Do Polish names generally have a meaning to them or a particular structure?.

It's a prerequisite - without the trappings, without the money, the status goes before the generation is out. Several times in history people have declined membership of the nobility because they felt they didn't have enough assets to guarantee that noble status is maintained throughout the generations. Somebody with a pretty coat of arms on their lavatory wall who works in the Town Hall isn't noble - they're just descended from noblemen.


As usual, you've cut straight to the heart of the matter. They may have described themselves a 'working', 'landless', 'own-land-working', or degraded nobles, but in harsh reality, only the adjective is accurate - the noun is a mistranslation.


Now you're getting closer....


Proven lomg ago, and petition principii hardly fits!


That's pure nonsense, and you know it. The First Republic ended in disaster - you can be an apologist for it; you can talk about the avarice of neighbouring states, you can blame geopolitics, you can even look for weaknesses in the behaviour of Stanislaw August - but you can never avoid the incontrovertible fact that the First Republic had long ceased to function effectively as a state.

It's not a pre-requisite. The status of szlachta as nobles was legally enshrined. I am unfamiliar with any Act that prescribes a member of the szlachta having to hand in their noble status due to impecunity. You are familiar with the term Golota szlachta, aren't you.

Status is a social descriptor, but szlachta were not defined by their social mobility, rather their legal one. If you can find me a piece of genuine, contemporary evidence proving your position then it is vindicated. If you cannot, then you have lost the debate.


When did he cease to be noble? Who is the arbiter and what is the benchmark test? Or is this just your opinion. In fact, it is your mere opinion because it's London to a brick that you have no evidence to back this opinion.


I'm not actually - re-reading my post, and your argument, I was misconceived in respect of Diet deputies. Do you know why?


If it was 'proven long ago', then adduce the proof. Petitio principii is apt.


No, I don't know it. You seem fairly confident it is though - why not pick it apart and show that it is nonsense, rather than merely asserting it is. You should have no trouble doing that.


Indeed it did. You're preaching to the converted. It is quite easy to point out the obvious, but a lot more difficult to properly analysis the context and causes of the decline. Why don't you tell us what caused the fall of the Cth?

It is understandable that the OP would be surprised about how his thread, which he just started to get a surname for a Polish character in a work of fiction, so ballooned out in a discussion of the proper English word to denote the Polish szlachta, but those who know this forum will realize that here it is merely another occurrence of an Englishman wanting to demean Poland and so he claims that Poland never had a "genuine" nobility. This claim is ridiculous as most Indo-European societies have understood nobility, from time immemorial, to be a military caste with special rights and privileges. It's rather simple really and there is nothing "romantic" about calling the Polish szlachta noblemen, but jon, in an hilariously sad and patronizing way, wants to claim otherwise and argues that the English word "nobility" designates people far above any mere Poles:


The above quote is hilariously sad because he invokes Norman Davies who uses the very word "nobility" to refer to the szlachta in the history he's written! Alligator pointed this out to jon:


The argument should have ended there, but jon, being without any shame, keeps up his silly attempt deny that Poland had noblemen and instead continues to insist that she had mere "freemen". The truth is that Poland did indeed have freemen and that these were people who did not possess szlachta status but were not serfs, the latter being people who were owned by members of the szlachta. If in England the people possessing freeman status had to serve in the military, then so much the worse for those poor old sods (oh Angleterre, oh Auqalung!). In Poland ,and in many other Indo-European societies, freemen were free from this responsibility, but just because freemen had military duties in England does not make the Polish szlachta the equivalent of "freemen". Of course Alligator, and others, had already demolished jon's foolish argument but another Englishman comes to his aid:


Hahahaha! The patronizing message from England is: "Poland you cannot use our word "nobles" for your szlachta because your szlachta just weren't responsible enough." Do these Englishmen believe that they are Poland's parents? "Son you cannot use the car because you haven't shown yourself to be responsible enough" Hahahaha! This is absolutely absurd, but according to jon, Isthatu has:


The real "heart of the matter" actually being a display of how silly some English people can be.


You find laughter robotic? I do not. It serves a great purpose in our world. This world contains sad people that want to insist on self-aggrandizing false hierarchies, and so they build their phantasmagorical pyramids. Jon and Isthatu want to claim that their country's social pyramid was higher than Poland's. "See England had higher levels! England had Gentlemen and Nobility, but Poland oh she is lower. She topped off at mere Freemen". This is absolutely pathetic and indeed it is funny too, and so I laugh. The power of laughter rumbles and shakes down these silly conceptual pyramids. It deflates gasbags.

One day, you'll actually understand a post here without attributing some psychologically strange and emotionally loaded meaning.

Do you deny Polish nobles the very name of nobility ? I though we were discussion Polish unique system not whether they could be called nobles or not.

We were, and they can't. Nobility is an English word. Most of the szlachta were not noblemen.

Jon382 is wrong, because all of the szlachta were noblemen.

We've established already that they weren't, and no amount of semantics or misused philosophical jargon can change that.

You and who exactly?
I agree with Ozi Dan and Des Essientes.

Only in your warped mind has this been "established".


You are the one who it trying to truncate the meaning of the word "nobility". Sane people that speak English know full well that the Polish szlachta as a ruling class invested with military duties, and given special rights and privileges, was most certainly nobility.

Nobility is of its very essence the province of all who are free in spirit. The Golden Perfection of Poland can ne'er compromise itself by mere history, but only by a concatenation of scoundrels without understanding of Her unique privileges.

Well from the point of view of Polish not-noblemen most of western or eastern nobles were not real nobles or not fully nobles because of them being sheets any monarch could wipe his ass with !

Sure Polish system was unique as was Polish feudalism (if we may use that word) unique but basically noblemen originated as a fighting elite of a country with rights and duties and their code of honor and their land. All European nobles and aristocracy stem from that! Many countries had their own variation on the theme, Polish one was more interesting than some.

Coming to conclusion that Polish nobles were not nobles it is nonsense !

that's what wiki says...

why is everyone getting so hot under the collar about this?

They coughed up Europe because of the coprophagy you so pertinently imply. Of fresh blood was there none - the Golden Polish Nobleman on his estate would send no serfs to mate with the horsefaced islanders. Hahahaha

You were invited to adduce proof to back up your flawed proposition and you failed to do so. I told you that if you did, your position would be vindicated, but because of the failure of the former, the latter is extinguished. Merely asserting and professing indignation that 'semantics' and 'philosophical jargon' have been used to wrongly rebut your assumption, is, without proof of same, mischievous and disingenuous, as is your argument as a whole that Polish nobility (szlachta) were not noble by virtue of some vacuous claim by analogy to English Freemen and other nebulous and fantastic criteria.

I don't mean to be critical, but you have been outsmarted and have lost the argument.

I appreciate that you attempt to give the impression on this forum of having been everywhere and done everything, and of being a CJonfucius on all matters Polish, but wisdom (ie knowing not to defend the indefensible) is the hallmark of sagacious counsel, not acerbic wit smattered with a few droplets of anecdote and anachronisms. Go in peace to avoid further embarrassment, and learn from your mistakes.

On the contrary.



And more of the same.


Very far from that. Nobility is nobility - the majority of the szlachta were not. They didn't fit the socio-economic model, they were unable to sustain themselves as a privileged group, and their numbers were too large even to be a viable elite.

I notice that you're trolling has taken a different turn from usual - this time you're trying to emulate the pompous language of Dessie etc.

It doesn't make your point stronger - it just dresses it up differently.


Out of interest, where does Dzierzynski come from. The wikipedia entry on Feliks Dzierzynski uses the phrase 'purportedly polish szlachta'.

From the pits of hell,either Judea or Moscow obviously !!!!!
( too subtle? )
Seriously,pass, nasty man where ever he came from.

I think any one who claims nobility is by definition,a snob.They think that because of wealth and the the ability to control people

monetarily this makes them noble.It is more noble to help than oppress.That's the way I believe.

And your defence of a bunch of medieval rich boys lording it over the majority of a population kept as slaves into the 18th/19th century makes a mockery of your whole fake liberal pseudo intelkshual personna ...privelage on the basis of fluke of Birth....wierd fekking thing for any self respecting American (or Austrailian) to cheer on IMHO.


Again, your defence of Polands system is ,well, laughable.
So, freemen,who had the right to do what they want,go to war or stay at home and raise sheep who chose to go to war in defence of the realm are lesser men than so called nobles who HAD to go to war when they were told? No, I dont claim them as equals I call them as the lesser men.


And I have already shown this is utter garbage in a previous post,at least when it comes to the nobility on the British isles. So re posting just shows again your lack of understanding and lumping of all your rather odd preconceptions of europe into either Poland or not poland.....plum. As I said, there was never a period in English history when any *nobles* were so servile. Have you never heard the term Primus inter pares? Any british King who thought he was above the Law soon found out he wasnt.


Dessi dearest, its your own negative view of Poland that brings you to the conclusion that *playing catch up* was in any way an insult to Poland. Its just a simple statement of fact. Poland was on the edge of Europe,had never been a part of Rome and came to the European/Christianity party very late. If anything the *catch up* played by Poland was amazingly fast and not being a carbon copy of the west was far better adapted to Polands needs.

Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierżyński was born on 9.11.1877 in the family estate Dzierżynowo (Stołbce County, now in Belarus, Дзяржынава; Rus. Дзержиново). It used to be known as Oziembłowo, and it has its name changed only after the birth of Feliks. The estate was small, numbering a total of 180 acres, including the manor house and the serfdom-based farm.

The manor house was reconstructed in 1972 and renovated in 2004. Alexander Lukashenko participated in its re-opening. Today it is a small village consisting of the ruins of the manor and of Dzierżyńskis' farm. The whole complex "Dzierżynowo" obtained the status of cultural-historical monument of Belarus.

The nearby city of Dzierżyńsk, named in honour of our great countryman and served by the railway station Kajdanowo [Shacklestown - sic!], is NOT the birthplace of Feliks Edmundowicz.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzier%C5%BCynowo

More about his father, a Polish "szlachcic" here:
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Dzier%C5%BCy%C5%84ski

Nonsense! Whose model they didn't fit? They were perfectly able to sustain themselves. I think that you are focusing too much on the XVIII century.

One again, nonsense. The fact that there were many considerably poor nobles doesn't change the fact that there were many well off and quite few whose lands and fortunes on par with some independent countries in Europe. Not to mention Spanish hidalgo poor but proud noblemen, or French owners of titles pigsty and ruins of castle, proud nobles as well, For your country, somebody father could be living in poverty and forced to work for food but his son could be a heir to estate and title, would that make him less noble, eh?

I think you are annoying on purpose.


You have show nothing ! The systems were as different as they come due to the fact that Polish knights evolved into citizens of the nobles republic in the XVI century whereas English knights dissolved into aristocracy, land-gentry and freeman each with distinguish rights.

The forum is not place to analyse what happened in the curse of next two centuries.
However your claim that your are not boasting whose medieval boys were batter is empty cause that exactly what you are doing.So let me tell you something - **** off ! Our nobles were free citizens, and your monarch could done away with your, at lest before rebellion of Cromwell when they installed elicits protestant regime with monarch as pimple on the a...!

We had President called King and free elections - stuff it in your crack pipe and smoke it MR pot!

Calm down, Iron.

17th century, Ive already told you *our* Kings were controlled and First among equals for around a thousand years before that.
Prior to that the same was true of the Brithannic Chieftens, men elected to lead not just entitled by birth,even when entitlement by Birth came in *our* Kings were getting deposed left right and centre since the late 11th century.

As the Mod said irons, calm down dear, its only history, its not as though you or I had anything whatsoever to do with it......

I said already to you, generations for thousand of years are not possible, also in medieval times for Europe the fact that Kings were depended on their barons and knights is a truth for all Europe. You are not discovering American here.

When talking about specifically about without referring to them as knight or barons nobles we tend to think about timetable form the XVI century upwards.


hardly nobles ! typical freedom people in tribes, also quite typical in the northern Europe for that period and social order.


You said that you are not making comparison or evaluation of nobles form both countries, and then slam you are doing what you said you are do not doing. - that one !

Again you make a total mas from the subject discussed. Your examples are just unordered mess of amassed fact and opinions having no bearing whatsoever on the issue at hand. - that two!

In your edition is not even history but collection of interesting stories,, few facts from the past and gossip.

Thats all History is dumb dumb.....


Yes,ironside, FACTS. Unlike your OPINIONS.

Nope you are dumb dumb ....
Seriously the fact is you have no clue, you have your opinions,


Facts and opinions my Yorick. I have no issue with facts, problems is that you present here facts, opinions and then your opinions.

erm,yes I do.
You however just spout out the opinions of others based on what exactly? The linear aproach to education so beloved by nations who have little history of innovation I guess.....

You seem to have this weird idea that there is an ultimate *truth* in History, good luck finding it.

I have no problem with facts, nor opinions (of others, you present) even if some are debatable, I do have problem when you armed with few opinion you found in books and come up with the opinion of your own extraction.

More often than not you are wrong.


Not necessary truth but the inner logic and order. You seem to think that it is a wild-field anybody can roam free !


In this thread ? I presented you with facts, you claimed that some freedoms in the middle-ages and during tribal times were inclusive for England or the British Isles. I just proved you wrong.


Jumping to and fro like a mad frog doesn't make your approach innovative but rather mush-mushy. What are you imply? Poles and no innovations ? Have you been bitten by a mad flea ?

Anyway whats linear education ? If you meant linear approach to history it only further illustrate that you have no clue. Nothing we discussed in this thread has anything to do with linear history.

The real test for a real Polish surname is if a foreigner is able to pronounce it. Once King Elbow was suppressing a German rising in Krakow in the 4th century and each insurgent who couldn`t pronounce a few Polish words was executed as an alien and hostile element.

In post no 2 somebody proposed a famous surname Brzęczyszczykiewicz. But that`s film fiction.

How about a real one: Błaszczykiewicz.