The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 74

United States of America Vs Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth


Bratwurst Boy 9 | 10,432
9 Aug 2010 #31
*falls to knees totally overwhelmed*

That's to much...

*faints*
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Aug 2010 #32
Family council.

With no legal jurisdiction.

Wrong sir, a council has the right to ennoble someone,

With what legal basis?

According to law they dont have any

Glad you agree.

Which doesnt mean there's no people who take care of such things

Under whose authority do they 'take care of things' in a legal jurisdiction like Poland, where titles are not recognised?

This thread is wandering off topic. Please, keep to the original subject.
Thank you.

Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Aug 2010 #33
Jonni you want to know more about hereditary customs of polish noble families i can forward you an e-mail to the guy who's a specialist in those things on pm, its not only his job its his passion so i imagine he'll be more then happy to give you extensive explanation now back to the topic.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Aug 2010 #34
hereditary customs of polish noble families

Customs are irrelevant. Titles are not legally recognised under the Polish constitution and that is an end to the matter.

Closer to the topic, there were very few aristocratic titles, barely a handful of them, recognised by either the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Royal Republic (and most of those were Gedemin titles on the Lithuanian side). Most titles were given by the partitioning powers somewhat later.

One of the Royal Republic's few redeeming features was the theoretical equality of the szlachta - an idea which persisted longer than the republic itself.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Aug 2010 #35
s are irrelevant.

So why are you asking about them?

Titles are not legally recognised under the Polish constitution and that is an end to the matter.

Well they're recognized among the noble families of Europe though.

Closer to the topic, there were very few aristocratic titles, barely a handful of them, recognised by either the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Royal Republic (and most of those were Gedemin titles on the Lithuanian side). Most titles were given by the partitioning powers somewhat later.

I'm sorry but you're an ignorant sob who doesnt know a first thing about Poland or polish history, there were a LOT of aristocratic titles that were coupled with administrative power.

Voivod, starost, count, prince, governor, baron, chamberlain, royal chaser, royal guardian, grand lithuanian guardian, grand crown guardian, grand field guardian.

Though in Poland aristocracy had a different meaning, noble class was huge so only those nobles who had enough wealth and power could be called magnates.

For example Jan Zamojski while not even a prince was considered one of the prime marriage candidates by all european royal families, his income was equal to that of Switzerland and he could muster an army as large as Austria itself.
OP David_18 68 | 982
10 Aug 2010 #36
there were a LOT of aristocratic titles that were coupled with administrative power.

You didn't need to have a aristocratic title to be a Voivod, starost etc etc...

Well they're recognized among the noble families of Europe though.

Maybe so... But a title dosen't make you more noble. Having got your title from some foreign court is really shamefull...

A true szlachta don't need a title. All he needs is his Latifunda and ukrainian serfs ;)
jonni 16 | 2,485
10 Aug 2010 #37
So why are you asking about them?

You raised it. And as you well know, I'm not telling, but asking.

Well they're recognized among the noble families of Europe though.

Almost all of whom have no official status nowadays.

I'm sorry but you're an ignorant sob who doesnt know a first thing about Poland or polish history, there were a LOT of aristocratic titles that were coupled with administrative power.

Perhaps a bit more than you.

Voivod, starost, count, prince, governor, baron, chamberlain, royal chaser, royal guardian, grand lithuanian guardian, grand crown guardian, grand field guardian.

All but three of which aren't aristocratic, and of those three, two aren't Polish.

As I mentioned before, the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was almost unique in Europe for its disdain for aristocratic titles - remarkably few existed, and the Commonwealth, in evolving into the first republic, foreshadowed Poland's centuries-old liberal tradition, which in turn inspired (and was inspired by) the Founding Fathers ofthe US.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
10 Aug 2010 #38
All but three of which aren't aristocratic, and of those three, two aren't Polish.

All of them used in Poland and all of them denoted aristocracy thru administrative power like the Duke did (high commander)
jonni 16 | 2,485
10 Aug 2010 #39
All of them used in Poland

So is sushi - doesn't make it Polish though.

all of them denoted aristocracy thru administrative power

What makes you think aristocracy denotes administrative power? You're contradicting yourself, as usual, since you said twice that aristocracy can be informal rather than official. Furthermore, that statement is meaningless, since you seem to be implying that administrative power ipso facto confers aristocratic status.

like the Duke did (high commander)

Duke is not a Polish title, nor has it ever been - The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had princes; largely Gedemin-derived princes though, from the Lithuanian side..

You've lost the argument, so stop harping on and get back to the topic of the thread.

Personally I find the period of history in which Poland developed its constitution and the US was started to be fascinating - the question is, what can we learn from it?
Ziemowit 13 | 4,236
10 Aug 2010 #40
I'm sorry but you're an ignorant sob who doesnt know a first thing about Poland or polish history, there were a LOT of aristocratic titles that were coupled with administrative power.
Voivod, starost, count, prince, governor, baron, chamberlain, royal chaser, royal guardian, grand lithuanian guardian, grand crown guardian, grand field guardian.

I'm sorry, but it's a real shame for someone who calls himself a "historian" to say things like that ...

The only noble title officialy recognized in the Royal Republic was the title of szlachcic. Then the Sejm at the Union of Lublin gathering in 1569 had recognized to a handful of Lithuanian families (among them Czartoryski, for example) the use of their traditional title of prince. Hence, the rich and famous families of the Crown, like the Potocki family, had never enjoyed the title of prince in the times if the First Republic except for a few cases in which the Sejm occasionally granted such a title to someone in recognition of their merits to the Fatherland (the most prominent case of this practice was the Poniatowski family).

All the szlachta, which used to follow almost exactly the same path of habits and traditions across the whole Polish Commonwealth, from Poznań to the deepest forests of Lithuania to the farest fields of Ukraine, regardless of their religion or wealth status, were very eager in stressing the fact that their formal status of noblemen was equal to to the formal status of their wealhy noble countrymen who enjoyed the posts of voivods, starosts etc (these had their real prices to be paid for if someone wanted them). Hence the very popular in these times (and well-known until our time) saying:

Szlachcic na zagrodzie równy wojewodzie,

which underlined the fact that wojewoda is only a simple nobleman, someone exactly like them, who may be richer than they are, but is equal to them in terms of citizenship.

In 1921, in its first Constitution of the Republic, the Polish State abandoned the idea of recognizing any titles except for professional, scientific and the like ones.

And what is being said in the family circles while celebrating the 90-th anniversary of an aunt who happens to be proud of being of the Rzewuski family, is a completely different story ...
Lang siliniy
11 Apr 2011 #41
Hmmm it seems that this thread has ended but i'll post anyway

So I have very little Background knowledge on the PLC but am extremely interested in the original topic, USA vs. PLC, and so would enjoy if people could give their opinions on the topic without getting onto tangents.

With my limited knowledge i can only say that it is an interesting topic that i think deserves further exploration. The PLC had a large ethnic diversity and religious tolerance (although i'm not sure how effectively that was carried out). Only the szlachta had political rights, about 10% of the population, but that was a lot during that time period. To my knowledge the right to veto did slow down the reforms and necessary growth in the PLC because the Szlachta had most of the power and would not pass anything that threatened that power. I personally would compare this to the nullification crisis in the US but perhaps it couldn't really apply.

I also found it interesting that the kings were elected and that their power was kept in check. however the most interesting thing that is comparable to the US is the may 3rd Constitution signed in 1791, it produced some very democratic ideas similar and perhaps inspired by the US. unfortunately the Commonwealth became non-existent about four years after due to the neighboring powers invading and partitioning it.

Obviously the US has some issues and perhaps the most worrisome is the fact, that while she is still a major power, recent military activities have not turned out very well (vietnam, the middle east) which may be a sign of weakening. due to the fact that the US is not surrounded by belligerent countries, Canada and Mexico seem chill right now, any possibly invading forces would have trouble maintaining supply lines as well as a large army. Thus i do not see the US being destroyed by constant war like the PLC may have been. I do however see a similarity in that the PLC was mainly a grain exporting country and thus their economy was unstable, the US right now does not manufacture as many things as it had in the past and this decline in production could lead to similar economic troubles.

I do not believe that something as powerful as the Commonwealth could simply disappear due to war(even Germany still exists today) i think the only way for it to disappear would be if there were internal conflicts that caused it to collapse from the inside. indeed there were, such as some of the ethnic tension, and i can see some of this mirrored in the US. Though i believe war alone could not destroy the Commonwealth i do believe it was a very influential catalyst.
gumishu 11 | 5,632
21 Apr 2011 #42
the right to veto did slow down the reforms

the right to veto blocked any reforms untill they were too late
guesswho 4 | 1,289
21 Apr 2011 #43
And this will also be the reason why Usa will collapse just like Plc did.

Is this the only problem you have? If this is what you're waiting for, then I hope for you, you're gonna live very(yyyy) long. The whole world is in trouble (at the moment) but to pick the US as a country to collapse, let's say within the next 200 years, is crazy. I can assure you, before we'll collapse, whole bunch of others will and I'm sure, none of us will live long enough to even worry about it. I hate to blow your bubble but your "dream" will not be fulfilled anytime soon.
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,883
21 Apr 2011 #44
David_18 wrote:

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.

you just summarized the collapse of every single world power that ever existed. naturally, any nation, old or new, is going to share similar characteristics because empires are empires due to strong "politics, military and economics."

and as far as partitioning and being taken over by neighbors, who's gonna do that? Mexico? Canada? please.
guesswho 4 | 1,289
21 Apr 2011 #45
and being taken over by neighbors, who's gonna do that? Mexico? Canada? please.

he probably considered Russia to do that. I guess, that's why so many Russian women are so desperate to find a husband in the states. Their way to conquer us. The problem is, they're not very successful in it too, lol.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
21 Apr 2011 #46
and as far as partitioning and being taken over by neighbors, who's gonna do that? Mexico? Canada? please.

No need for external military forces. There are other ways to destroy America and the big business, with the help of the US government has been working on this for some time.

Also, the US is perfectly capable of destroying and partitioning itself from within, either due to popular movements or government's actions, such as massive prison/forced labor camps under the US armed forces control.
FlaglessPole 4 | 669
21 Apr 2011 #47
Also, the US is perfectly capable of destroying and partitioning itself from within, either due to popular movements or government's actions, such as massive prison/forced labor camps under the US armed forces control.

whatever he's on, I want some
guesswho 4 | 1,289
21 Apr 2011 #48
Also, the US is perfectly capable of destroying and partitioning itself from within

yeah, an American phenomenon, ain't it z_darius? I suggest you join the "America's destruction club" created by David_18 and you both sweetie pies wait for us to go down while waiting until Russia will prosper ....maybe (very maybe)...one day (LMAO).
z_darius 14 | 3,968
21 Apr 2011 #49
whatever he's on, I want some

no need to line up for any dope. All it takes is turning off your PlayStation and then...
just read up on some of the US history (hint: about mid 19th century). If it was possible then, it is certainly possible now, given the deep political divide with with US.

And then, and visit the official website of the US armed forces (hint: the document name is Army regulation 210-35, fairly recently declassified)
guesswho 4 | 1,289
21 Apr 2011 #50
I bet when you listen to this song (a great song btw) your hope for America's destruction will grow much bigger. Close your eyes and dream ..."THE END" of America...(lol) but guess what, when you wake up, we're still gonna be there to kick your commie as*. What a nightmare it must be to you to see us not going down.
z_darius 14 | 3,968
21 Apr 2011 #51
I bet

is that the best you can do?
Pull up the document I linked to and tell me if you would like your Negro bretheren to populate the facilities described in it. After all American Negros are on the list of people to be closely watched by the Homeland Security in the case of social unrest. Those documents are available too.
OP David_18 68 | 982
21 Apr 2011 #52
yeah, an American phenomenon, ain't it z_darius? I suggest you join the "America's destruction club"

I'm just comparing the events in the PLC and what is going in the US. I'm not Anti-american, i just see a lot of similiraty between the US and the PLC.

created by David_18 and you both sweetie pies wait for us to go down while waiting until Russia will prosper ....maybe (very maybe)...one day (LMAO).

Why would i like to see Russia prosper?
gumishu 11 | 5,632
21 Apr 2011 #53
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and America are very different in many aspects - one major for example is PLC never had powerful standing army (because of fear of the noble classes that the kings will take the country over like in the West or in Russia) contrary to America
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,883
21 Apr 2011 #54
What did the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth have that could compare to Coca Cola, Disney Land and Elvis?

See, they're different.
convex 20 | 3,978
21 Apr 2011 #55
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and America are very different in many aspects - one major for example is PLC never had powerful standing army (because of fear of the noble classes that the kings will take the country over like in the West or in Russia) contrary to America

The United States was never meant to have a powerful standing army for the exact same reasons (change nobles for states, and kings for federal government).
Torq
21 Apr 2011 #56
What did the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth have that could compare to

Coca Cola

Vodka.

Disney Land

Dzikie Pola (even more fun).

and Elvis?

Zagłoba.

So there :)
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,883
21 Apr 2011 #57
Torq wrote:

Vodka.

for argument's sake, comparing Poland's vodka to the success of The Coca Cola company is silly.
Torq
21 Apr 2011 #58
comparing Poland's vodka to the success of The Coca Cola company is silly

Of course, as well as comparing the USA to the PLC.
FUZZYWICKETS 8 | 1,883
21 Apr 2011 #59
Torq wrote:

Of course, as well as comparing the USA to the PLC.

and this, ladies and gentlemen, concludes our thread.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
21 Apr 2011 #60
for argument's sake, comparing Poland's vodka to the success of The Coca Cola company is silly.

True, vodka is around for almost a thousand years:))))

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and America are very different in many aspects - one major for example is PLC never had powerful standing army (because of fear of the noble classes that the kings will take the country over like in the West or in Russia) contrary to America

Love you, love your posts but the PLC did untill its collapse have a powerfull standing army.


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.