see him differently.

Looks like. I seem to have misinterpreted your words. I jumped into the middle of the thread
without reading it all carefully. My mistake, sorry.



That is correct. It was a misunderstanding on my part. The treaty still stands, of course.

Nothing to be sorry about, Torq :) Great to see you jabbing again :)

It is indeed dreadfull...
I wish my co-ancestors had more IQ so that they wouldn't do such moronic stunts


Check up how large Lithuania is, how many Lithuanians and then check the Polish army during that time. If he wanted to legalize all of Lithuania then he would. But he didn't want to, only reasons he took Vilnius (Wilno) was because

1. The units around that are were native to that land
2. The city had a lot of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth influence/ancestry
3. Majority or a big bunch were Polish or claimed to be Polish
4. It was his city which he were born&raised

Not only did the soldiers/politicians want him to take the city he also had personal affections for that city...

He just couldn't say no as he had the chance of having it inside Polish borders...
It is a shame that the Lithuanians take such an big grudge becaouse of it :((

I still stand that £okietek is dha best!!! Re-uniting Poland is not something one does every day!!! ;)

(If Piłsudski can be considered as King of Poland I would voted for him!!! :D )


Yeah.. real mixup


Oh I wish it would have gone better... I wonder how it would looked like and what would had happaned... Hmm Mayeb i should make a thread about it!!! :D

Yes but you can use google for all i care.


I wish my ancestors enacted genocide upon Ukis and settled the place with someone civilized, like Poles, maybe then we wouldnt have those peasants mucking up our ancient cities like Lwów.

I wish my maybe-future-brothers-in-arms weren't that rude and had some sense of diplomacy and manners

This thread is wandering

Great idea, Gruni.
As for Pilsudski - no matter what, he wasn't that bad of a guy. So, I rest my case.

I will wander back and keep wondering about wonderfull Polish king's then

£okietek was is and will be the best!!!
But Jagiello takes a good second place


awww... You just say it to be nice to me! :)

Well....

Lech got a beer
Krakus got a city
The Piasts got a beer and a bunch of cities
Jadwiga got a mead
The Sobieskis got a vodka

It's an interesting way of honoring former rulers...

Ey.. Poles like to drink..
You know Poles didn't participate in Crusades to the holy land because of the lack of Vodka? Or mead? ;)

I like it 10 times better that an Beer or an beverage got an symbol of soembody then make a statue or a monument (Don't think I don't like statue/monuments because I loooooove them!!!)

We're about to be added to the random thread, this is about Polish Kings. And King Sobieski not the vodka.

• 
  
  

The vodka is named after him. Society generally names things and builds monuments to "great things".

I know and understand i'm just saying lets keep to the topic, Kings.

Anyway, my vote goes to Sobieski, not just because of the vodka, but I think he deserves to have his name on the bottle. He's probably the most well known among foreigners.

"Greatest" has to judged against some kind of metric though.

Sobieski is definitely one of them. By the way when the hell is that Victoria film gonna come out? About the Battle of Vienna, it was supposed to be a Polish production with Mel Gibson as Sobieski, then a Polish-Austrian-German film, any word of it?? I dunno if this is still the same thing but an Italian-Polish film about the battle called 11 September 1683 will be made, with Harvey Keitel as Sobieski and Adrian Brody as Marco d'Aviano.

thenews.pl/culture/artykul130981_italian-polish-film-on-battle-of-vienna.html

• 
  
  

Yes I expected that from you, but what was he suppose to do, continue resisting and watch his country be raped and pillaged and observe his countrymen being slaughtered by the Russians and Prussians?

It would have been futile, and that is why he decided to spare his country.

I know what you were supposed to do, learn history before you spout bull.


Prussians did not fight, their only attempt at besieging Warsaw turned into humiliation, the war with Russia was an effective stalemate, Poland was not losing.


Thats the problem with you idiots, he was a coward and you dont know history.

Not only was the far not futile it was going much better than expected, Russians were in a very problematic situation from the start and there was no strategic excuse to do what he did.

Poland had every chance of winning that war, it was the kings desertion that made it a lost cause.

Stalemate with Russians is a loss, because they can live in stale, mate :] Others usually dwell in well-demarked conditions where you can foresee at least near future. Psychologically, it is their mode of life and while in the meantime you will try to think about some other aspects of the social life: business, culture, improvement etc., Russia will be concentratred on one thing only - to destroy you. So, being in 50-50 war with Russia is a definite loss. Many still don't see that. They may live with seliodka i agurec, the rest of the world doesn't. While you build a library, they will raise a tank factory. You have to win completely.

1648 was the year when Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth started to deteriorate. It lost multiple battles against Ukrainian Cossacks instead of working together for the benefit of both. I would, thus, name the least intelligent in international affairs Polish king - Jan II Vasa.


It was retarded policy of Poland that put a nail in her back, not a powerless king who could do nothing against szlachta. Poland did everything possible to undermine its relations with allies in Ukraine and Lithuania and it was simply a matter of time when it would fall.

Actually champ stalemate with the Russians was a good thing, the next closest russian army was a full 940 miles away (four months of march) and numbered 40.000, should Russia lose the war and it could have Polan would have an army of over 50.000 with the only real opposing force being 30.000 Prussians.

Austrians refused to fight.


Best. Joke. Ever.


18 century Poland was large/wealthy enough to be an equal opponent for Russia IF it managed to survive the pre-partition war.

Russia had multiple other enemies including the still powerfull Turkey so focusing on destroying Poland was out of the question, the pre-partition invasion was the only real shot Russia had at conquering Poland, sadly for us it managed to pull it off.


Again the answer was to send the entire crown and magnate armies and just exterminate the Cossacks, Vasa failed to do that so we agree.


Ukraine was a non factor, it was always a weak divided place and still is, Poland could gain little from allying itself with Cossacks, it could gain a lot from wiping Ukrainians off the face of the earth tho.

The problem with Ukraine is not that its strong or dangerous, its weak but it stirs problems in/for Poland at the least convenient (for us Poles) time, i see not burning Ukraine down together with its people locked in barns as a mistake of various polish kings.

You seem to see the issue, but don't understand it: 40 + 30 = 70 and Poland 50 + 0 (possible allies). Simple math, indeed.


Well, you had a split in country as well with Confederation, which even further reduced your chances to win.


Well, he buried some blossom of Polish army in Ukraine, though, for fighting against someone who would have been a great opportunity for both Poland and Ukraine. Simply stupid.


It was a factor for Russians, right? It wasn't weak when Polish armies were losing battle after battle in Ukraine, correct? Arrogance, trust me, is the vice which openned Poland to the more intelligent in the militaristic perspective forces.


Oh they tried... But you don't pi*ss against the wind, do you?! Some Polish kings thought they could and ended up in yellow rain :)

Your problem Nat is your fixation on non existed continuity between middle age Rus and Cossacks and then with Ukrainians in the second part of the XIX century!

Its nationalistic BS and myth, if you accepted the truth - that Ukrainians are young, forming nation, we could solve our differences in peaceful manner but it's impossible to build on lies !