Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Polish Collapse
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Polish Collapse
    Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 02:58
But most of the noblemen were well trained: Poland has long tradions for invaders: from the 14th to 16th centuries Poland had many many wars... such wars train people to good levels.
 
And Polish troops were well developed. I mean their tactics and usage.
 
Originally posted by Mosquito

Those Polish kings of polish origin were unable to rule because they were polish. Even Sobieski wasnt able to do anything.
 
Well, IMO your opinion is a some kind of misunderstanding. I agree that Polish kings were unable to do everything they wanted, but this statement fits also to foreigners. 
I don't agree that they (Polish kings) were unable to do anything. Sobieski is a good example. Look at his military achievements. It was posiible only thanks to the army which was financed by taxes - these taxes which were depended only of Polish nobility.
Look at Poniatowski. His achivement (the Constitution of the 3rd May) was far before antything foreigner kings (August II and August III) did for Poland in 18th c.
IMHO achievements of Polish kings depended more on their mental power than on their Polish or foreign roots.
 
 
It is obvious that Mosquito wasn't talking of military achievments, everyone knows Sobieski by his victories.
 
He was talking of upgrades in the social half..
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804 		  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 03:45
Originally posted by ataman

 
Raider, Poland in that time had a standing army (a cavalry of this standing army was composed of Polish nobles), which was high quality and it also had a common levy (composed also of Polish nobles), which was low quality. Ordinary wars were conducted by standing army. A common levy was used only extraordinary.
 
 Was this standing army under the command of the king or the sejm appointed the commanders? Standing armies usually were the core of the rising royal powers.


Edited by Raider - 04-Jul-2006 at 03:47
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 05:21
Originally posted by rider

But most of the noblemen were well trained: Poland has long tradions for invaders: from the 14th to 16th centuries Poland had many many wars... such wars train people to good levels.
 
And Polish troops were well developed. I mean their tactics and usage.
 
I agree that Polish nobles were well trained (even this who didn't serve in a standing army). IMHO main problems of Polish noble levy were: lack of its discipline, the rule which limited a using of noble levy to only 6 weeks, the rule which limited a using of noble levy only to Poland, the rule which didn't permit the king to divide noble levy (it had to be use as a 1 army).
 
 
Originally posted by rider

It is obvious that Mosquito wasn't talking of military achievments, everyone knows Sobieski by his victories.
 
He was talking of upgrades in the social half..
 
Oh, so I got Mosquito wrong. Mea culpa.


Edited by ataman - 04-Jul-2006 at 05:21
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 05:28
Originally posted by Raider

 Was this standing army under the command of the king or the sejm appointed the commanders? Standing armies usually were the core of the rising royal powers.
 
The highest Polish commander was the king. When the king wanted, the army was under his command. When the king didn't want to command the army personally, armies were commanded by Polish and Lithuanian hetmans, who were designated by the king. Hetmans held their posts for a life (it means that if sombody was designated for hetman post, he was a hetman till the end of his life - he couldn't be discharged). This practice was introduced by Stephen Batory.
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804 		  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 06:23
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by Raider

 Was this standing army under the command of the king or the sejm appointed the commanders? Standing armies usually were the core of the rising royal powers.
 
The highest Polish commander was the king. When the king wanted, the army was under his command. When the king didn't want to command the army personally, armies were commanded by Polish and Lithuanian hetmans, who were designated by the king. Hetmans held their posts for a life (it means that if sombody was designated for hetman post, he was a hetman till the end of his life - he couldn't be discharged). This practice was introduced by Stephen Batory.
In this case why didn't kings use this force to strengthen their power?
 
Did the greatest lords have their own private-army?


Edited by Raider - 04-Jul-2006 at 06:23
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 10:00
Originally posted by Raider

In this case why didn't kings use this force to strengthen their power?
Did the greatest lords have their own private-army?
 
Yes, magnates had their own armies. Moreover - magnates were also rotmistrzes (meaning commanders) of units of the standing army. It means that they paied 'a contentacjes' - salary. I need explain that cavalrymen of the standing army got 2 salaries - from the state and from their rotmistrzes.
 
And now, 'why didn't kings use this force to strengthen their power?' Because Polish cavalry was composed of Polish nobles, who first of all were nobles and than soldiers (and as a soldiers they were under influence of the king and their rotmistrzes/magnates). They could revolt if they recognised that king tried to break their freedom.
As far as Polish infantry is concerned, its attitude was depended on influences of the king and rotmistrzes (meaning Polish magnates).
As far as mercenary infantry (Hungarian or German one) is concerned - these infantrymen were usually commanded by foreigners (Germans, Hungarians etc.) who usually were the most loyal to the king (if they got their soldiers' pay on time :)).
As you can see, Polish king didn't have 100% loyal army. Its loyality was depended on its composition. The more infantry (especially mercenary one), the bigest influence of the king. The more cavalry, the bigest influence of nobles and magnates.


Edited by ataman - 04-Jul-2006 at 10:17
Back to Top
Odin View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 04-Apr-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211 		  Quote Odin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Jul-2006 at 23:31
In Diderot's Encyclopedie the article on Anarchy was mostly about Poland. LOL
"Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history, nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the United States is in now."

-Arnold J. Toynbee
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 00:05
I am not suprised. Diderot lived in 18th c. and lived in a country ruled by absolute power. I wonder what he wrote about a democracy LOL

Edited by ataman - 05-Jul-2006 at 00:08
Back to Top
Raider View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804 		  Quote Raider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 02:36
Originally posted by ataman

Originally posted by Raider

In this case why didn't kings use this force to strengthen their power?
Did the greatest lords have their own private-army?
 
Yes, magnates had their own armies. Moreover - magnates were also rotmistrzes (meaning commanders) of units of the standing army. It means that they paied 'a contentacjes' - salary. I need explain that cavalrymen of the standing army got 2 salaries - from the state and from their rotmistrzes.
 
And now, 'why didn't kings use this force to strengthen their power?' Because Polish cavalry was composed of Polish nobles, who first of all were nobles and than soldiers (and as a soldiers they were under influence of the king and their rotmistrzes/magnates). They could revolt if they recognised that king tried to break their freedom.
As far as Polish infantry is concerned, its attitude was depended on influences of the king and rotmistrzes (meaning Polish magnates).
As far as mercenary infantry (Hungarian or German one) is concerned - these infantrymen were usually commanded by foreigners (Germans, Hungarians etc.) who usually were the most loyal to the king (if they got their soldiers' pay on time :)).
As you can see, Polish king didn't have 100% loyal army. Its loyality was depended on its composition. The more infantry (especially mercenary one), the bigest influence of the king. The more cavalry, the bigest influence of nobles and magnates.
Lesser nobles could help the king to centralise power. I think lords, magnates are those who oppose such a political change. This dual leadership of the army might cause some disfunction, rivalry between the king and the lords for the command. Could you say us some example perhaps.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Jul-2006 at 03:15
Originally posted by Raider

Lesser nobles could help the king to centralise power.
 
There is a period in Polish history when lesser nobles (l mean noble middle class) cooperated with the king con magnates and priesthood and pro centralised power of the king and Sejm. It occured in 16th c..
 
Here is short info from Wikipedia:
'Execution(ist) movement (Polish language: Ruch egzekucyjny, also egzekucja praw (execution of laws), egzekucja dbr (execution of lands), popularyści (popularists), zamoyszczycy (Zamoyski's faction) was a political movement of lesser and middle nobility (szlachta) in the Kingdom of Poland (and later, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) in the 16th century. Its goal was to reform the country, increasing the power of the lesser and middle nobility (dominating the parliamnt - Sejm) at the cost of higher nobility (magnates), priesthood and to a lesser extent, monarch. Executionist movement succeeded in implementing some of its demands, however it diminshed and lost power in the early 17th century before reaching most of its goals. Most of the reforms demanded by the executionist movement are viewed by modern historians as beneficial.
Among the leaders of this movement were kanclerz Jan Zamoyski, Sejm politicians Rafał Leszczyński, Hieronim Ossoliński, Jakub Ostrorg, Jan Ponętowski and Mikołaj Sienicki. Parts of the program received support from philisophers like Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski and Jan Łaski.
Among the demands of the execution movement were:
- respect of laws and customs of sejmik constitutions (legal acts) and codification of laws (hence 'execution of laws');
- return of crown lands (krlewszczyzny), often illegaly held by magnates, to the king (hence 'execution of lands');
- respect for the incompatibilias law (from 1504), which specified that some of the Offices in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may not be held by one person, and the rule of residence, which specified that certain district offices may be held only by a person which had a residence in that district (territory, county);
- increasing the power of the Sejm (parliament); thus the nihil novi'
 
But execution(ist) movement was posibble only because:
1. nobles believed that their king won't use his bigger power against them
2. the king (Zygmunt August) wanted to back up on lesser nobles.
It happend during a reign of Zygmunt August, but later these 2 factors didn't occure.
 
Originally posted by Raider

I think lords, magnates are those who oppose such a political change. This dual leadership of the army might cause some disfunction, rivalry between the king and the lords for the command. Could you say us some example perhaps.
 
A good example is a Lubomirski's rokosz from 1660's. Lubomirski was a powerful magnate and a hetman of Polish army. The king Jan Kazimierz charged Lubomirski about a treason (but it was only pretext to get rid of Lubomirski. Lubomirski was an opponent of royal politic plans) and was able to sentence Lubomirski to infamy, outlawry and banishment.
But Lubomirski was able to convince part of the army and many nobles to his point of view. It led to civil war. Lubomirski's army 2 times defeated royal one. The civil war ended with the Agreement of Łęgonice, which forced the King to give up his planned reforms and the introduction of vivente-rege free elections. Lubomirski himself, now a broken man, died soon after.


Edited by ataman - 05-Jul-2006 at 03:16
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 21:54

You are overlooking one major factor: the economy.

Do you realize that power of Poland follows prices of agricultural and raw materials?

Poland was for long time a breadbasket of Europe with Gdansk playing major role in shipping it west.

Most countries strength comes from their middle classes. In Poland this role was played by nobility (Szlachta). It was wealthy and highly educated ( most spoke and wrote in many languages) and it played a positive force in the development of country. The society of law has evolved with freedom of religion unheard in other European countries from this period. A nobleman, for example, could not be tortured, while it was a common practice in west.

The cheap agricultural goods and other raw materials from the colonies killed Western European market for Poland.

As nobility was getting impoverished their votes were easy to buy by Polish Aristocracy or external enemies. The armies to be able to fight so many enemies do need a sound economic base, which ceased to exits.

Any other factor you quote is just a symptom of the disease. Incidentally, Gdansk followed the fate of Poland as well.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 00:57
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

You are overlooking one major factor: the economy.

Do you realize that power of Poland follows prices of agricultural and raw materials?

Poland was for long time a breadbasket of Europe with Gdansk playing major role in shipping it west.

Most countries strength comes from their middle classes. In Poland this role was played by nobility (Szlachta). It was wealthy and highly educated ( most spoke and wrote in many languages) and it played a positive force in the development of country. The society of law has evolved with freedom of religion unheard in other European countries from this period. A nobleman, for example, could not be tortured, while it was a common practice in west.

The cheap agricultural goods and other raw materials from the colonies killed Western European market for Poland.

As nobility was getting impoverished their votes were easy to buy by Polish Aristocracy or external enemies. The armies to be able to fight so many enemies do need a sound economic base, which ceased to exits.

Any other factor you quote is just a symptom of the disease. Incidentally, Gdansk followed the fate of Poland as well.

 
Cavalry4ever, there are 2 main mistakes which people do, when think about Polish economy in 17-18th c.
1. Polish economy wasn't modern, because it was based on agriculture
2. Polish economy was depended on export
 
Ad1
Paul Kennedy in his 'The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' claimed that what made every country wealthy was an agriculture. It was at least until 1850.
 
Please, read my discussion about it here:
 
Ad2
Only about 1% of Polish trade was joined with export. The bulk of Polish trade was an internal trade.
 
There is however one thing which I agree. Cavalry4ever, you wrote:
 
'As nobility was getting impoverished their votes were easy to buy by Polish Aristocracy'
 
After series of destructive wars 1648-1667 and later (after GNW), Poland was demaged very much. But Polish magnates could easier rebuild their economic power than middle and lesser nobles. In fact, Polish middle nobility has never reached  its previous economic status. Therefore middle nobles lost their high status. They were depended on magnates much more than before 1648. Among other things, this process destroyed democracy of Polish nobles and it led to magnate oligarchy.
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 20:11
 
1. Polish economy wasn't modern, because it was based on agriculture
2. Polish economy was depended on export
 
Ataman:
I did not make assumption in my post about "modernity" of agricultural economy.
What I said was that price of goods, even in internal market, is influenced by external commodity prices. What you are saying is interesting, but I don't think it is the whole picture. You need to look at  imports of goods too. Also if that  1% of export is used to buy industrial goods, education abroad, books etc. it becomes important when these exports do not generate much of revenue. Exports must been important as many cities prospered on trade routes. Gdansk, Zamosc, many Wistula river towns. I suspect that trade was much more important in Poland than in Lithuania.
 
 
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 22:36
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

What I said was that price of goods, even in internal market, is influenced by external commodity prices.
 
Cavalry4ever, I agree with your statement above. But in my previous message I wanted to show that Poland wasn't an exception in Europe. I mean, every European country was depended much more on agriculture than on industry. Therefore any changes of prices were as important for Poland as for any other country. We can see that some European countries (like Russia, England) in 18th c. were stronger than in 17th c.,  some of them (like Sweden, Spain or Ottoman Empire) were weaker than in 17th c., but all of them were depended on agriculture and on commodity prices as much as Poland. Therefore I don't think that changes of prices of food were a reason of Polish collapse.
In fact, even in the time of the deepest crisis of Poland (I mean during GNW), Polish economy was good enough to mobilise 100 000 soldiers (you can read about it in Frost's book about Northern wars). And Poland mobilised 100 000 soldiers in that time. 
 
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

What you are saying is interesting, but I don't think it is the whole picture. You need to look at  imports of goods too. Also if that  1% of export is used to buy industrial goods, education abroad, books etc. it becomes important when these exports do not generate much of revenue.
 
I think that a trade was important, but it wasn't important if it was an internal or an external trade. I can see no reason why 1% of external trade could be more important than 99% of internal one. 
 
Originally posted by cavalry4ever

Exports must been important as many cities prospered on trade routes. Gdansk, Zamosc, many Wistula river towns. I suspect that trade was much more important in Poland than in Lithuania. 
 
IMO Polish cities didn't lose their meaning only because Polish export in 18th c. was weaker than in 17th c. The true reason were demages made during wars after 1648 and a crisis of Polish internal trade (these wars after 1648 made population of Poland smaller and poorer. Poorer people limited their economical activity - for example they didn't buy bread or tools in cities, but made them personaly. All of this limited an internal trade). Of course some cities (these ones which were depended on export more than on internal trade - like Gdańsk or Toruń) lost more than other cities, but it doesn't change my general opinion. The collapse of export of food wasn't a reason of a collapse of Poland.


Edited by ataman - 25-Jul-2006 at 22:48
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664 		  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 07:28
Although France didn't rely that much on agriculture. France more produced wines and such things.
 
And you can't exactly call England in the 18th (especially in the latter part of the century) non-industrial. England relied heavily on industries on that period. It is named 'Industrialization', after all.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 08:39
Originally posted by rider

Although France didn't rely that much on agriculture. France more produced wines and such things.
 
And you can't exactly call England in the 18th (especially in the latter part of the century) non-industrial. England relied heavily on industries on that period. It is named 'Industrialization', after all.
 
Rider, even England until 1850 was more agricultural than industrial country. And it is not my statement but it is prof. Kennedy's opinion.


Edited by ataman - 27-Jul-2006 at 08:40
Back to Top
cavalry4ever View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator Emeritus

Joined: 17-Nov-2004
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 589 		  Quote cavalry4ever Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Aug-2006 at 22:27
I would like some more posts about this 1% external trade of Poland.  I just don't believe it.
When whole town may have a center composed of houses build by Armenian traders, this means that trade was important.
A profession was centered around shipping grain to Gdansk via Vistula river. A chain of towns along that river expanded becuse of trade. Who was buying all this grain in Poland, where rural population dominated and sat on it?
Also we are mixing dates here. Poland recovered from "Swedish Deluge" pretty well. I consider the beginning of Poland's fall after the death of Jan Sobieski (1696).

Frankly speaking, there is a legion of mediocre American historians - some of them with impressive credentials. Unfortunately I don't have time to read Paul Kennedy. Maybe someone can comment on his relevancy.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108 		  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 01:37
Originally posted by cavalry4ever


Also we are mixing dates here. Poland recovered from "Swedish Deluge" pretty well. I consider the beginning of Poland's fall after the death of Jan Sobieski (1696).
 
Unfortunately it is not true that 'Poland recovered from "Swedish Deluge" pretty well'. There are registers of estates/houses etc. (called 'lustracje') from the first and the second half of 17th c., which cleary show that Poland in the second half of 17th c. was much poorer than in the first half of 17th c. There is no doubt that Poland after the deluge didn't reach this level of economic development as before the deluge.
Poland after wars 1648-1667 was powerful enough to defend its independence, but it doesn't mean that after these wars, Poland was as powerful (neither military nor economicaly) as before 1648.
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144 		  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Aug-2006 at 04:35
Poland has never recovered from the Deluge and Cossacks Wars which took place in half of XVII th century. Sobieski's period was last breath of Poland. From now on the state was falling down.
Back to Top
Timotheus View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 478 		  Quote Timotheus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 01:12
Whatever the reason, Polish history is a series of tragedies Wink

Edited by Timotheus - 18-Aug-2006 at 01:15
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.066 seconds.