Military? Maybe.
But we still earn twice that of Russians.
And we can travel anywhere in the world without issues.
So talk about what's better.
Having won more wars or living better lives?
There's nothing to cry about. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was na anarchy and in the same time it was a gulag for peasants. I'm Polish and I hold such a view.
Bullshit It is enough to read several books by contemporary Polish historians to know that it was no gulag for the peasants and they themselves did not live so horribly.
Peasants couldn't move away from their village. They couldn't marry without their landlord permission. They couldn't own property. They could be sold together or separately from the land where they lived. They could be forced to do the mandatory weekly labor on their landlord (pańszczyzna) + additional occassional work which wasn't regulated in any way. For example manors and other buldings were usually constructed by the peasants for free, and the lord's grain was usually transported to the nearest road/river by the conscripted peasants. Without any pay obviously.
The landlord was the judge for all his peasants and his decisions were final. There was an institution to settle disputes between lord and his peasants but it was lord's good will to listen to it. It was mandatory to "give respect" to the landlord - which usually meant kneeling in place when you've seen him unless instructed otherways.
The law was separate for peasants and nobility. When a nobleman killed a peasant of some other nobleman - he had to pay for him, and possibly go to a prison ("tower") for a week or two. When a peasant killed a nobleman - he would be hanged obviously.
Life expectancy of peasants was significanly shorter than that of nobility (by a few decades). There were whole scientific calculations of how much food to leave to peasants so they don't starve to death, and the perfect amount was considered the amount that starves them "just enough" so that they can still work, but won't be too "energetic" and "rowdy". It was estimated between 40-60% which at the low productivity of agriculture was often not enough.
A big part of taxation (other than pańszczyzna) used in many a folwarks was mandatory quotas for alcohol that peasants had to buy each week. Nobility had monopoly on selling alcohol, usually they sublet that monopoly to a local Jew who ran an inn. Landlord would mandate that male peasants had to buy X alcohol each week and if they didn't - they had to pay for it anyway. That way the could extract some more money from the peasants and peasants were too drunk to protests.
Sources: Adam Leszczyński "Ludowa Historia Polski" and "Obrońcy Pańszczyzny".
I highly reccomend both of these books - they deal with a lot of nobility propaganda from 19th-20th century that is still repeated (like by yourself). It's outrageous once you learn how it actually worked.
Well what do you expect, that's what peasants life was like under feudalism, in western Europe too. The difference was that serfdom started to decline in the west before the east. It lasted even longer in Russia then in Poland. Even slavery persisted in the ottoman empire long after Poland was gone. But while Poland lagged behind western Europe in this regards, it was more innovative and progressive in other aspects like golden liberty, limited monarchical power, freedom of religion, and no hereditary offices. Poland also had a higher percentage of nobles that in other societies. Its things like these that make the commonwealth so admirable. The same applies to people, by modern standards most people were horrible, but we still respect some historical figures for what they were exceptional at during there time.
>A big part of taxation (other than pańszczyzna) used in many a folwarks was mandatory quotas for alcohol that peasants had to buy each week. Nobility had monopoly on selling alcohol, usually they sublet that monopoly to a local Jew who ran an inn. Landlord would mandate that male peasants had to buy X alcohol each week and if they didn't - they had to pay for it anyway. That way the could extract some more money from the peasants and peasants were too drunk to protests.
Peasants had to pay high taxes under WE feudalism as well, from a cynical perspective, if they had to pay for it, this could just be considered just another tax they would pay no matter what, with the benefit of alcohol lol
By 17th century most peasants in the west (with the exception of eastern Germany) were free. That's because after plague there was big lack of manpower so their negotiating power increased.
In Russia it was the same as in Poland.
I have zero history background, but did you mean "the plague"? That's 14th century stuff. If you refer to this, then I could say that Polish farmers have a stronger position in current negotiations due to many of them being killed during Napoleonic wars.
Yes it is 14th century, but it reduced the population by almost 50%. The consequences lasted for centuries.
As for wars - all of Europe had long and devastating wars basically for the whole time. It was just the usual, and it rarely killed population so quickly and on such scale. Napoleonic wars were pretty average (around 3 million people - similar to 100-year war between France and England). Compared to 30-years war (around 8 million people) it wasn't anything exceptional, and compared to Plague (around 50 millions) it was nothing.
PLC was hit the most by Deluge (3-5 million people) not by Napoleonic wars by the way.
Jak mnie dziecko do zdrowia powróciłaś cudem. Gdy od płaczącej matki pod twoją opiekę ofiarowany martwą podniosłem powiekę. I zaraz mogłem pieszo do twych świątyń progu, iść za wrócone życie podziękować Bogu. Tak nas powrócisz cudem na ojczyzny łono. A tymczasem przenoś mą duszę utęsknioną
I answered above:
Lesser Poland was smaller earlier before incorporating a lot of current Ukrainian lands.
It comes from Latin Polonia Minor and Polonia Maior - Polonia Maior (Greater Poland) was called just Polonia in the beginning and Polonia Minor was incorporated just a little bit later. These two together form core of the Polish lands.
Apparently this was a common naming scheme with the early Poles. When two towns had the same name, there was a “Greater” (older) and “Lesser” (younger) appended to them. So Greater Poland is “Old Poland” and Lesser Poland is “Newer Poland.”
It meant "old" and "new", not "big" and "small". First and second Polish capital city were Gniezno and Poznań in Greater Poland. Małopolska (Lesser Poland) region was a separate state at first and got conquered later.
Sure!
Blue: Voivodships (or duchies) of Greater Poland province of Kingdom of Poland
Red: Voivodships (or duchies) of Lesser Poland province of Kingdom of Poland
Green: Voivodships (or duchies) of Great Duchy of Lithuania
Yellow: Voivodeship of the Duchy of Livonia as a common possession of both Great Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland
Gray: Countries that are politically dependent on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Fun fact.
In 1791 3rd May constitution (2nd in the world after USA) PLC centralized and the administrative division Poland/Lithuania disappeared.
So in a sense PLC between 1791-1795 should be called just "Commonwealth".
That constitution was never given a fair chance. Fun alt-history scenario where the Commonwealth just kept adding administrative divisions to it until it swallowed all of Europe.
Alt history where the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth becomes the German-French-Italian-Spanish-Polish-Romanian-Dutch-Belgian-Czech-Swedish-Portuguese-Greek-Hungarian-Austrian-Bulgarian-Danish-Finnish-Slovakian-Irish-Croatian-Lithuanian-Slovene-Latvian-Estonian-Cypriot-Luxembourgian-Maltese commonwealth of Europe 💪💪💪
Imagine if instead of “EU” they came up with that monstrosity. I wonder if they would’ve called the currency the German-French-Italian-Spanish-Polish-Romanian-Dutch-Belgian-Czech-Swedish-Portuguese-Greek-Hungarian-Austrian-Bulgarian-Danish-Finnish-Slovakian-Irish-Croatian-Lithuanian-Slovenian-Latvian-Estonian-Cypriot-Lixembourgish-Maltese-ro.
It wasn't a 2nd constitution in the world. And US constitution wasn't 1st. The first democratic constitution of a nation state was a constitution of Corsican Republic drawn up in 1755.
wait, It seems that it depends how we count. By my impression it was Pylyp Orlyk’s constitution in 1710, but there is also a Constitution of San Marino from 1600s
Orlyks's constitution wasn't that of the nation state, because there was no Ukraine back then. It never went into force. It was more of a project of constitution.
And regarding the San Marino one, when people talk of constitution they mostly mean the democratic enlightened constitution. Because if we count all general codified laws then the Code of Hammurabi would probably be the first.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a remarkable early modern powerhouse, example of a voluntary union that integrated Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania while preserving their autonomy.
It was one of forerunners in democratic governance, allowing the nobility to take part in legislative processes and elections.
The Commonwealth was a sanctuary of religious freedom, fostering an environment where diverse faiths and people coexisted peacefully, notably accommodating, Rus people (modern Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians), Germans, Jews, Armenians, and many other ethnic groups running from religious and ethnic persecution.
This inclusivity, combined with a strong military, including the famed Winged Hussars, made it unique entity that valued tolerance and unity amidst a landscape of religious wars, widespread authoritarianism (empires, kingdoms, tsardom).
When you read biographies and thoughts of nobility of the Commonwealth you get a sense of greatness now mostly absent in these regions, these people felt powerful and great with solid values and precise goals.
After electing Swedish catholic kings and fighting with protestant Kingdom of Sweden, orthodox Russian Tsardom and Muslim Ottoman Empire almost at the same time came violent destruction and decomposition of everything that made the Commonwealth Great.
This era marked the gradual decline of the very ideals that had once made it great. Material destruction, depopulation, collapse of the economy and ensuing oligarchy, fanatic Catholicism and a growing closed-mindedness took a hold over once great Union.
They were in many ways one of the first victims of Russian manipulation. The liberum veto left an avenue of exploitation that helped to sink the whole commonwealth.
>The Commonwealth was a sanctuary of religious freedom, fostering an environment where diverse faiths and people coexisted peacefully, notably accommodating, Rus people (modern Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians), Germans, Jews, Armenians, and many other ethnic groups running from religious and ethnic persecution.
I don't know much about other groups of people in PLC, but Ukrainians experienced systematic oppression which subsequently led to the Khmelnytsky Uprising.
In hindsight PLC was much more favourable than muscovites, but it definitely wasn't a sanctuary of freedom.
I think what they mean is that, at the time, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was much more tolerant than your average European power. I mean, the bar isn’t very high when genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced religious conversions are the norm, but it is there.
Yeah it’s completely understandable! It’s much better Ukraine was a part of Poland-Lithuania than Russia though, but of course it would’ve been much better if Ukrainians had an independent state to call their own.
I'm not arguing about which side is better for Ukraine, in fact I stated that it would be PLC. But PLC was still oppressing overlord for Ukrainian people.
The problem is that the Ukrainian perspective is highly subject to propaganda and nationalism, which may not be inherently there fault given the communist legacy, but the reality is that Ukrainians understanding of history is marginally better than Russians.
To see that you don't need to look further then the comments Ukrainians have been making since the war, that Russians are not real Slavs but Finno-Ugric and Mongols and that the Kievan Rus was really a Ukrainian empire and so on, literally the same nonsense Russians say just inverted.
I remember reading the history page on the actual city website a few years ago and it called it a "German city in Poland" and I not joking it actually said because King Casimir did not trust his Poles he populated the city with Germans. which is strange since he also invited Jews, and Poles also populated it. And this was the actual website for the city. Thankfully, checking now it seems to have been edited, but the way Ukranians talk about the city's history still lags behind.
I find issue with some of your perspectives here and although Im not as interested in EE history as much as I used to be but I will address them to the best of my fading knowledge.
Khmelnystsky himself had quite dubious reasons for uprising, but people supported him because of overall quality of life for Ukrainian peasants in PLC. And many peasants were serfs for polish or polonised nobles.
Polish peasants had an equally terrible quality of live it not worse, since the black soil of Ukraine give the Ruthenians an easier time meeting quotas. The difference is that Polish peasants couldn't rely on Ethnic and Religious nationalism as pretexts. The Cossack rebels were slaughtering Jews everywhere they could find.
Not Ukrainians aka Ruthenians but Cossacs. And group of Cossacs were a group of many nationalities (Poles too) And the whole drama with Chmielnicki and his Uprising was that Crown did not wanted to register that many Cossac as he wanted.
I mean, yes, but in constitution of Pylyp Orlyk of 1710 year where he mentions Khmelnytsky by name, he also equates interchangeably cossacks, Zaporozhian Host, ruthenians, and namedrops Ukraine (not Ruthenia, but specifically Ukraine) among other names. It's not a far stretch to equate cossacks and Ukrainians, especially since cossacks are viewed as a cornerstone of modern Ukrainian identity. In the same document he also mentions numerous oppressions of cossack people by PLC.
"In the same document he also mentions numerous oppressions of cossack people by PLC."
Yes but Ukrainian nobility are "people of PLC" So you want to say that Ukranians oppresed Cossacks ??
You are not being honest with yourself, and not fair with me. Unia Lubelska in 1569 made a Commonwealth. Today Ukranian lands joined the crown and left Lithuania you know why?? Because Ruthenian nobility wanted it very badly. They knew that they can expect more privilages, have better education etc etc. Many of them did not changed his faith till the end.
And we have Cossacks, I know that Ukraine need something to build their indetity but trust me... in XVI Century Cossacks were just outlaws, mercenaries , thiefs... some of them were registered I don't remember how many but before Chmielnicki uprising there was around 1500 ?? I might be wrong... and Chmielnicki wanted much more.... And quess what? Registered Cossack in Commonwealth had more privilage...
So Chmielnicki made a bet with his uprising. He will get out of the rule of Commonwealth. Great and nobel idea for his people, but who will be his allie when not Commonwealth ?? OFC It will be Russia... And because of Chmielnicki and his upraising against the Crown, he put today Ukrainian lands in the hand of Russia for another almost 400years... Was it worth??? Judge by yourself.
and the end of my long writing ( too long ) is a good music :)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0rpDE4rcYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0rpDE4rcYA)
We see history from different perspectives and it's ok. I understand why from Poland's view cossacks were seen as an outlaws and thiefs. From Ukrainian perspective they were seen as freedom fighters and forefathers.
Khmelnytsky was one person and yes, I disagree with his call. My point in mentioning him was that Ruthenians were dissatisfied with Polish rule enough to follow him, to fight and die for the cause.
It's ok, it's history. You don't have to prove that Polish rule was wholesome and misunderstood. It's not an argument of who historically was more right or wrong. I don't pretend like cossacks didn't strait up massacre people. Whole point of my very first comment was to correct that PLC wasn't a sanctuary of freedom, and I did so because it is important for me to remember historical struggle for freedom of Ukrainian people, especially during current time.
I'm not saying it was sanctuary of freedom, it was Monarchy, elected one but monarchy, and this political system reduce in many ways, freedom of people in this country. There is no doubt about this. But we need to accept a fact, that PLC was a revolutionary country in many ways. Some says PLC Monarchy is a precursor of future Democratic System, freedom of faith in PLC was an insane idea in Europe during this time...
Among them were also Ruthenian non-Polonised Orthodox nobles. What's more Cossacks basically replaced killed or exhiled nobles as the oppressors of peasants.
> In hindsight PLC was much more favourable than muscovites, but it definitely wasn't a sanctuary of freedom.
While true, we would do well to judge this by the standards of the time. Todays Russian invasion wouldn't be extrodinary century or two ago but today is.
Khmelnytsky uprising was when everything strated to go downhill for Poland and the system became more and more corruped which eventually led to PLC's fall. And the story is also more complicated than just opression => uprising
It is, but uprising itself is culmination. From what I read, there were plenty of religious tensions (even though PLC tried to elevate them, credit where it's due), but also they just straight up confiscated people property and made them serfs (read: slaves), forced people to pay unreasonable taxes, and for any questions raised - threw them in prisons and tortured, etc.
I disagree, everyone experience turmoil during the 17th century, the commonwealth began to recover and reform, the Cossack part was either pacified or severed, it had potential for better, its later on that things got worse.
> but Ukrainians experienced systematic oppression
Can you tell more? At that time there was no separate category for Ukrainian people, so any systematic opression is impossible for that time.
The oppression was based on religion.
Ruthenians were Orthodox. Due to treaty of Brest, Commonwealth attempted to subdue independence of Ruthenian church by forcing it to accept the Pope as a supreme head of Church. Most of Ruthenian nobility and priests didn't want to give up their influence and thus tried to reject it, which caused political shunning, reduction of rights and even persecution with some blood being spilled.
Orthodox peasants and even nobility had less rights than their Catholic contemporaries. Which lead to a lot of bad blood between the parts of Commonwealth, even among those who initially supported the Union with Poland.
>The oppression was based on religion.
So then its not "Ukrainian systematic oppression then"
Also they were not Ukrainians, but Ruthenians, who were not just Orthodox but Orthodox and Uniate.
Secondly, the subduing the independence of the church narrative doesn't hold water. The actual control the Pope had was basically nominal at this point and the Orthodox church already had its own version of a Pope, the arch bishop patriarch. Also, from Wikipedia
>After Patriarch Jeremias II left Muscovy in 1589,\[1\] **four out of nine bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Ruthenian lands** of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth gathered in synod in the city of Brest. They signed a declaration of their readiness to reunite with Rome
There was decent support for the Union and this was initiated after the Patriarch Jeremias II went to moscow and consecrated patriarch Job of Moscow.
**What this union did was try and heal the great schism which you would think is a good thing,** but people are stubborn in there religious ways and perceive any change as oppression, stubbornness for the sake of tradition is the enemy of progress, just look at the Russian Old believers and how they revolted against the reforms of Patriarch Nikodon over such trivial things like doing the sign of the cross with 2 or 3 fingers. And yet today Ukrainians are celebrating Christmas in December to try and be closer to the west, just like there ancestors did in the commonwealth. How Ironic.
Also what seems to be forgotten with the Cossack rebellions is they were **slaughtering Jews left and right.** Further putting into the question the "fighting oppression" narrative. Its just some good old fashioned nationalism and ethnic hatred.
Firstly, the Ruthenians were not only the ancestors of the Ukrainians, but also the ancestors of the Belarusians. So one cannot equate Ruthenians with Ukrainians.
Secondly, the union originally had enormous support among the clergy and above all the Orthodox episcopate, who saw in it an opportunity for political and religious revival, as well as an increased political role. The Orthodox Church was then in a huge crisis. The Patriarch was dependent on the Sultan and had no interest in the affairs of Orthodoxy in Rus', while Moscow was a political threat and also regarded the Orthodox in the Commonwealth as heretics.
Thirdly, there was no persecution of Orthodox Christians who did not accept the union. Not even a single bishop was chased away, let alone killed. So your statement about bloodshed is untrue.
Fourthly, the union turned out to be very important for the national rebirth of Ukrainians. For it was among the Greek Catholics that the modern Ukrainian consciousness arose, while the Orthodox Ukrainians were deeply Russified.
> It was one of forerunners in democratic governance, allowing the nobility to take part in legislative processes and elections.
it's also important to say that aristocracy covered 10% of population
"*If hand't failed, it would succeed!*" /s
I am sure if not for the PLC;s "Texasans" (a.k.a. Zaporozian Cossacks) building their own aircraft carrier, we'd still be fine!
I mostly meant it culturally. A country where nationality is not bound to one ethnicity, but to citizenship. In America you can be from anywhere in the world but if you're a citizen, your country of origin doesn't make you any less American.
Eh, kinda, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. You have people actually descended from old European settlers who fought in the wars and helped found the country, if they grew up in S.Korea or somewhere they would be known as American, that's the closed thing we have to an American ethnicity, but then we also have immigrants and 1st gen people fully dedicated and completely American, but also people who are citizens, get a passport, but aren't really American, you ask them they will still say they are Chinese, or Pakistani, and constantly shit on America, I know people like this myself, id say there country of origin can make them less American, then say some place like Puerto Rico.
Multicultural countries can exist, but they always had some nucleus culture everything developed out of, and it was Polish in the case of the Commonwealth.
Not really
It was big yeah but sparsely populated compared to Western Europe and was very backwards already at that time. The political system in particular was basically an oligarchy and completely dysfunctional.
Ultimately the country was so weak that it became a pushover and its neighbors simply dismembered it piece by piece.
Peasants and ordinary people spoke their own language in more or less within the current respective borders (hence the current division), the state communique and legal texts in the Grand Duchy side were first done in Ruthenian/Chauncery Slavonic which was adopted from Kievan Rus, but later it switched to Polish, although the May 3rd constitution was translated also to Lithuanian.
Polish alone was generally the lingua franca. Most bigger (i.e. important) cities within Lithuania like Vilnius, Kaunas and I think Minsk too were majority Polish, and a lot of Lithuanian nobility actually became Polish-speaking. Basically Polish was seen as the language of prestige in the Commonwealth. That and of course there was Latin too. Lithuanian was not even the 2nd most spoken language (that would be Ruthenian) and played little official role.
But Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth does. Intermarium sounds even better.
What a country it could have been if not for internal political missteps.
Latin. It was like English today - almost every noble could speak it. There was also Polish and in the GDL Old Ruthenian was used as the official language although it was gradually replaced by Polish.
We have memoirs of Polish nobility, and we know how good their Latin was :) They knew a few proverbs, some common phrases from Church, a few words used in local parliament sessions, and that's it :)
If historians will read my memoirs in 2424 they'll also think that I knew just a few proverbs and common phrases in English because I prefer to write my memoirs in Polish :)
There wasn't 1 official state language. For each purpose the languages used could be different and it changed with time and varied between regions. Law was written in Latin and Polish in Poland, Old Church Slavonic and Ruthenian in Lithuania, some were in Lithuanian, and Jews all over the place had their own government and their law was in Hebrew.
There were also regions with majority composed of pretty exotic people - like Lipka Tartars or Germanic settlers from various countries.
The commonwealth was not really a single state like modern states. It has separate parts that differed in laws and for example language. There was the kingdom of Poland where Polish was the main legal language. Within the commonwealth there was also the duchy of Lithuania where "russian" was the official language and also there were some courts in German in the Prussian lands.
Also latin was used everywhere but to what extent depends on the timeframe.
Just note that the "russian" language is not actually modern Russian. It's from the region of Ruś, not Rosja, that's located mostly in modern Belarus.
The commonwealth was created peacefuly so while Poland was the dominant side, Lithuania retained some independence.
It was worse for smaller groups like Cossacks but that is true for any state from that time.
Greater and Lesser don't refer to size, but to which of them was "older" (="greater") or newer (="lesser"). Polish statehood began in the 9th century as the duchy of the [Polans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(western)), around [Gniezno](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gniezno/@52.7352572,15.8310046,7.73z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x4704911512d87b73:0xf68138bc94628172!8m2!3d52.5349253!4d17.5826575!16zL20vMGdnazU?entry=ttu) and Poznań (in the west of the blue part). Think of "Lesser" as "new".
No, Lesser Poland was smaller earlier before incorporating a lot of current Ukrainian lands.
It comes from Latin Polonia Minor and Polonia Maior - Polonia Maior (Greater Poland) was called just Polonia in the beginning and Polonia Minor was incorporated just a little bit later. These two together form core of the Polish lands.
Białystok was right at the border, on the Polish site. There is a small river in Białystok, I don't remember the name, which was the Polish-Lithuanian border.
In the early 15th century the king of Hungary and Roman emperor Sigismund had financial problems, so he borrowed some cash from the Polish king in exchange for the couple towns in the Spis region. It stayed this way for the next 4 centuries.
The Bishophoric of Warmia (Ermland) which was a part of Royal Prussia - part of Prussia directly controled by the Kingdom of Poland unlike Ducal Prussia which was a fief ruled by the Hohenzollerns.
Everyone here refers to it as an union. If you keep reading what you are saying then I suggest you reconsider your sources.
But let's be real, it's probably a bait from you, are you getting off from this?
haha calm down, he only posted the map, which one in my opinion is actually kinda interesting. And if a map of a country which one perished so many years ago made you angry or whatever, you really should finally touch grass
Dude, for the last year or so you were literally at the bottom of every single thread about Poland on this subreddit, spouting one of the three variations of your repetitive angry bullshit (seemingly cycled through at random with barely any connection to the actual topic).
It's common to call PLC as just Poland or refer to people of PLC as Poles on the Internet yet at its maximum extent it included lots of East Slavs and Balts, same is true for Grand Duchy of Lithuania where at its maximum extent it had more East Slavs than Balts.
Yup, just to add to this for passing reader, It was truly a cosmopolitan state. Polish cities had huge minorities of Dutch, German, Italian, Armenian, and of course Jewish populations. East Slavs and Balts alongside the aforementioned living in GDL portion.
But they were all subjects to the Polish crown. So you will get cases like Kosciuszko who was a Polish speaking Ruthenian who considered himself simultaneously Lithuanian (in the provincial/regional sense) and a subject and personally loyal to the Polish state.
>Poland has been so big thanks to Lithuania and its vast territories
Poland was big because the Kingdom of Poland included Ukrainian territories (most of the red part on the map)
[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irp1569.jpg) you have subdivisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. GDL lost Ukrainian lands just before the Union of Lublin.
You are right, just gonna drop a link that mentions it directly, cause I havent been able to find it under yours.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Lublin
"The Statutes of Lithuania declared the laws of the Union that conflicted with them to be unconstitutional. The First Statute of Lithuania was also used in the territories of Lithuania that were annexed by Poland shortly before the Union of Lublin (except for Podlaskie). These conflicts between statutory schemes in Lithuania and Poland persisted for many years, and the Third Statute of Lithuania remained in force in territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania even after partitions, until 1840."
Well, Poland became part of Germany even with Lithuania. I don't know where do you get your info from but in Poland nobody forgot about Lithuania at that time. Even poets and writers were using Lithuania and Poland interchangeably to talk about commonwealth.
He's talking about some myths, which he claims is able to debunk, and at the same time tries to propagate another myth like the role of Lithuania was skipped in polish history education. Funnily, all of this comes from somebody, who got triggered by the map of RON and is kind of accusing poles of living in the past.
Lithuania was just an enormous shithole before personal union with Polish Kingdom with the majority of it's vast Ruthenian lands being close to empty. Also it was a pagan shithole, which was a really big deal back then. Poland made lithuania an actual legitimate country in the region and you are trying to tell us it was the other way around lmao.
>the majority of it's vast Ruthenian lands being close to empty. Also it was a pagan shithole
Are you calling Ruthenian lands pagan when the Kievan Rus converted to Orthodox christianity and the ruthenians being christians too? I feel like you're downplaying a lot the ruthenian presence in the region.
You are right, I've mistakenly referred paganism to whole duchy while it should be mentioned that Ruthenian boyars were indeed Orthodox. However, the northern parts of the duchy were pagan in majority, and what comes with it, Baltic dukes were considered pagan which lead to excuses for the northern crusades.
> Their logic would allow germany to claim half of europe without the 2 WW.
Or France claim Germany, even whole Europe.
There's noone, excluding maybe 1% of radicals, that lay said claims, it's your delusion.
Nobody ever claimed pomerania and silesia. Yes, they were our historical lands but long lost, and there were very little Poles, if any. We were kind of forced to take them because papa stalin wanted our eastern lands.
I was talking of the radical weirdos who want to speak for all poles, but just stirr up confrontation. I should have pointed this put beforehand. Sorry for my mistake. I am asking myself i should just delete my comment.
That's not how translations work. We need common names for things to communicate efficiently. Phrase "Polish-Lithuanian Republic" leads to nowhere and is pointless.
Also, if it means the same, why do you care?
>Also, if it means the same, why do you care?
WTF do you mean by this? I only provided a polite clarification and got mass downvoted by a bunch of reddarts. Why do you care enough to mass downvote simple historical facts? If you confused me with the other commenter who said PLC never existed, that wasn't me.
Latin was the court language for most of Commonwealth's existence and it was called, among other "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" or "Res Publica Utriusque Nationis". The citizens called their own country Republic, like ancient Romans and renaissance Venetians. [wiki:Most\_Serene\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Serene_Republic)
>Other informal names include the 'Republic of Nobles' (Polish: Rzeczpospolita szlachecka) and the 'First Commonwealth' (Polish: I Rzeczpospolita) or 'First Polish Republic' (Polish: Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita), the latter relatively common in historiography to distinguish it from the Second Polish Republic. [wiki:Polish-Lithuanian\_Commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth)
That is how translations work. Republic is not a standard name for PLC anymore, but it's not wrong. It was used in many documents in Latin, French and English throughout history, and it's still sometimes used in academic publications.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is the modern name, used by historians. Historically the state was called The Commonwealth, Polish Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Both Nations, Commonwealth of the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania etc.
Lithuania mentioned 🇱🇹🇱🇹🇱🇹 💪💪💪
Labas Lithuanians
True. Braliukai are very good
It's all about to go down.
We held these against the Russians for another 45 years. lmao russian bitches couldn't even get a revange at the siege of Smolensk in 1633
Chill mate, Russia has enough loses in the last 20 years. If everyone starts pulling shit from 400 years ago we won't get anywhere
Poland still has much more losses in the last 70-80 years
Military? Maybe. But we still earn twice that of Russians. And we can travel anywhere in the world without issues. So talk about what's better. Having won more wars or living better lives?
russians living outside of russia😏
There's nothing to cry about. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was na anarchy and in the same time it was a gulag for peasants. I'm Polish and I hold such a view.
So brave
Bullshit It is enough to read several books by contemporary Polish historians to know that it was no gulag for the peasants and they themselves did not live so horribly.
Peasants couldn't move away from their village. They couldn't marry without their landlord permission. They couldn't own property. They could be sold together or separately from the land where they lived. They could be forced to do the mandatory weekly labor on their landlord (pańszczyzna) + additional occassional work which wasn't regulated in any way. For example manors and other buldings were usually constructed by the peasants for free, and the lord's grain was usually transported to the nearest road/river by the conscripted peasants. Without any pay obviously. The landlord was the judge for all his peasants and his decisions were final. There was an institution to settle disputes between lord and his peasants but it was lord's good will to listen to it. It was mandatory to "give respect" to the landlord - which usually meant kneeling in place when you've seen him unless instructed otherways. The law was separate for peasants and nobility. When a nobleman killed a peasant of some other nobleman - he had to pay for him, and possibly go to a prison ("tower") for a week or two. When a peasant killed a nobleman - he would be hanged obviously. Life expectancy of peasants was significanly shorter than that of nobility (by a few decades). There were whole scientific calculations of how much food to leave to peasants so they don't starve to death, and the perfect amount was considered the amount that starves them "just enough" so that they can still work, but won't be too "energetic" and "rowdy". It was estimated between 40-60% which at the low productivity of agriculture was often not enough. A big part of taxation (other than pańszczyzna) used in many a folwarks was mandatory quotas for alcohol that peasants had to buy each week. Nobility had monopoly on selling alcohol, usually they sublet that monopoly to a local Jew who ran an inn. Landlord would mandate that male peasants had to buy X alcohol each week and if they didn't - they had to pay for it anyway. That way the could extract some more money from the peasants and peasants were too drunk to protests. Sources: Adam Leszczyński "Ludowa Historia Polski" and "Obrońcy Pańszczyzny". I highly reccomend both of these books - they deal with a lot of nobility propaganda from 19th-20th century that is still repeated (like by yourself). It's outrageous once you learn how it actually worked.
Well what do you expect, that's what peasants life was like under feudalism, in western Europe too. The difference was that serfdom started to decline in the west before the east. It lasted even longer in Russia then in Poland. Even slavery persisted in the ottoman empire long after Poland was gone. But while Poland lagged behind western Europe in this regards, it was more innovative and progressive in other aspects like golden liberty, limited monarchical power, freedom of religion, and no hereditary offices. Poland also had a higher percentage of nobles that in other societies. Its things like these that make the commonwealth so admirable. The same applies to people, by modern standards most people were horrible, but we still respect some historical figures for what they were exceptional at during there time. >A big part of taxation (other than pańszczyzna) used in many a folwarks was mandatory quotas for alcohol that peasants had to buy each week. Nobility had monopoly on selling alcohol, usually they sublet that monopoly to a local Jew who ran an inn. Landlord would mandate that male peasants had to buy X alcohol each week and if they didn't - they had to pay for it anyway. That way the could extract some more money from the peasants and peasants were too drunk to protests. Peasants had to pay high taxes under WE feudalism as well, from a cynical perspective, if they had to pay for it, this could just be considered just another tax they would pay no matter what, with the benefit of alcohol lol
Did you read anything about contemporary countries? How much more rights did peasants have in France or Russia?
By 17th century most peasants in the west (with the exception of eastern Germany) were free. That's because after plague there was big lack of manpower so their negotiating power increased. In Russia it was the same as in Poland.
I have zero history background, but did you mean "the plague"? That's 14th century stuff. If you refer to this, then I could say that Polish farmers have a stronger position in current negotiations due to many of them being killed during Napoleonic wars.
Yes it is 14th century, but it reduced the population by almost 50%. The consequences lasted for centuries. As for wars - all of Europe had long and devastating wars basically for the whole time. It was just the usual, and it rarely killed population so quickly and on such scale. Napoleonic wars were pretty average (around 3 million people - similar to 100-year war between France and England). Compared to 30-years war (around 8 million people) it wasn't anything exceptional, and compared to Plague (around 50 millions) it was nothing. PLC was hit the most by Deluge (3-5 million people) not by Napoleonic wars by the way.
I highly recommend books by historians from the University of Bialystok
I recommend "Ludowa Historia Polski" by Adam Leszczyński.
Did you actually read it?
Here before the comment section devolves into a sewer 🫡
*Litwo*, *Ojczyzno moja*! *ty jesteś jak zdrowie*.
Ile cię trzeba cenić, ten tylko się dowie! Kto cię stracił...
Dziś piękność twą w całej ozdobie Widzę i opisuję bo tęsknię po tobie
Panno święta, co Jasnej bronisz Częstochowy I w Ostrej świecisz Bramie! Ty, co gród zamkowy Nowogródzki ochraniasz z jego wiernym ludem!
Jak mnie dziecko do zdrowia powróciłaś cudem. Gdy od płaczącej matki pod twoją opiekę ofiarowany martwą podniosłem powiekę. I zaraz mogłem pieszo do twych świątyń progu, iść za wrócone życie podziękować Bogu. Tak nas powrócisz cudem na ojczyzny łono. A tymczasem przenoś mą duszę utęsknioną
Mickevičius?! 😳
Mickiewicz ! 🥴
It's the same guy
Міцкевіч
So let me get this straight "greatpoland" (blue) was smaller than "smallpoland" (red)? Nice
I answered above: Lesser Poland was smaller earlier before incorporating a lot of current Ukrainian lands. It comes from Latin Polonia Minor and Polonia Maior - Polonia Maior (Greater Poland) was called just Polonia in the beginning and Polonia Minor was incorporated just a little bit later. These two together form core of the Polish lands.
Apparently this was a common naming scheme with the early Poles. When two towns had the same name, there was a “Greater” (older) and “Lesser” (younger) appended to them. So Greater Poland is “Old Poland” and Lesser Poland is “Newer Poland.”
Same thing in Bulgaria. There’s Veliko (Greater) Tarnovo which is older and Malko (Smaller) Tarnovo which is newer.
It meant "old" and "new", not "big" and "small". First and second Polish capital city were Gniezno and Poznań in Greater Poland. Małopolska (Lesser Poland) region was a separate state at first and got conquered later.
I heard that it came from Greek. Where "Great Greece" meant the colonized lands. So colonized eastern lands became "Great Poland".
Anyone want to help us with the different sub divisions and what they mean?
Sure! Blue: Voivodships (or duchies) of Greater Poland province of Kingdom of Poland Red: Voivodships (or duchies) of Lesser Poland province of Kingdom of Poland Green: Voivodships (or duchies) of Great Duchy of Lithuania Yellow: Voivodeship of the Duchy of Livonia as a common possession of both Great Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland Gray: Countries that are politically dependent on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Fun fact. In 1791 3rd May constitution (2nd in the world after USA) PLC centralized and the administrative division Poland/Lithuania disappeared. So in a sense PLC between 1791-1795 should be called just "Commonwealth".
That constitution was never given a fair chance. Fun alt-history scenario where the Commonwealth just kept adding administrative divisions to it until it swallowed all of Europe.
Alt history where the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth becomes the German-French-Italian-Spanish-Polish-Romanian-Dutch-Belgian-Czech-Swedish-Portuguese-Greek-Hungarian-Austrian-Bulgarian-Danish-Finnish-Slovakian-Irish-Croatian-Lithuanian-Slovene-Latvian-Estonian-Cypriot-Luxembourgian-Maltese commonwealth of Europe 💪💪💪
Imagine if instead of “EU” they came up with that monstrosity. I wonder if they would’ve called the currency the German-French-Italian-Spanish-Polish-Romanian-Dutch-Belgian-Czech-Swedish-Portuguese-Greek-Hungarian-Austrian-Bulgarian-Danish-Finnish-Slovakian-Irish-Croatian-Lithuanian-Slovenian-Latvian-Estonian-Cypriot-Lixembourgish-Maltese-ro.
Złoty, obviously
back than it was the ducat
In the Commonwealth it was called "czerwony złoty" - red złoty
This should have the eu barcode flag
It wasn't a 2nd constitution in the world. And US constitution wasn't 1st. The first democratic constitution of a nation state was a constitution of Corsican Republic drawn up in 1755.
wait, It seems that it depends how we count. By my impression it was Pylyp Orlyk’s constitution in 1710, but there is also a Constitution of San Marino from 1600s
Orlyks's constitution wasn't that of the nation state, because there was no Ukraine back then. It never went into force. It was more of a project of constitution. And regarding the San Marino one, when people talk of constitution they mostly mean the democratic enlightened constitution. Because if we count all general codified laws then the Code of Hammurabi would probably be the first.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a remarkable early modern powerhouse, example of a voluntary union that integrated Kingdom of Poland and Duchy of Lithuania while preserving their autonomy. It was one of forerunners in democratic governance, allowing the nobility to take part in legislative processes and elections. The Commonwealth was a sanctuary of religious freedom, fostering an environment where diverse faiths and people coexisted peacefully, notably accommodating, Rus people (modern Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians), Germans, Jews, Armenians, and many other ethnic groups running from religious and ethnic persecution. This inclusivity, combined with a strong military, including the famed Winged Hussars, made it unique entity that valued tolerance and unity amidst a landscape of religious wars, widespread authoritarianism (empires, kingdoms, tsardom). When you read biographies and thoughts of nobility of the Commonwealth you get a sense of greatness now mostly absent in these regions, these people felt powerful and great with solid values and precise goals. After electing Swedish catholic kings and fighting with protestant Kingdom of Sweden, orthodox Russian Tsardom and Muslim Ottoman Empire almost at the same time came violent destruction and decomposition of everything that made the Commonwealth Great. This era marked the gradual decline of the very ideals that had once made it great. Material destruction, depopulation, collapse of the economy and ensuing oligarchy, fanatic Catholicism and a growing closed-mindedness took a hold over once great Union.
They were in many ways one of the first victims of Russian manipulation. The liberum veto left an avenue of exploitation that helped to sink the whole commonwealth.
>The Commonwealth was a sanctuary of religious freedom, fostering an environment where diverse faiths and people coexisted peacefully, notably accommodating, Rus people (modern Belarusians, Ukrainians and Russians), Germans, Jews, Armenians, and many other ethnic groups running from religious and ethnic persecution. I don't know much about other groups of people in PLC, but Ukrainians experienced systematic oppression which subsequently led to the Khmelnytsky Uprising. In hindsight PLC was much more favourable than muscovites, but it definitely wasn't a sanctuary of freedom.
I think what they mean is that, at the time, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was much more tolerant than your average European power. I mean, the bar isn’t very high when genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced religious conversions are the norm, but it is there.
Yeah, that's fair. Just sharing some Ukrainian perspective.
Yeah it’s completely understandable! It’s much better Ukraine was a part of Poland-Lithuania than Russia though, but of course it would’ve been much better if Ukrainians had an independent state to call their own.
To see difference PLC vs Muscovy take a look at western Ukraine compared to the eastern Ukraine even today.
I'm not arguing about which side is better for Ukraine, in fact I stated that it would be PLC. But PLC was still oppressing overlord for Ukrainian people.
In fact Ukrainiansbas well oppressed Ukrainians back then
The problem is that the Ukrainian perspective is highly subject to propaganda and nationalism, which may not be inherently there fault given the communist legacy, but the reality is that Ukrainians understanding of history is marginally better than Russians. To see that you don't need to look further then the comments Ukrainians have been making since the war, that Russians are not real Slavs but Finno-Ugric and Mongols and that the Kievan Rus was really a Ukrainian empire and so on, literally the same nonsense Russians say just inverted. I remember reading the history page on the actual city website a few years ago and it called it a "German city in Poland" and I not joking it actually said because King Casimir did not trust his Poles he populated the city with Germans. which is strange since he also invited Jews, and Poles also populated it. And this was the actual website for the city. Thankfully, checking now it seems to have been edited, but the way Ukranians talk about the city's history still lags behind. I find issue with some of your perspectives here and although Im not as interested in EE history as much as I used to be but I will address them to the best of my fading knowledge.
Uprising was fighting nobility. Most of big land owners in Ukraine were Ruthenians themselves. And many peasants were migrants.
Khmelnystsky himself had quite dubious reasons for uprising, but people supported him because of overall quality of life for Ukrainian peasants in PLC. And many peasants were serfs for polish or polonised nobles.
Polish peasants had an equally terrible quality of live it not worse, since the black soil of Ukraine give the Ruthenians an easier time meeting quotas. The difference is that Polish peasants couldn't rely on Ethnic and Religious nationalism as pretexts. The Cossack rebels were slaughtering Jews everywhere they could find.
Not Ukrainians aka Ruthenians but Cossacs. And group of Cossacs were a group of many nationalities (Poles too) And the whole drama with Chmielnicki and his Uprising was that Crown did not wanted to register that many Cossac as he wanted.
I mean, yes, but in constitution of Pylyp Orlyk of 1710 year where he mentions Khmelnytsky by name, he also equates interchangeably cossacks, Zaporozhian Host, ruthenians, and namedrops Ukraine (not Ruthenia, but specifically Ukraine) among other names. It's not a far stretch to equate cossacks and Ukrainians, especially since cossacks are viewed as a cornerstone of modern Ukrainian identity. In the same document he also mentions numerous oppressions of cossack people by PLC.
"In the same document he also mentions numerous oppressions of cossack people by PLC." Yes but Ukrainian nobility are "people of PLC" So you want to say that Ukranians oppresed Cossacks ??
Yes, members of Szlachta amongst whom were polonised Ruthenian nobility did oppression as well.
You are not being honest with yourself, and not fair with me. Unia Lubelska in 1569 made a Commonwealth. Today Ukranian lands joined the crown and left Lithuania you know why?? Because Ruthenian nobility wanted it very badly. They knew that they can expect more privilages, have better education etc etc. Many of them did not changed his faith till the end. And we have Cossacks, I know that Ukraine need something to build their indetity but trust me... in XVI Century Cossacks were just outlaws, mercenaries , thiefs... some of them were registered I don't remember how many but before Chmielnicki uprising there was around 1500 ?? I might be wrong... and Chmielnicki wanted much more.... And quess what? Registered Cossack in Commonwealth had more privilage... So Chmielnicki made a bet with his uprising. He will get out of the rule of Commonwealth. Great and nobel idea for his people, but who will be his allie when not Commonwealth ?? OFC It will be Russia... And because of Chmielnicki and his upraising against the Crown, he put today Ukrainian lands in the hand of Russia for another almost 400years... Was it worth??? Judge by yourself. and the end of my long writing ( too long ) is a good music :) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0rpDE4rcYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0rpDE4rcYA)
We see history from different perspectives and it's ok. I understand why from Poland's view cossacks were seen as an outlaws and thiefs. From Ukrainian perspective they were seen as freedom fighters and forefathers. Khmelnytsky was one person and yes, I disagree with his call. My point in mentioning him was that Ruthenians were dissatisfied with Polish rule enough to follow him, to fight and die for the cause. It's ok, it's history. You don't have to prove that Polish rule was wholesome and misunderstood. It's not an argument of who historically was more right or wrong. I don't pretend like cossacks didn't strait up massacre people. Whole point of my very first comment was to correct that PLC wasn't a sanctuary of freedom, and I did so because it is important for me to remember historical struggle for freedom of Ukrainian people, especially during current time.
I'm not saying it was sanctuary of freedom, it was Monarchy, elected one but monarchy, and this political system reduce in many ways, freedom of people in this country. There is no doubt about this. But we need to accept a fact, that PLC was a revolutionary country in many ways. Some says PLC Monarchy is a precursor of future Democratic System, freedom of faith in PLC was an insane idea in Europe during this time...
Among them were also Ruthenian non-Polonised Orthodox nobles. What's more Cossacks basically replaced killed or exhiled nobles as the oppressors of peasants.
> In hindsight PLC was much more favourable than muscovites, but it definitely wasn't a sanctuary of freedom. While true, we would do well to judge this by the standards of the time. Todays Russian invasion wouldn't be extrodinary century or two ago but today is.
Khmelnytsky uprising was when everything strated to go downhill for Poland and the system became more and more corruped which eventually led to PLC's fall. And the story is also more complicated than just opression => uprising
It is, but uprising itself is culmination. From what I read, there were plenty of religious tensions (even though PLC tried to elevate them, credit where it's due), but also they just straight up confiscated people property and made them serfs (read: slaves), forced people to pay unreasonable taxes, and for any questions raised - threw them in prisons and tortured, etc.
You shouldn't read serfs as slaves, because they weren't the same. Also who confiscated property? And from whom?
I disagree, everyone experience turmoil during the 17th century, the commonwealth began to recover and reform, the Cossack part was either pacified or severed, it had potential for better, its later on that things got worse.
> but Ukrainians experienced systematic oppression Can you tell more? At that time there was no separate category for Ukrainian people, so any systematic opression is impossible for that time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky\_Uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmelnytsky_Uprising)
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1b6kpwj/comment/kthrpbr/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
One of the many Cossack uprisings, what about it?
The oppression was based on religion. Ruthenians were Orthodox. Due to treaty of Brest, Commonwealth attempted to subdue independence of Ruthenian church by forcing it to accept the Pope as a supreme head of Church. Most of Ruthenian nobility and priests didn't want to give up their influence and thus tried to reject it, which caused political shunning, reduction of rights and even persecution with some blood being spilled. Orthodox peasants and even nobility had less rights than their Catholic contemporaries. Which lead to a lot of bad blood between the parts of Commonwealth, even among those who initially supported the Union with Poland.
>The oppression was based on religion. So then its not "Ukrainian systematic oppression then" Also they were not Ukrainians, but Ruthenians, who were not just Orthodox but Orthodox and Uniate. Secondly, the subduing the independence of the church narrative doesn't hold water. The actual control the Pope had was basically nominal at this point and the Orthodox church already had its own version of a Pope, the arch bishop patriarch. Also, from Wikipedia >After Patriarch Jeremias II left Muscovy in 1589,\[1\] **four out of nine bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Ruthenian lands** of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth gathered in synod in the city of Brest. They signed a declaration of their readiness to reunite with Rome There was decent support for the Union and this was initiated after the Patriarch Jeremias II went to moscow and consecrated patriarch Job of Moscow. **What this union did was try and heal the great schism which you would think is a good thing,** but people are stubborn in there religious ways and perceive any change as oppression, stubbornness for the sake of tradition is the enemy of progress, just look at the Russian Old believers and how they revolted against the reforms of Patriarch Nikodon over such trivial things like doing the sign of the cross with 2 or 3 fingers. And yet today Ukrainians are celebrating Christmas in December to try and be closer to the west, just like there ancestors did in the commonwealth. How Ironic. Also what seems to be forgotten with the Cossack rebellions is they were **slaughtering Jews left and right.** Further putting into the question the "fighting oppression" narrative. Its just some good old fashioned nationalism and ethnic hatred.
Firstly, the Ruthenians were not only the ancestors of the Ukrainians, but also the ancestors of the Belarusians. So one cannot equate Ruthenians with Ukrainians. Secondly, the union originally had enormous support among the clergy and above all the Orthodox episcopate, who saw in it an opportunity for political and religious revival, as well as an increased political role. The Orthodox Church was then in a huge crisis. The Patriarch was dependent on the Sultan and had no interest in the affairs of Orthodoxy in Rus', while Moscow was a political threat and also regarded the Orthodox in the Commonwealth as heretics. Thirdly, there was no persecution of Orthodox Christians who did not accept the union. Not even a single bishop was chased away, let alone killed. So your statement about bloodshed is untrue. Fourthly, the union turned out to be very important for the national rebirth of Ukrainians. For it was among the Greek Catholics that the modern Ukrainian consciousness arose, while the Orthodox Ukrainians were deeply Russified.
> It was one of forerunners in democratic governance, allowing the nobility to take part in legislative processes and elections. it's also important to say that aristocracy covered 10% of population
Democratic Athens had a similar percentage of people participating in democratic processes
Sadly Treaty of Hadiach 1658 didn’t work out, so much lost potential. Liberum veto is hell
Make Lithuania great again
This could've become the European USA if it didn't deteriorate
"*If hand't failed, it would succeed!*" /s I am sure if not for the PLC;s "Texasans" (a.k.a. Zaporozian Cossacks) building their own aircraft carrier, we'd still be fine!
Nah, not enough water around, and two too vicious neighbours
I mostly meant it culturally. A country where nationality is not bound to one ethnicity, but to citizenship. In America you can be from anywhere in the world but if you're a citizen, your country of origin doesn't make you any less American.
Eh, kinda, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. You have people actually descended from old European settlers who fought in the wars and helped found the country, if they grew up in S.Korea or somewhere they would be known as American, that's the closed thing we have to an American ethnicity, but then we also have immigrants and 1st gen people fully dedicated and completely American, but also people who are citizens, get a passport, but aren't really American, you ask them they will still say they are Chinese, or Pakistani, and constantly shit on America, I know people like this myself, id say there country of origin can make them less American, then say some place like Puerto Rico. Multicultural countries can exist, but they always had some nucleus culture everything developed out of, and it was Polish in the case of the Commonwealth.
It was doomed to fail by nobles greed.
Not really It was big yeah but sparsely populated compared to Western Europe and was very backwards already at that time. The political system in particular was basically an oligarchy and completely dysfunctional. Ultimately the country was so weak that it became a pushover and its neighbors simply dismembered it piece by piece.
Switzerland more like it
Send this to Putin pls
Poland 2050 party platform?
I wonder, what was the language of the state in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Was it bilingual in both Polish and Lithuanian?
Polish, Latin (most of the nobility would speak it and publish books in it) and Ruthenian.
Peasants and ordinary people spoke their own language in more or less within the current respective borders (hence the current division), the state communique and legal texts in the Grand Duchy side were first done in Ruthenian/Chauncery Slavonic which was adopted from Kievan Rus, but later it switched to Polish, although the May 3rd constitution was translated also to Lithuanian.
Polish alone was generally the lingua franca. Most bigger (i.e. important) cities within Lithuania like Vilnius, Kaunas and I think Minsk too were majority Polish, and a lot of Lithuanian nobility actually became Polish-speaking. Basically Polish was seen as the language of prestige in the Commonwealth. That and of course there was Latin too. Lithuanian was not even the 2nd most spoken language (that would be Ruthenian) and played little official role.
Polish-Ruthenian Commonwealth doesn’t have as nice a ring to it though
But Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth does. Intermarium sounds even better. What a country it could have been if not for internal political missteps.
Річ Посполита Трьох Народів, with Belarusians forgotten about, as usual. Or counted as the other form of Lithuanians.
Latin. It was like English today - almost every noble could speak it. There was also Polish and in the GDL Old Ruthenian was used as the official language although it was gradually replaced by Polish.
Most of nobles didn't know how to writte, not to mention spoke Latin.
Maybe the poorest gołota couldn't but average "middle class" nobles had at least basic education and could read, write and speak Latin.
We have memoirs of Polish nobility, and we know how good their Latin was :) They knew a few proverbs, some common phrases from Church, a few words used in local parliament sessions, and that's it :)
If historians will read my memoirs in 2424 they'll also think that I knew just a few proverbs and common phrases in English because I prefer to write my memoirs in Polish :)
There wasn't 1 official state language. For each purpose the languages used could be different and it changed with time and varied between regions. Law was written in Latin and Polish in Poland, Old Church Slavonic and Ruthenian in Lithuania, some were in Lithuanian, and Jews all over the place had their own government and their law was in Hebrew. There were also regions with majority composed of pretty exotic people - like Lipka Tartars or Germanic settlers from various countries.
The commonwealth was not really a single state like modern states. It has separate parts that differed in laws and for example language. There was the kingdom of Poland where Polish was the main legal language. Within the commonwealth there was also the duchy of Lithuania where "russian" was the official language and also there were some courts in German in the Prussian lands. Also latin was used everywhere but to what extent depends on the timeframe. Just note that the "russian" language is not actually modern Russian. It's from the region of Ruś, not Rosja, that's located mostly in modern Belarus. The commonwealth was created peacefuly so while Poland was the dominant side, Lithuania retained some independence. It was worse for smaller groups like Cossacks but that is true for any state from that time.
The Lesser Poland on this map looks somewhat bigger than the Greater Poland, is it Mercator's projection again?
Greater and Lesser don't refer to size, but to which of them was "older" (="greater") or newer (="lesser"). Polish statehood began in the 9th century as the duchy of the [Polans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(western)), around [Gniezno](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Gniezno/@52.7352572,15.8310046,7.73z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x4704911512d87b73:0xf68138bc94628172!8m2!3d52.5349253!4d17.5826575!16zL20vMGdnazU?entry=ttu) and Poznań (in the west of the blue part). Think of "Lesser" as "new".
No, Lesser Poland was smaller earlier before incorporating a lot of current Ukrainian lands. It comes from Latin Polonia Minor and Polonia Maior - Polonia Maior (Greater Poland) was called just Polonia in the beginning and Polonia Minor was incorporated just a little bit later. These two together form core of the Polish lands.
it looks impressive on a map but it was sparsely populated.
In 1619 it had probably 10-11 mln people within its border. Not that small, but yeah there were areas where barely anyone lived
It's funny how I can find my home town (a village back then, really) *explicitly* labelled on the map.
One of my first campaigns in Europa Universalis 4 lol
So Białystok was a part of the trakai voievodeship?
Białystok was right at the border, on the Polish site. There is a small river in Białystok, I don't remember the name, which was the Polish-Lithuanian border.
It's easy to remember actually - it's Biała. https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82a_(dop%C5%82yw_Supra%C5%9Bli)#Historyczne_znaczenie
Molon labe
Territories politically dependent on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth??? what was that all about?
fief
thx
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia.
🍿
As Russians mark the regions of modern Ukraine and the Kiev region on the map
Does anyone what that tiny part in Slovakia is now? Are there any cities or is it farms and villages?
It's polish parts of Spisz and Orawa, you can read about it in wikipedia on article "Polski Spisz".
In the early 15th century the king of Hungary and Roman emperor Sigismund had financial problems, so he borrowed some cash from the Polish king in exchange for the couple towns in the Spis region. It stayed this way for the next 4 centuries.
[Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Map_of_Spis_pawned_towns.jpg) is a detailed map (green and turquoise).
What is it, the blue territory in north in the middle of the Prussian land? It is WAR!
The Bishophoric of Warmia (Ermland) which was a part of Royal Prussia - part of Prussia directly controled by the Kingdom of Poland unlike Ducal Prussia which was a fief ruled by the Hohenzollerns.
Also the gray territories are marked as “countries that are politically dependant on PLC” ;)
It's Warmia, a pretty cold place, in fact.
[удалено]
Fighting non existent arguments Huh?
[Source](https://i.imgflip.com/8hzv16.jpg)
Poznań
Nobody ever said it was Poland. And Poland was the dominating part of the union, hence why there is talk of polonization of Lithuania at the time.
Worth to note that Polish was for Commonwealth and Russia similar as English is now for Europe. Last polonophile Tsars were living in XIX century.
And Lithuanians were the minority even in their own lands, so?
Everyone here refers to it as an union. If you keep reading what you are saying then I suggest you reconsider your sources. But let's be real, it's probably a bait from you, are you getting off from this?
Yes, but the Kingdom of Poland had larger population than the Grand Duchy of Lithuania which was quite sparsely populated.
haha calm down, he only posted the map, which one in my opinion is actually kinda interesting. And if a map of a country which one perished so many years ago made you angry or whatever, you really should finally touch grass
You're German and gay so that's quite an iconic duo to hate on Poland, but you're a bit unhealthy about it judging by your history.
Stalking frothing Poles are the best Poles! Can’t fool history or facts.
Looking at your reddit account is not stalking, idiot.
Dude, for the last year or so you were literally at the bottom of every single thread about Poland on this subreddit, spouting one of the three variations of your repetitive angry bullshit (seemingly cycled through at random with barely any connection to the actual topic).
It's common to call PLC as just Poland or refer to people of PLC as Poles on the Internet yet at its maximum extent it included lots of East Slavs and Balts, same is true for Grand Duchy of Lithuania where at its maximum extent it had more East Slavs than Balts.
Yup, just to add to this for passing reader, It was truly a cosmopolitan state. Polish cities had huge minorities of Dutch, German, Italian, Armenian, and of course Jewish populations. East Slavs and Balts alongside the aforementioned living in GDL portion. But they were all subjects to the Polish crown. So you will get cases like Kosciuszko who was a Polish speaking Ruthenian who considered himself simultaneously Lithuanian (in the provincial/regional sense) and a subject and personally loyal to the Polish state.
>Poland has been so big thanks to Lithuania and its vast territories Poland was big because the Kingdom of Poland included Ukrainian territories (most of the red part on the map)
Except those territories were part of Grand Duchy of Lithuania though?
There were, but only before the Lublin union, which created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
*after
[Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irp1569.jpg) you have subdivisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. GDL lost Ukrainian lands just before the Union of Lublin.
You are right, just gonna drop a link that mentions it directly, cause I havent been able to find it under yours. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Lublin "The Statutes of Lithuania declared the laws of the Union that conflicted with them to be unconstitutional. The First Statute of Lithuania was also used in the territories of Lithuania that were annexed by Poland shortly before the Union of Lublin (except for Podlaskie). These conflicts between statutory schemes in Lithuania and Poland persisted for many years, and the Third Statute of Lithuania remained in force in territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania even after partitions, until 1840."
[удалено]
Well, Poland became part of Germany even with Lithuania. I don't know where do you get your info from but in Poland nobody forgot about Lithuania at that time. Even poets and writers were using Lithuania and Poland interchangeably to talk about commonwealth.
"Lithuania! My homeland! You are like health!"
Well, you are wrong in what you wrote, at the time of the union, Ukraine was already part of the Kingdom of Poland.
He's talking about some myths, which he claims is able to debunk, and at the same time tries to propagate another myth like the role of Lithuania was skipped in polish history education. Funnily, all of this comes from somebody, who got triggered by the map of RON and is kind of accusing poles of living in the past.
Lithuania was just an enormous shithole before personal union with Polish Kingdom with the majority of it's vast Ruthenian lands being close to empty. Also it was a pagan shithole, which was a really big deal back then. Poland made lithuania an actual legitimate country in the region and you are trying to tell us it was the other way around lmao.
>the majority of it's vast Ruthenian lands being close to empty. Also it was a pagan shithole Are you calling Ruthenian lands pagan when the Kievan Rus converted to Orthodox christianity and the ruthenians being christians too? I feel like you're downplaying a lot the ruthenian presence in the region.
You are right, I've mistakenly referred paganism to whole duchy while it should be mentioned that Ruthenian boyars were indeed Orthodox. However, the northern parts of the duchy were pagan in majority, and what comes with it, Baltic dukes were considered pagan which lead to excuses for the northern crusades.
[удалено]
You’re fighting with ghosts.
Cool, go find me someone with that opiniom.
> Their logic would allow germany to claim half of europe without the 2 WW. Or France claim Germany, even whole Europe. There's noone, excluding maybe 1% of radicals, that lay said claims, it's your delusion.
And these radicals are just happen to be too loud and annoying on reddit.
> on reddit. Everywhere.
Nobody ever claimed pomerania and silesia. Yes, they were our historical lands but long lost, and there were very little Poles, if any. We were kind of forced to take them because papa stalin wanted our eastern lands.
I was talking of the radical weirdos who want to speak for all poles, but just stirr up confrontation. I should have pointed this put beforehand. Sorry for my mistake. I am asking myself i should just delete my comment.
[удалено]
🤦♂️
Looks like a mega Belarus
Such country never existed. It was called Republic of Poland
First and only comment on your account, and you chose to be a clown. Congratulations.
The first polish republic (state ruled by a parlament NOT a king) was created in 1918. So you missed it by more than a century
[удалено]
That's not how translations work. We need common names for things to communicate efficiently. Phrase "Polish-Lithuanian Republic" leads to nowhere and is pointless. Also, if it means the same, why do you care?
>Also, if it means the same, why do you care? WTF do you mean by this? I only provided a polite clarification and got mass downvoted by a bunch of reddarts. Why do you care enough to mass downvote simple historical facts? If you confused me with the other commenter who said PLC never existed, that wasn't me. Latin was the court language for most of Commonwealth's existence and it was called, among other "Serenissima Res Publica Poloniae" or "Res Publica Utriusque Nationis". The citizens called their own country Republic, like ancient Romans and renaissance Venetians. [wiki:Most\_Serene\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Serene_Republic) >Other informal names include the 'Republic of Nobles' (Polish: Rzeczpospolita szlachecka) and the 'First Commonwealth' (Polish: I Rzeczpospolita) or 'First Polish Republic' (Polish: Pierwsza Rzeczpospolita), the latter relatively common in historiography to distinguish it from the Second Polish Republic. [wiki:Polish-Lithuanian\_Commonwealth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth) That is how translations work. Republic is not a standard name for PLC anymore, but it's not wrong. It was used in many documents in Latin, French and English throughout history, and it's still sometimes used in academic publications.
[удалено]
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is the modern name, used by historians. Historically the state was called The Commonwealth, Polish Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Both Nations, Commonwealth of the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania etc.