The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 74

United States of America Vs Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth


David_18 68 | 982
6 Aug 2010 #1
This is to me very fascinating, how much alike Usa and Plc are. And this will also be the reason why Usa will collapse just like Plc did.

If we look from a historical point of view, both nations were big and prosperous. After several decades of power and greatness, the Plc entered a period of protracted political, military and economic decline. Its growing weakness led to its partitioning among its more powerful neighbors, Austria, Prussia and Russia, during the late 18th century. This is what is happening to Usa at the moment. I don't think usa will get partitioned but it will collapse politically, militarily and economically.

So why would Usa collapse on the same grounds as the Plc?

If you look at the Plc economy at that time, so somewhere between the 16th and 17th centuries, the Commonwealth's trade balance shifted from positive to negative. Same thing is happening to Usa. The Exports are $1.057 trillion while the imports are $1.558 trillion, that's a 500 billion Gap.

What about the people then?

Well in Plc only the szlachta around 15% of the population had political rights and lets say about 5% of them held 70% of the money. You can see the same thing in the Usa. Plc had serfs, indirectly Usa also got serfs. If you think working for 4$/h is fair then be my guest...

The American taxes are embarisingly low and only benefits the oligarchy in Usa. Plc had the same problem and made tax reforms to late.

Plc never had peace for more then 5 years they say I can't see a big difference in the american war politics...

So maybe Usa got something to learn here?
skysoulmate 14 | 1,297
6 Aug 2010 #2
Yeah, the American taxes are embarrassing low LOL! I thought for a while you were talking about your IQ? Your Mockba influenced knowledge of economics and history hardly makes any sense, instead it shows how incredibly limited an apparatchik's thought process is. Keep spewing your hate into your wishes of America's demise if it makes you feel better. ...but hey, at least you don't call us a fascist state, it's very much en vogue here on PF nowadays. Amazing how communists and socialists like to use their fellow socialist term for everything they disagree with. So I guess it's a progress and it's official - our demise is now gonna be like the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth's demise. What a relief, thought it was gonna be like the third Reich's demise...
OP David_18 68 | 982
6 Aug 2010 #3
The American taxes are embarrassing low LOL. I thought for a while you were talking about your IQ? Your Mockba influenced knowledge of economics and history hardly makes any sense. Keep spewing your hate into your wishes of America's demise if it makes you feel better.

Ow srry Mr American, seems like you can't handle the truth...

Instead of insulting my IQ maybe you can discuss with me like a normal person.
skysoulmate 14 | 1,297
6 Aug 2010 #4
Instead of insulting my IQ maybe you can discuss with me like a normal person.

Ok, well that wasn't fair, I agree, can't change it now so let's say the IQ comment magically disappears or is aimed at the ideology of communism/socialism. In my view you don't understand the whole premise of this country, how government control was the main reason America rebelled, you make up stuff based on your own ideology and your own leanings and call it "the truth" and yet you throw out those crazy statements such as our taxes are too low, etc. I say they're way too high and 90% of all federal employees should be fired, the government should handle the military and very few essential services. That's it! If there's ever a risk of America's demise it'll be due to "big brother," big government mentality ideas such as yours.
Jurgis 1 | 6
6 Aug 2010 #5
I won't talk about economics, war policy and other things (I agree that there are something alike and something not), but there is one big diference between these two countries.

The szlachta in Commonwealth were divided and weren't patriots anymore. Everybody was on their own. Creating their own confederations and always asking help from Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and so on.

In my opinion most of americans (oligarchy or not) are patriots of their country. They never ask help of how to rule their country from for example Mexico or Canada.

And also I think if the commonwealth was degarding economically, loosing it's teritories and becoming less powerful BUT szlachta would have been patriots it wouldn't have been divided (or at least divided later)
OP David_18 68 | 982
6 Aug 2010 #6
how government control was the main reason America rebelled

Talking about the civil war? well the poles also rebelled many times.

you make up stuff based on your own ideology and your own leanings and call it "the truth"

Ok i take it back about the "truth" thingy... But i still think America is about to collapse of various reasons that i see were very similar reasons to Plc's collapse.

you throw out those crazy statements such as our taxes are too low

So who does the taxes benefit if not the rich?

@Jurgis
Welcome to the forum my Lithuanian brother :)

The szlachta in Commonwealth were divided and weren't patriots anymore. Everybody was on their own. Creating their own confederations and always asking help from Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and so on.

Some did... Some did not.

In my opinion most of americans (oligarchy or not) are patriots of their country.

Not really... Ever seen Bill gates fighting in a war?

And also I think if the commonwealth was degarding economically, loosing it's teritories and becoming less powerful BUT szlachta would have been patriots it wouldn't have been divided (or at least divided later)

Well they just had different point of view. Some of them wanted to keep the Golden freedom and some wanted to reform.

One of the founders of the Targowica Confederation, Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki:
"Each true Pole, not blinded by the Prussian and royalist cabal, is convinced, that our Fatherland can only be saved by Russia, otherwise our nation will be enslaved".

After Stanisław Poniatowski's abdication and the destruction of the Commonwealth, he said:
"About past Poland and Poles [I don't want to talk anymore]. Gone is this country, and this name, as many others have perished in the world's history. I am now a Russian forever."
nott 3 | 594
8 Aug 2010 #7
somewhere between the 16th and 17th centuries, the Commonwealth's trade balance shifted from positive to negative. Same thing is happening to Usa.

17th century in Poland was almost constant war, in their territory. Difficult to trade what you can't produce.

Plc never had peace for more then 5 years they say I can't see a big difference in the american war politics...

PLC was a pacifist country, and the result was that all the neighbours tried to conquer this apparently gutless nation. Which resulted in Poland fighting defensive wars on its territory. USA is more like aggressive, and fights abroad only. Big difference.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Aug 2010 #8
After several decades of power and greatness, the Plc

The golden age of the old republic lasted for over 190 years, thats a bit more then several decades.

the Plc entered a period of protracted political, military and economic decline.

Actually it did not, it declined in the two decades period of constant warfare which saw over a third of the population and half of all urban settlements destroyed, the long decline was a result of that collapse.

. Its growing weakness led to its partitioning among its more powerful neighbors

Actually it was Poland regaining its strength as well as adopting democratic principles that led the three tyrannical monarchies to destroy it.

If you look at the Plc economy at that time, so somewhere between the 16th and 17th centuries, the Commonwealth's trade balance shifted from positive to negative

Not somewhere between but between 1655-60 when Poland waged war against Swedes, Russians, Cossacks, Wallachians and the elector.

The trade balance shifted because the economy was destroyed and the decades long period of wars with Russia, massive Tartar rides and constant Cossack uprising meant it could not be rebuilt.

Plc never had peace for more then 5 years they say I can't see a big difference in the american war politics...

Yes it did you know jacksh*t about polish history.

USA is collapsing due to stupid fiscal policies, unsustainable way of life, waging wars that cost more than US can pay and to top all the economic and geopolitical blunders the ethnic group that made up the countrys elite ie white europeans is becoming a minority and losing control.

Blacks, Jews, Latinos are all third rate citizens or pursue particular interests (in case of Jews) that damage the country so when european whites lose the reins the thing will fall apart and because economy/population shifts against them they will lose the reins of power.

Poland lost its empire mainly due to wars draining it on every level, its that simple, not nobles, not liberum veto, just a lot of massive wars that destroyed the place beyond reasonable hopes of recovery.

PLC was a pacifist country, and the result was that all the neighbours tried to conquer this apparently gutless nation. Which resulted in Poland fighting defensive wars on its territory. USA is more like aggressive, and fights abroad only. Big difference.

Woooah buddy i see another history professor, PLC was NOT a pacifist country.

A noble youth could ride a horse at 8, he was proficient with a sabre and lance at 12, bow and firearms at 15.

The first european wide artillery book was by a Pole, the division system in military is a polish invention.

As for defensive wars.

Poland invaded Sweden, Poland invaded Russia, twice, Poland invaded Wallachia, Poland invaded the Teutonic Order, Poland invaded the electorate... You get the picture.

Poland was not imperialist (usually, sometimes it was) and it wasnt overly agressive, most neighbours invaded it because it was huge, bordered practically everyone and had all the power in the region, if you wanted to become a regional power in central, northern or eastern Europe you had to go through Poland to obtain it.

As for Poland being perceived as gutless? The German, Turkish and Swedish chronicles circa 1400s mid 1600s all repeat a comment that Poles cannot be beaten.

Often just a demonstration of military power such as mobilisation was enough to discourage a potential enemy but if you're smack in the middle of Europe you will have to wage wars, loads of em.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752
8 Aug 2010 #9
liberum veto

It may not have been the definitive reason, but it sure helped as liberum veto seriously hampered any effective decision making, necessary when in a state of war.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Aug 2010 #10
It may not have been the definitive reason, but it sure helped as liberum veto seriously hampered any effective decision making, necessary when in a state of war.

No it did not and it amounts to communist propaganda, the examples where veto was used succesfully to block a decision making process can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

During the communist period the soviet/russian driven propaganda constructed several utterly bullsh*t postulates.

1. Liberum Veto was the reason why nothing could be passed through - Veto was as powerfull as the one issuing it, magnates never used it untill mid 18cent and regular nobles could rarely get it through.

2. Noble anarchy - again nobles were the most determined servants of the Commonwealth untill mid 18 when Poland already fell from power.

Dry facts are Poland didnt fall from power due to its nobility or political strucutre, both served her fine and actually ensured its survival throught the deluge, its the wars that f*cked Poland up.

Poland in the period of 1655-60 was fighting a world war, it was in the position of Germany circa 1944-45, it was fighting practically every major european power except for France as well as multiple smaller powers and it won, it won exactly because of its noblity and policies, no other country could have pulled that off, Germany centuries later didnt.
skysoulmate 14 | 1,297
8 Aug 2010 #11
So who does the taxes benefit if not the rich?

Change the percentages into dollar figures and you'll see it benefits the "poor". I believe in the same tax percentages for everyone no matter what your income is. You think it's unfair to those who make less? So do I and I encourage them to change jobs, get additional education, etc. Revenge taxism is wrong. I'm biased because I make good money but I believed the same when I used to deliver pizza to pay the bills.

Nationwide sales tax (not VAT) could be an additional tax revenue -> you want to cut your taxes? Don't buy the item.

I know my concept is hard to understand to an ardent socialist.

@Jurgis
Welcome to the forum my Lithuanian brother :)

Ditto! Sveiki atvyke Jürgis
nott 3 | 594
8 Aug 2010 #12
Dry facts are Poland didnt fall from power due to its nobility or political strucutre, both served her fine and actually ensured its survival throught the deluge, its the wars that f*cked Poland up.

What was the reason of the wars, though...

You get my vote for the rest you said.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Aug 2010 #13
What was the reason of the wars, though...

Essentially the conlict between the polish king and the nobility.

The king was viewed as weak and for his part he wasnt really ready to run a huge powerfull state and he didnt really like or enjoy being the king in general and king of Poland in particular.

The nobles brought in the Swedes, the beginning of the Deluge is essentially a civil war with half of Polands military siding with the Swedes, later when it occurred that the swedish king is not going to be Polands ruler preferring to treat it as occupied territory the real war began.

The above was a sign to everyone around that Poland is weakening so virtually all neighbours decided to invade, domino effect if you will.

Poland was the big bad boy on the playground, being so it prevented a number of other powers like Russia, Germany and Sweden from ascending so when weakness was displayed it was invaded by its enemies one after another in a domino effect.

By 1655 Poland evicted Swedes, destroyed the Wallachian/Hungarian/Moldavian army, supressed the Cossacks and struck a treaty with the Duchy of Brandenburg so the deluge was over but a massive war with Russia would continue untill 1667.

After 13 years of war with Russia, 5 years of war with all major and minor powers around Poland was ruined forever, following a total of 27 years of war with external powers Poland had to endure a bloody civil war (Rokosz Lubomirskiego) which destroyed much of its military.

By 1667 all major cities of Poland were severely destroyed, most medium sized cities and towns in eastern Poland and Lithuania (today Belarus and Ukraine) were simply gone, approximately 30% of the population dead, the country ruined and the army diminished.

To add to Polands bad luck the next polish king Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, an alleged homosexual, a weak spined glutton was a completely ineffectual ruler who quickly managed to get himself hated by everyone, during his reign Tartars pillage the polish frontier and only Jan Sobieski manages to save the day and win a famous victory against Turks at Chocim.

Finally we get Jan III Sobieski, the last great king of Poland.

He inherits a country wrecked beyond belief, no money, very few people, anarchy and starvation, the constant wars coupled with the lack of competence of the previous king leave Poland an utter ruin.

This is the last 5 minutes of Poland, under Sobieski the military gets reformed, economy and administration get a boost but its too little and too late, Sobieski rules for 20 years but the damage done to Poland wont heal for another century.

After his death Poland will take in german kings of Saxony, for them Poland will be little more than a pawn, secondary to their own kingdom, Poland will not recover in time for the swedish-russian wars which will roll through its territory delaying the reconstruction even further.

Ultimately Poland will heal internally and start a vigorous reconstruction of its power but by then the neighbouring countries will invade and partition it fearing said reconstruction.

1. Multiple massive wars over a period of decades.
2. Several poor rulers in a row while having said decades of war.
3. Allowing german kings to rule Poland.

Game over.
Jurgis 1 | 6
8 Aug 2010 #14
Witam wszystkich!

Sokrates, it seems you know alot about Commonwealth, maybe you are historian? It's hard to imagine that your statements are wrong. I personaliy, just recently graduated school and don't know very much about history of Commonwealth (though it's very interesting).

But let us not drift away from the topic, maybe?

I noticed an interesting thing. In the Commonwealth one of the wars which disturbed the country was constant cossack uprisings (nowadays Ukraine, right?). So if they were a part of Commonwealth and started uprisings weren't it "freedom fights"? Because the Commonwealth was ethnically rich.

Why am I saying this? Beacause as Sokrates also mentioned ethnical diversity in the States is also high. So, basically what I'm trying to say is that the cossack uprisings would match for example mexicans uprisings in the States. And I don't see that happening. One more example why these two are different.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe cossacks goals were different (as I remember they were also allying themselves with the russians). This is just an idea for comparing Commonwealth and the States.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Aug 2010 #15
So, basically what I'm trying to say is that the cossack uprisings would match for example mexicans uprisings in the States

Cossacks were not an ethnic class, they were not ukrainians or even Ruthenians, they were a military and social class, by 1714 Poland destroyed its Cossacks almost completely.

I noticed an interesting thing. In the Commonwealth one of the wars which disturbed the country was constant cossack uprisings (

Thats again a misconception, there were in total 8 major uprisings and only the one under Chmielnicki was relatively succesfull (Cossacks didnt meet any of their long term goals) after Chmielnicki the next major uprising was Palej uprising in 1702 which saw Poland embark on a campaign of extermination.

By 1714 Cossacks were gone from Poland, except for Chmielnicki all uprisings ended swiftly or had little impact, usually they didnt even disturb the region they were in.

So if they were a part of Commonwealth and started uprisings weren't it "freedom fights"?

Only 3 out of 8 uprisings were about personal freedom, cossacks who were Polands mercenary troops rebelled against Poland liquidating their positions and assigning them to serfdom so these again were not national rebellions, it was simply a group of society attempting to keep its priveliged position by force.

Mexicans dont need or have to rebel, they're overtaking regions of USA by outbreeding the locals and remember US of A is democratic, you have a town with 60% Mexicans the mayor of the town will sure as hell be elected from mexican circles.

Poland had a rigid social structure, there were ways to easily ascend or descend but not en masse like cossacks tried to.
convex 20 | 3,978
8 Aug 2010 #16
So who does the taxes benefit if not the rich?

your chart shows that the rich pay a massive amount more than what they're getting back.

Social Security can be taken out of the picture as it "pays for itself"...at least that was the case until just recently

money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/news/economy/social_security_trustees_report/index.htm

Which means that technically, rich people and the buyers of US debt will be paying for that starting now as well.

so lets look at the rest of the federal budget...you've got medicare and medicaid which makes up about 20% and then defense spending which is another 20%, of which about 25% goes directly to payroll... we'll say that medicare and medicaid goes to "the poor", that is the bottom 50% of society that only foot 3% of tax receipts. And just for fun, lets say that 75% of defense spending goes to "rich people".

The rest of the budget is made up of things like the Department of Transportation, Energy, EPA, Education, Agriculture....you know, the domain of the rich.

Honestly, for "rich people" paying taxes in the US...it's a terrible return on investment.

They are the ones paying directly for the services that the "poor people" are using.

That's what I get from your chart.
nott 3 | 594
8 Aug 2010 #17
It may not have been the definitive reason, but it sure helped as liberum veto seriously hampered any effective decision making, necessary when in a state of war.

What Sokrates forgot to mention, during the state of war the Sejm usually operated pod węzłem konfederacji, 'under the knot of confederation', literally. Which meant some privileges were suspended, including liberum veto.

The first european wide artillery book was by a Pole, the division system in military is a polish invention.

Husaria was the most efficient cavalry ever, Polish sabre the peak of development, and we had the best tacticians in Europe, by dozens.

Right. I meant the period of Rzeczpospolita Szlachecka, when the king could not wage a foreign war using the army of the state without the consent of Sejm, and didn't usually get it, as it meant increase in taxes. Can't recollect any aggressive war in this period, except for Batory's trip to Moscow.

The gentry youth's proficiency in arms came from the proud and sanctified Sarmatic Tradition, on one hand, but mostly from the constant turmoil in the East, which was not provoked by Poland, but offered military career opportunities for poorer gents, and for younger sons. I say 'mostly' because of Kochanowski and his references to the Sarmatic ideal of the time: grow corn and cattle in peace, and sell it for gold to hungry Englismen. And keep your karabela on you at all times.

Poland invaded Sweden, Poland invaded Russia, twice, Poland invaded Wallachia, Poland invaded the Teutonic Order, Poland invaded the electorate...

Russia, I know, Batory. Now count how many times Moscovites tried to invade Poland. In the diaries it comes back again and again like a broken record: 'and Moscow came again this year, got beaten by...' Sweden I do not remember, really. Wallachia, possibly, but with this unimportant nation I don't even remember when could it be. As for the Teutonic order and the Electorate, we are talking PLC here...

if you wanted to become a regional power in central, northern or eastern Europe you had to go through Poland to obtain it.

That would be Russia and Sweden. Turkey was mostly happy with what they got, and waged war on Poland as a means to stop the highly annoying Zaporozhan raids rather...

As for Poland being perceived as gutless? The German, Turkish and Swedish chronicles circa 1400s mid 1600s all repeat a comment that Poles cannot be beaten.

Yet they tried again and again, some of them. 'Gutless' as in 'not minding their business of conquering their weaker neighbours'. Who didn't always pay back with similar indifference.

if you're smack in the middle of Europe you will have to wage wars, loads of em.

Not quite so, I'd say. Mobilisations were usually late. West was having their own problems. South was the Jagiellonian House, and quite friendly. East... Tartars the eternal troublemakers, but Turkey as such not really interested, at the end of the day. Russians with their dream of power, yes, but you can't really call it a war every time. Sweden should have been dealt with better, both politically and militarily, if need be. During the 16th century Poland enjoyed peace, only later the demons woke up. As a result of neglecting the reasonable politics of the time, i.e. taking them out while they are weak. Hence - a pacifist nation.

The king was viewed as weak and for his part he wasnt really ready to run a huge powerfull state and he didnt really like or enjoy being the king in general and king of Poland in particular.

And don't forget the utterly stupid claim to the Swedish crown, which irked Gustavus in the first place.

You got it nicely in the nutshell, though, pleasure to read. Except that there would be no invaders, if PLC dealt with them in time, on its own terms, while in power. But that would be a different country then, wouldn't it. Different history with different twists
Chicago Pollock 7 | 504
9 Aug 2010 #18
David_18

This is to me very fascinating, how much alike Usa and Plc are. And this will also be the reason why Usa will collapse just like Plc did.

Don't hold your breath.

Jurgis

The szlachta in Commonwealth were divided and weren't patriots anymore. Everybody was on their own. Creating their own confederations and always asking help from Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sweden and so on.

True than. True in 1939 (France & England) and still true today. Poland continues to look to it's neighbors.

Sokrates

USA is collapsing due to stupid fiscal policies, unsustainable way of life, waging wars that cost more than US can pay and to top all the economic and geopolitical blunders the ethnic group that made up the countrys elite ie white europeans is becoming a minority and losing control.

The USA needs to get its financial house in order but they have the international currency so there is still time.

Sokrates

Poland had a rigid social structure,

And it still does to this day. All of Poland's problems are symptomatic of this fact. Poland needs to engage it's lower classes or they will repeat the mistakes of the past. This is the biggest difference between Poland and the US of A. The US does not have an institutionalized class system.
OP David_18 68 | 982
9 Aug 2010 #19
Why did a moderator just remove sokrates post? i was just going to qoute him :(!!!
time means 5 | 1,310
9 Aug 2010 #20
Why did a moderator just remove sokrates post?

Probably because it was a load of bollocks!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Aug 2010 #21
All of Poland's problems are symptomatic of this fact. Poland needs to engage it's lower classes

My father is from the sideline of Rzewuscy with his family being so rich they p*ss money, my mother is a daughter of a poor profesor and a housewife, both from a long line of dirt jockey peasants, both families are friends and mingle on holidays hows that for rigid structure you ignorant troll?

My best friend is a viscount who worked as a bartender for 2 years, his wife is a receptionist in a hotel as common as you can get, rigid my arse.
convex 20 | 3,978
9 Aug 2010 #22
My best friend is a viscount who worked as a bartender for 2 years, his wife is a receptionist in a hotel as common as you can get, rigid my arse.

Those cards were heavily shuffled over the last 75 years...
time means 5 | 1,310
9 Aug 2010 #23
My father is from the sideline of Rzewuscy

So will the title pass on to you?

Lord Sokrates of Rzewuscy will not fit on as your user name :-)
OP David_18 68 | 982
9 Aug 2010 #24
My father is from the sideline of Rzewuscy

Rzewuski family betrayed their own country, one of them even got hanged for it :)

So when you say sideline do you mean that you're family were adopted by the Rzewuski family or just another branch? since Rzewuski didn't have another branch ;)

my mother is a daughter of a poor profesor and a housewife, both from a long line of dirt jockey peasants, both families are friends and mingle on holidays hows that for rigid structure you ignorant troll?

Some times the szlachta mixed with the poor to make sure not to get retarded children. You don't want to get Incest in your family now do you?

My best friend is a viscount who worked as a bartender for 2 years, his wife is a receptionist in a hotel as common as you can get, rigid my arse.

The title didn't mean **** in Poland. it was actually more of a family shame. Aloot of families in Poland without titles were richer then those with titles.

Ps.
just don't insult me in your reply cuz i feel i will see aloot of f******* in it :)
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,444
9 Aug 2010 #25
Some times the szlachta mixed with the poor to make sure not to get retarded children.

which does not mean that it was successful.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Aug 2010 #26
So will the title pass on to you?

Today its shuffled so that even if the maternal line is the noble one the father will often get ennobled just to keep the line, they just wait till he's a sure bet, like 20 years into the marriage.

So when you say sideline do you mean that you're family were adopted by the Rzewuski family or just another branch? since Rzewuski didn't have another branch ;)

They did have seven and still have four branch lines, in family terms the relationship to the main line is cousins, only two of these lines use Rzewuski surname, all share family ties and elements of the coat of arms.

Rzewuski-Szczęsny and Rzewuski-Dzialynski are the two lines using the name, Szeptyński and Zaruski are the two other lines, the other 3 died out.

Rzewuski family betrayed their own country, one of them even got hanged for it :)

We all make mistakes buddy, sometimes f*cking huge mistakes, my grandparents were fighting in 1919, 1920, 1939, were members of KOR... We paid our debt besides Seweryn was my umpteen great grandcousin or something so its not exactly a straight shot between us.

Also he wasnt hanged David, he fled and was executed in effigie (they hanged his portrait) he died in Vienna.

Lord Sokrates of Rzewuscy will not fit on as your user name :-)

I'm a pompous pr*ck with just Sokrates, add a bit more to my ego and reality will collapse.

The title didn't mean **** in Poland. it was actually more of a family shame. Aloot of families in Poland without titles were richer then those with titles.

The title meant a lot, today it doesnt mean anything, the only difference between nobles and the rest is that they stick to tradition, have loads of bloody boring get togethers and thats about it, they're normal average joes living normal lives.

Personally knowing how it looked in interwar Poland where the most capable people couldnt get a position they'd do most good in because they didnt have a "sir" before their name,i think its for the best.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Aug 2010 #27
Today its shuffled so that even if the maternal line is the noble one the father will often get ennobled

Ennobled by whom? Titles must have a government or judicial authority who recognise, grant and confirm them. Not some association or club, but a legal jurisdiction. Otherwise they have no formal status at all. None. Nada. Zilch.

Poland does not recognise titles, and has not done so since independence.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Aug 2010 #28
Ennobled by whom?

Family council.

Titles must have a government or judicial authority who recognise, grant and confirm them. Not some association or club

Wrong sir, a council has the right to ennoble someone, he's drawn under the same coat of arms but unless adopted (which also happens) will not inherit any titles which will however go to his descendants provided there's no direct male descendants and he married the female bearer of the title, basically she carries the title over to her kids but in order for it to pass through her spouse has to be ennobled under rules of legitimism.

A family council may not grant a title however unless someone is legally adopted.

Otherwise they have no formal status at all. None. Nada. Zilch.

According to law they dont have any anyway, but according to its legitimistic branch the family members are recognized according to above.

Poland does not recognise titles, and has not done so since independence.

Which doesnt mean there's no people who take care of such things, its not as easy as saying "you're a noble" ennobling requires consent of the senior council of one or more major families and is done by a highly titled senior member, if a family has no such member its delegated to one of the other senior families (used to be a prince but they're not always available).

which does not mean that it was successful.

Pal all your nobles decided they prefer to be Polish rather than ukrainian so who're you to talk?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 10,375
9 Aug 2010 #29
We paid our debt besides Seweryn was my umpteen great grandcousin or something so its not exactly a straight shot between us.

This one?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seweryn_Rzewuski

*awes*
I know someone famous....whoa...:)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Aug 2010 #30
I know someone famous....whoa...:)

Welllllll i used to be famous back in my student days, i could belch for 5 seconds without pause, twas an achievement no one could match! Had my five minutes when i almost puked on our deans car the same evening and they still tell stories of that a few years after i graduated, not quite Michael Jackson but hey fame is fame.


Home / History / United States of America Vs Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.