What was life like in Poland-Lithuania? How did they compare to Western European powers...

What was life like in Poland-Lithuania? How did they compare to Western European powers? Why is it such an overlooked country?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Why is it such an overlooked country

Because the Austrians,Prussians and Russians have made a pact in 1795 to seclude the history of Poland from all formal studies and academic researches in order to fully justify their annexation of that country.

>How did they compare to Western European powers?

They were the most powerful European country throughout the entire 16th century.

>What was life like in Poland-Lithuania

Seemingly identical to any other central European country,except that the peasants allegedly had more rights,which resulted in many peasants fleeing from neighboring states to the Commonwealth.

Poland wasn't always a post-Soviet vassal state,the same can actually be said for everyone else in eastern and central Europe.

>Poland wasn't always a post-Soviet vassal state,the same can actually be said for everyone else in eastern and central Europe.
I never implied that, don't be so touchy.

>What was life like in Poland-Lithuania?
Pretty awful with all those poles everywhere

More similar to Russia than Europe.
You had a rulling class (around 10%) that elected a weak king, and their privileges led to anarchy, and the rest was mostly serfs who were treated pretty much like other EE serfs.
It could've been a very powerful state (and arguably was for some time), but systematic instability caused their collapse and partition by neighboring powers.
In 16th century, Ivan IV crushed nobility, meanwhile Polish nobility seized even more power. That's when Poland starts to crack and Russia starts to gain power.
By the way, their nobility was so elitist and detached from reality they considered themselves different people from Polish serfs.

>More similar to a country than a continent
stop that, that makes zero sense

>and the rest was mostly serfs who were treated pretty much like other eastern European serfs

Highly unlikely,given the fact that serfs from neighboring countries used to flee to the Commonwealth because it offered better terms

Austrians,Prussians and even Austrians had to increase their border guards just to keep their peasants from escaping.

It was a just a cautionary statement,I meant nothing touchy by it.

>and arguably was for some time
It was the most powerful European country throughout the 16th century.

> That's when Poland starts to crack

Poland began to crack because her metropolitan and heavily decentralized system of government was simply becoming incompatible with it's absolutist neighborhood.

>By the way, their nobility was so elitist and detached from reality they considered themselves different people from Polish serfs.

Source?
I think it was the other way. Serfs didn't consider themselves Poles, just because they didn't care. They considered themselves "locals"(just like probably in everywhere else) .

angry kraut

Literally too good for it's world.

Were liberal democracy based on Polish aristocratic rights (as expanded to every citizen) instead of French Rousseaunian bullshit, we wouldn't have communist plaguing us every time, btw.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatism

>They were the most powerful European country throughout the entire 16th century
bullshit. They were strong, sure, but nothing compared to France and England as an example. Most of the areas controlled by the commonwealth were also poor as shit in contrast to mid- and western Europe

Russia is far bigger than Europe. What is your point?

>Austrians,Prussians and even Austrians had to increase their border guards just to keep their peasants from escaping
The peasants "fleeing" from Prussia were mostly other Poles. Later on, however, they stopped doing that once Poland-Lithuania was partitioned and Prussia started heavily modernizing the ex-Polish provinces

Were Poles the Americans of the 17th century?

>huge military power that constantly wins battles and saves other people asses
>obssessed with "muh freedom and liberty"
>hates other peoples for having centralized governments, while they consider themselves unique for their anarchic constitution
>beneath the nobility luxury and glamour, most people live sorry exploited lives

Stop being a butthurt pollock. is a very good comment that answers OP's questions.

And is it unique only for Polish? I mean:
>muh ancient Sarmatians as ancient as Rome
and what is it different from Germans
>muh kings, we also conquered Rome
Italian
>we wuz Romans
French
>But Caesar did not have it all. One little region held out. A fortified village surrounded by entrenched Romans

etc.

>huge military power that constantly wins battles and saves other people asses
In which parallel world are you living?
inb4 "muh winged hussars charge"

So what does he mean by
>rest was mostly serfs who were treated pretty much like other EE serf
>like other EE serf
By sound of it i guess it is "negative one"
But compared to west
-small taxes
-no pandemics
-no famines
-no military service
Sounds good for me.

Also, the whole post is like
>Poles dun goofed, they should go genocide route like every neighbor.
Prussian problem? Gone, instead of vassalizing, polonize everyone, and if you can't, kill them, just like in the good old German way.
Cossacks are doing problems for other by pillaging everything? Let them. Also, free army.
Ruthenia with Rus people? More like Polenia, it would be bad if someone used them later creating "buffer zone nations"
etc.

>More similar to Russia than Europe.

>writes why poland was the opposite of russia

????

>Most of the areas controlled by the commonwealth were also poor as shit in contrast to mid- and western Europe
"It's a Slavic country,therefore it's shit by default,even though I know basically nothing of her history".

> sure, but nothing compared to France and England as an example

At that time,France was still recovering from all the devastating losses which she has suffered at the hands of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and king of Spain and England and please,England?At that time,England was a regional power,at best.

Stop being illiterate and I'll stop being butt-hurt,plus I'm not Polish.

> is a very good comment that answers OP's questions

Not even remotely so.The part about the nobles is true,but the rest is false as false goes.

If you're talking about the Black Plague, the reason the area roughly Poland went unaffected by it was that there was basically no trade or international commerce going on in Poland; it was spared the plague because it was so poor and uneventful that no one had any reason to go there.

I'd like to see sources on the rest. Perferably reliable ones. Do Polish schools actually teach that Poland was a promise land that peasants everywhere were fleeing to?

>If you're talking about the Black Plague, the reason the area roughly Poland went unaffected by it was that there was basically no trade or international commerce going on in Poland; it was spared the plague because it was so poor and uneventful that no one had any reason to go there.

By that rationale Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland, England, Principality of Moscow and tons of other states would be spared, because they were poorer than Poland at that time. And they got hit really hard. So it is very bad argument.
Oh, few cities also survived from plague, like Milan if i remember correctly. Milan, the very definition of poor and uneventful.

>Do Polish schools actually teach that Poland was a promise land that peasants everywhere were fleeing to?

I didn't write about this.

>I'd like to see sources on the rest. Perferably reliable ones.

>-no famines

I don't know how to find source that famine not happened.

>-no military service

The only attempt was Piechota Wybraniecka. Formed in late 16th century, peasants were recruited (one from every 20 łans (łan was 18-28 hectares)) from only Crown lands, and soon formation was disbanded from various reasons, because they were not numerous(at most 2k), nobility was heavily opposed to that idea, crown lands were small and more.
Also, proportion of nobility in Poland was like 8-15%, and they fulfilled all military requirements.

>-small taxes

The only tax was tithe (10%), + socage
For example, by decision of Sejm in 1520 (Przywilej Toruński) socage was equal to one day in a week.

lol Kazimierz Wielki has decreed quarantine on borders thats why

>Do Polish schools actually teach that Poland was a promise land that peasants everywhere were fleeing to

Do Western schools actually teach that Poland was an underdeveloped Slavic dominion whose greatest moment in history was when she was partitioned and governed by it's betters from Prussia,Austria and Russia?

> the reason the area roughly Poland went unaffected by it was that there was basically no trade or international commerce going on in Poland; it was spared the plague because it was so poor and uneventful that no one had any reason to go there.

A person who wrote something like this has the actual audacity to demand to see sources from people who're refuting his illiterate advances,this is priceless to say the least.

The actual reason why Poland was unaffected is because her ruler has declared an all-out quarantine.

Where you from,If I may ask?

> Do Western schools actually teach that Poland

48 year old American here, and in my day (and I expect it’s the same nowadays) Poland was completely ignored and may well have not have ever existed at all, as far as my history teachers were concerned. The only mention it got was the start of WWII.

>Poland was completely ignored and may well have not have ever existed at all, as far as my history teachers were concerned. The only mention it got was the start of WWII.

I truly find that difficult to believe,then I guess the pact which the Prussians,Russians and Austrians have made in 1795 to seclude the history of Poland from all formal studies and academic researches was more than fruitful.

that pic
>Kislev pls go

>At that time,France was still recovering from all the devastating losses which she has suffered at the hands of Charles V
France had a huge population, a permanent army, as well as permanent taxes. France was much more stronger than Poland. Besides, the stongest european army in the 16th century is the Castillan one and by a large margin.

>He said inb4 so my argument means nothing

But the Hussars were arguably the best cavalry units of all time

At that time,France was immeasurably weakened because of earlier mentioned reasons,their army was shattered .

>France was much more stronger than Poland

Certainly,but not in the 16th century.

>the strongest European army in the 16th century is the Castillan one and by a large margin

In Western Europe?Certainly,but that's about it.Just because they've defeated poorly led French armies doesn't make them "the strongest European army by a large margin".


>France had a huge population, a permanent army, as well as permanent taxes

The only thing Poland didn't have at that time was the compulsory peasant military service.

>"It's a Slavic country,therefore it's shit by default,even though I know basically nothing of her history".
never said that. Stop being so fucking salty about your nations history

It's just a fact that most of the land under the rule of the Commonwealth was indeed very poor. The area of Poland was obviously the most rich area in the Commonwealth but especially Lithuania was poor

>At that time,France was still recovering from all the devastating losses which she has suffered at the hands of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and king of Spain
France started heavily centralizing it's rule after losing most of its nobility in the 100 years war and was stronger than ever in the 16th and 17th centuries. You also brought up two other nations stronger than Poland: Habsburg controlled Spain and Austria

>At that time,England was a regional power,at best
England had a strong economy mostly relying on trade and was already building up its navy. Certainly more than just a "regional power"

But you've implied it,no point in denying it.

>The area of Poland was obviously the most rich area in the Commonwealth but especially Lithuania was poor

That changed irreversibly once the Commonwealth was consolidated and their culture Polonized.

>was stronger than ever in the 16th and 17th centuries

Doesn't help your case at all,given the fact what happened to French when they went against Charles the V.

>You also brought up two other nations stronger than Poland: Hapsburg controlled Spain and Austria

Wealthier,yes,but capable of going against the Commonwealth?Not even slightly,there is a reason why Charles sought peace with the East.

>England had a strong economy mostly relying on trade and was already building up its navy. Certainly more than just a "regional power"

Having a strong economy doesn't mean that you'll command greater influence,especially in a time where your king was excommunicated and started to support a branch of Christianity which at time was seen as nothing more but heretical movement.

>16th-17th century border guards monitoring migration

how the fuck does that even compute?

There's no international russo-germanic conspiracy, you're not special snowflake, history education at the high school level is pretty shit, usually at least 50% dedicated to national history (and probably 90% in USA), and generally mostly dedicated to regional and "classical western" (greeks, romans, colonisation, industrialisation, world wars) stuff.

>their nobility was so elitist and detached from reality they considered themselves different people from Polish serfs.
fucking slavshit serfs will never know the feel of being 100% pure sarmatian masterrace

What you've just said makes absolutely zero sense.

>In Western Europe?Certainly,but that's about it.Just because they've defeated poorly led French armies doesn't make them "the strongest European army by a large margin".
But Spain didn't simply beat the French. They had a large colonial empire, impressive for its time, and remained undefeated until the 30 years war. The tercios were clearly the best infantry in Europe. More than that, Spain had a very good fleet. They defeated France, yes, but also the Ottoman empire at its peak, on numerous occasions, invaded Portugal, defeated the Dutch many times, and the Swedish too.

>They were strong, sure, but nothing compared to France and England as an example.
The Battle of Grunwald alone was larger than pretty much any battle from the hundred years war.

Bullshit. The American founders literally used Poland as the example is "How not to govern a nation." Even at the time people realized that it was garbage

>The American founders literally used Poland as the example is "How not to govern a nation."

Nonsense, the Founding Father's plan for the U.S.A. was the "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth done right, without noble titles".