The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 124

Poland Lithuania - current relations


Ironside 48 | 9,792
19 Sep 2011  #91
What would you call people whose all idea of economy was to kidnap workers and make them work for them?
Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
19 Sep 2011  #92
Yes, they were pests, an alliance with Russia would be a good thing.

This is terribly misguided hindsight. The Polish-Lithuanian alliance was a thing of beauty for the whole of the world to marvel at. Forged to combat the sickening genocidal religious extremism of the Teutonic Knights, the alliance lasted for centuries and unlike similar arrangements in Europe between nations, such as the Austro-Hungarian and the Anglo-Scottish, there was never a rebellion against it from the smaller national partner whilst both countries remained free. The story after the partitions isn't so rosy, but that shouldn't lead one to deny the grandeur of what once was. "Lithuania my motherland thou art like health!"
David_18 68 | 982
19 Sep 2011  #93
This is an insult. This is my past and you call my ancestors pests?

Why is that? Lithuanians blames the Poles for the downfall of the PLC and cant see what they did wrong. Maybe you should have joined the ruskies and watch them generously enserfing everyone of you. Enjoyed the soviet era? imagine what the ruskies would have done to you in the medieval ages haha.
isthatu2 4 | 2,708
20 Sep 2011  #94
"Lithuania my motherland thou art like health!"

Ah,thanks for the inspiration,been wondering what to watch,cool film,even if the Grande Armee is about 50 blokes marching repeatedly past the camera :)

the Anglo-Scottish, there was never a rebellion against it from the smaller national partner

There was not a rebelion from Scotland either,just a small minority,the vast majority being neutral or pro government. If it had succeded it would have been a disaster for Scotland as it was about as anti enlightenment as you can get,basicaly 18th C taliban in kilts and blue bonnets. My mob were rebels under Bonnie Prince Charleski ,but aint hindsight grand :)
Ironside 48 | 9,792
20 Sep 2011  #95
This is terribly misguided hindsight. The Polish-Lithuanian alliance was a thing of beauty for the whole of the world to marvel at.

Frankly I don't care about the world esthetic's sensations, that union weakened Polish Kingdom. An alliance for a duration would suffice.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
20 Sep 2011  #96
How did it weakened Poland?

Yes, they were pests, an alliance with Russia would be a good thing.

You're a retard and a troll.
retroDog
20 Sep 2011  #97
the only alliance Russians want and understands is when you knee to them.
and I don't think it was different before.
what was common ground between Polish akingdom and Russia ?
eeee none?
Poland was standing on their way to Europe.
They wanted to expand west. How could it be possible to alliance with them?
Ironside 48 | 9,792
20 Sep 2011  #98
How did it weakened Poland?

have a guess - you are so intelligent

You're a retard and a troll.

I think we already established that you are the retard. As for being a troll you brag about being one openly.

what was common ground between Polish akingdom and Russia ?

Lithuania - they had an mortal enemy - Moscow. Actually Lithuania had enemies all around them.

Poland was standing on their way to Europe.

No, Lithuania was standing on their way.Poland was a potential ally.
Medis - | 17
20 Sep 2011  #99
Lithuania - they had an mortal enemy - Moscow. Actually Lithuania had enemies all around them.

And Poland had friends all around them.

No, Lithuania was standing on their way.Poland was a potential ally.

No. Lithuania could choose. Jogaila had plans with Moscovites. He was thinking about marrying daughter of prince of Moscow. And Moscowites were not a threat, because at that period Lithuania was entity which was uniting Rus lands.

If you think that we were pests then why Pole nobles wanted to see Jogaila as there king? How do you think Lithuanians managed to gain such territories?

By the way, one of the conditions to Lithuanians was to free Polish prisoners of war. If we were so weak and puny then how we managed to get those?
Ironside 48 | 9,792
20 Sep 2011  #100
No. Lithuania could choose.

choose what ?

If we were so weak and puny then how we managed to get those?

prisoner of war ? kidnapped peasants ........ how ? plenty of woodland upon woodlands, hard to find ....
Medis - | 17
20 Sep 2011  #101
choose what ?

Unification with Muscovites. Poland did not had such option.

prisoner of war ? kidnapped peasants ........ how ? plenty of woodland upon woodlands, hard to find ....

No not peasants.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
20 Sep 2011  #102
Unification with Muscovites. Poland did not had such option.

You should go for it, at least you wouldn't have that childish quarrels about some obscure language, you all would be speaking proper Russian and been a proud Russian.

No not peasants.

well, maybe not all but most of them .......

Seriously do you think that unification is/was standard procedure? think again, Moscow didn't even had conception of unification, they understood that J wants to be a subject of the GDM. There would be no Lithuania in no time. J knew about that, so there was no choice not really !
David_18 68 | 982
20 Sep 2011  #103
No. Lithuania could choose. Jogaila had plans with Moscovites. He was thinking about marrying daughter of prince of Moscow. And Moscowites were not a threat, because at that period Lithuania was entity which was uniting Rus lands.

Lithuania had been increasingly on the losing side of the Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars and by the second half of the 16th century it faced the threat of total defeat in the Livonian war and incorporation into Russia. The Polish nobility (the szlachta) on the other hand were reluctant to offer help to Lithuania without receiving anything in exchange. Still, the Polish and Lithuanian elite strengthened personal bonds and had opportunities to plan their united futures during increased military cooperation in the 1560s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Lublin
Medis - | 17
21 Sep 2011  #104
You do know that Muscovite weren't threat to Lithuania until the end of XV century?
Jogaila didn't choose Muscovites as an allies because they weren't Catholics. If Lithuania became an Orthodox country it wouldn't stop Teutonic order from attacking it. For Teutonic order both Orthodox and pagans looked as heathen.

Lithuania had been increasingly on the losing side of the Muscovite-Lithuanian Wars and by the second half of the 16th century it faced the threat of total defeat in the Livonian war and incorporation into Russia. The Polish nobility (the szlachta) on the other hand were reluctant to offer help to Lithuania without receiving anything in exchange. Still, the Polish and Lithuanian elite strengthened personal bonds and had opportunities to plan their united futures during increased military cooperation in the 1560s.

I wasn't writing about second unification. I was writing about XV century.
Do you really believe that Polish nobles were so noble that they gave help without anything in exchange? Are you really so naive?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
21 Sep 2011  #105
No. Lithuania could choose.

And so could Poland. The Polish nobles rejected the entreaties of the Habsburg Emperor to marry Jadwiga-and told him to go home, in favour of Jagielo. If they knew how small minded the Lithuanians would become, I am sure they would have chosen union with the Habsburg Empire instead.
Des Essientes 7 | 1,291
21 Sep 2011  #106
This is the history of Poland. That marital union with Lithuania allied Poland with a nation that was overlord of an area three times the size of the kingdom of Poland at the time. The Lithuanians had conquered it when they were still pagans. They had been the snake whorshipping heathen rulers of Ruthenian lands for well over a century before the marriage and at the time of the marriage this subjugated area reached the Black sea. I mention this for those who claim the Lithuanians were always weak. Poles and Lithuanians got along well. They were both proud vigorous peoples. The history of their alliance was glorious. Now to be complaining about a golden age in one's own history and saying some counterfactual scenario would've been better is silly. "Oh the Russians would've been better friends...." You've got to be kidding. Is this really what the internet is for?

Edit: "Oh the Hapsbergs would've been nicer....." Gagging a maggot with a twig from the Vienna woods.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
21 Sep 2011  #107
with a nation that was overlord of an area three times the size of the kingdom of Poland at the time.

At the time it meant not that much as most of those areas were depopulated and underdeveloped - as they say without workforce and specialists it was only sand!

Stop harping Deses! What is your problem eh?
legend 3 | 664
21 Sep 2011  #108
Indeed land area is not much. Just look at the joke of Canada.
I would sell all the territories in the north to whichever country has overpopulation problems.

But seriously alliance with Hungary/Austria?
I understand Hungary
but Austria gave us a nice **** you after we saved Vienna and then they partitoned the land.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
21 Sep 2011  #109
but Austria gave us a nice **** you after we saved Vienna and then they partitoned the land.

Yes they did, but you have to remember that at the time we would have carried some clout in the marriage, and would have been their equal at the very least. On the negative side we would probably have become entangled in the internecine conflict between the German sates, and the political chaos that was the Holy Roman Empire. However with a union of Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia-guess who would hold the greatest sway?
legend 3 | 664
21 Sep 2011  #110
Maybe Poland, maybe the Rich sobs in Austria.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
21 Sep 2011  #111
The rich would benefit in every country-they always did. However in terms of Politics, almost certainly the Poles. The Emperor's power would be quite limited in Poland because of the nature of the Polish constitution, and he would have to go out of his way to please the Poles. One of the benefits could have been a larger standing army and a more centralized state, which would mean that the Poles would be more capable of offering resistance to countries with bigger armies in the 17th century.
Ironside 48 | 9,792
21 Sep 2011  #112
You do know that Muscovite weren't threat to Lithuania until the end of XV century?
Jogaila didn't choose Muscovites as an allies because they weren't Catholics. If Lithuania became an Orthodox country it wouldn't stop Teutonic order from attacking it. For Teutonic order both Orthodox and pagans looked as heathen.

Well, Moscow was always a thread to Lithuania. Moscow was a natural enemy of Lithuania. Moscow has seen itself like natural heir of all Rus lands.

Who called himself officially Grand Duke Of Lithuanian and the Greater Part of Rus ?
Maybe they were not imminent threat but they were threat nevertheless.

Well, Lithuania's Catholicism didn't stop Teutonic Order from almost strangling her, Polish knights did it!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
22 Sep 2011  #113
Well, Moscow was always a thread to Lithuania

Not at all, untill XV century Moscow was struggling to break the Mongol (then Tatar) dominance which it did.

Moscow was a natural enemy of Lithuania

And Poland, after conquering Lithuania Moscow would inevitably invade Poland and Poland without the wealth of the eastern grain fields and populations would have fallen.

Maybe they were not imminent threat but they were threat nevertheless.

We need to look at Polands situation, in 1410 Poland a relatively unknown and small kingdom utterly massacred the most powerful military in Europe, suddenly Bohemia, Holy Roman Empire, Hungary and Ruthenian states all noticed Poland.

For Poland to move into Germany was too dangerous, despite its considerable military power Poland had only a third of the HRE population, Moscow on the other hand was an emerging power as well but far less wealthy and weaker militarily so Poland chose to expand eastwards, a wise decision that gave Poland 200+ years of utter regional dominance that no one including the Holy Roman Empire could challenge.

Poland did fall but that was due to a series of events, otherwise even in the late XVII century Poland was a power that equaled unified Russia in military prowess.

Yes they did, but you have to remember that at the time we would have carried some clout in the marriage, and would have been their equal at the very least. On the negative side we would probably have become entangled in the internecine conflict between the German sates, and the political chaos that was the Holy Roman Empire. However with a union of Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Bohemia-guess who would hold the greatest sway?

That was completely unneccesary, yes Poland should have entered the HRE around 1520-50 and would totally dominate it but marrying into it was unnecesary.

Between 1450 and 1600 Poland has the kind of military, political and financial leverage that it could enter the HRE or simply support an elector and have its own way, that Poland did not dominate Germany at this time is a grave error that cost us our prosperity for the next 300 years.
Palivec - | 380
23 Sep 2011  #114
That was completely unneccesary, yes Poland should have entered the HRE around 1520-50 and would totally dominate it but marrying into it was unnecesary.

Between 1450 and 1600 Poland has the kind of military, political and financial leverage that it could enter the HRE or simply support an elector and have its own way, that Poland did not dominate Germany at this time is a grave error that cost us our prosperity for the next 300 years.

The emperor of the HRE had no real power. He couldn't stop a German state like Prussia from attacking a third country like Poland. And Poland back then was attacked by German states (the order wasn't even part of the HRE), not the HRE itself. So getting a puppet on the throne of the HRE would have made no difference anyway. On the other hand, when one state of the HRE was attacked by an outside force the state and HRE was defended by the Imperial army (30.000-120.000 men) + the army of the state.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 Sep 2011  #115
The emperor of the HRE had no real power.

Barbarossa for example had plenty, there were many who had, dont try to discuss history with me when you havent picked up a book on your life.

He couldn't stop a German state like Prussia from attacking a third country like Poland.

IF Poland entered the HRE as an elector there wouldnt be Prussia to speak off, expading westwards meant eventuall annexation of Brandenburg and Teutonic States.

So getting a puppet on the throne of the HRE would have made no difference anyway

Except for having a direct link to Saxony, Bavaria, Switzerland and a number of other states which made any action by any german state against Poland a military and political suicide.

On the other hand, when one state of the HRE was attacked by an outside force the state and HRE was defended by the Imperial army (30.000-120.000 men) + the army of the state.

The grand total mobilisation capacity of HRE was around 120.000 men so you're inflating it, also no the HRE did not have an "imperial army" the imperial army was the army of the state from which the emperor hailed which is why it was for a long time Austria, the most powerfull of the german states.

Pick up a book sometimes it'll stop you from humiliating yourself again.
David_18 68 | 982
23 Sep 2011  #116
We did actually try to infiltrate the HRE with our union with Saxony, but that did not play of really well due to the circumstances.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 Sep 2011  #117
Quite the opposite David, it was the first time Germany ever truly influenced Poland and Saxon rule while it had its highlights was by and large disastrous for Poland.
David_18 68 | 982
23 Sep 2011  #118
Yea but under other circumstances maybe Poland would have had inlfluenced HRE. The first Wetting King in Poland would have been able to turn Poland into a strong centralised state if it werent for the Polish Golden freedom that turned the king into a puppet in the hands of the Szlachta.
Palivec - | 380
23 Sep 2011  #119
Barbarossa for example had plenty, there were many who had, dont try to discuss history with me when you havent picked up a book on your life.

Interesting that you can't answer without insults...
The emperors of the 12th century can't be compared with emperors of the 16th century since they lost power with every new election. This "Wahlkapitulation" was even institutionalized in the 15th or 16th century. Looks like I read some books.

IF Poland entered the HRE as an elector there wouldnt be Prussia to speak off, expading westwards meant eventuall annexation of Brandenburg and Teutonic States.

Poland couldn't enter the HRE "as an elector" since, even with a Polish emperor, Poland would still have been an foreign aggressor. The election of a foreign candidate wouldn't have led to a personal union of the HRE with the country of the foreign candidate. Emperors moreover could get voted out of power if they acted against the empire.

The grand total mobilisation capacity of HRE was around 120.000 men so you're inflating it, also no the HRE did not have an "imperial army" the imperial army was the army of the state from which the emperor hailed which is why it was for a long time Austria, the most powerfull of the german states.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Army_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire

Maybe you simply shouldn't write about history, lol
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
23 Sep 2011  #120
The emperors of the 12th century can't be compared with emperors of the 16th century since they lost power with every new election. This "Wahlkapitulation" was even institutionalized in the 15th or 16th century. Looks like I read some books.

So you mean Austrian Emperors had no power at all being the most powerfull german state?:)))

Poland couldn't enter the HRE "as an elector"

But it could enter via Duchy of Courland, Duchy of Brandenburg, Lithuanian Radziwil Branch who were already electors, and it did several times, back to the books for you.

Emperors moreover could get voted out of power if they acted against the empire.

I'd love to see german states vote out an Emperor who had the polish army and the polish coffers behind him.

I'm sorry i dont use wiki nor do i use it as a source

The first Wetting King in Poland would have been able to turn Poland into a strong centralised state if it werent for the Polish Golden freedom that turned the king into a puppet in the hands of the Szlachta.

The Wettins, all of them were never interested in Poland as anything more than a revenue source, it was not the so called "Golden Freedom" as the Wettins had 30.000 strong Saxon army and 40.000 strong Polish army behind them, for those times this was a very real fighting force with which any king could p*ss on nobilitys opinions.

Wettins even tried to partition Poland so no the german kings never really wanted to do much.


Home / History / Poland Lithuania - current relations
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.