Jump to content


Photo

Poland And Lithuania In Xvi-Xviii Century


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 05:04 PM

I would like to see if any people know anything about Poland Lithuania in XVI-XVIII century. Hopefully we will have a discussion on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and other countries in Central, Eastern and perhaps Southern Europe.

#2 Mr. D. Bryant

Mr. D. Bryant
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire
  • Interests:History teacher, with special interest in military history.

Posted 12 November 2010 - 05:25 PM

I would like to see if any people know anything about Poland Lithuania in XVI-XVIII century. Hopefully we will have a discussion on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and other countries in Central, Eastern and perhaps Southern Europe.


We shall see; there is one regular student contributor who might know something. This forum concentrates on the subjects studied in British schools, so anything which falls outside the curriculum tends to be neglected. It is very long time since I looked at the Jagiellon dynasty. I remember being surprised at the extent of the domains, particularly compared with the small Grand Duchy of Muscovy. However, stuck between the growing powers of Russia and Prussia, not to mention the Ottoman Empire, the Commonwealth was always going to be vulnerable.

#3 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 12 November 2010 - 06:27 PM

Hmmmm...
I think that you are right on the fact that this topic might not survive for a long time. But coming to history I think the Commonwealth had very strong army and achieved some great military successes in various battles such as battle of Kircholm or battle of Vienna(I am aware of the fact that the forces of the Commonwealth were only half of all forces fighting against Ottomans). So in conclusion I think Commonwealth wasn't so vulnerable because of its strong armed forces. But on the other hand you are right because after the Khmelnytsky (Chmielnicki) uprising, the Commonwealth went into a crisis which was both military and political so the Commonwealth wasn't as strong as it was before.

I would also like to point out that the Ottoman Empire (which I presume was stronger than Commonwealth) was effectively stopped by the Commonwealth.

PS:Will you agree with me that Poland Lithuania was the strongest country in its regions (central and eastern Europe) in late 16th and early 17th century?

#4 Mr. D. Bryant

Mr. D. Bryant
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire
  • Interests:History teacher, with special interest in military history.

Posted 12 November 2010 - 10:39 PM

Very happy to agree with you on the crucial role of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (personified at Vienna by Sobieski) in stopping the Ottoman empire's siege of Vienna and preventing further Turkish gains in that region. Also, with my limited knowledge, I agree that the Commonwealth was the strongest power in the period you mention. However, I stand by my argument that its position became increasingly difficult when other powers (I forgot Sweden) started to rise. This as made worse by political divisions about which you know a lot more than me.

I don't tend to look at counter-factual history, but if things had gone differently, I believe Eastern Central Europe might well have been dominated by a Polish-based Empire.

#5 Cyfer

Cyfer
  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 16 November 2010 - 09:10 PM

It's at times like these that I wish I paid more attention to Polish history classes... I would comment if my historical timeline was not so messed up

#6 Cyfer

Cyfer
  • Student
  • 322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 16 November 2010 - 09:12 PM

May I just point out that if you wish to start a discussion I recommend you present a topic?

I would happily research any topics however the three centuries that you encompass are too wide for me

#7 Mr. D. Bryant

Mr. D. Bryant
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire
  • Interests:History teacher, with special interest in military history.

Posted 16 November 2010 - 09:57 PM

May I just point out that if you wish to start a discussion I recommend you present a topic? I would happily research any topics however the three centuries that you encompass are too wide for me


Well, I think that are certainly one or two questions already posed in the earlier posts. Moreover, I seem to remember that you are pretty adept at setting your own questions. As mentioned above, I think the main problem is that very few people will have much to say about this particular topic. Perhaps in recognition of this, the original post was quite wide-ranging. Don't let that stop you contributing.

#8 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 20 October 2011 - 09:17 PM

I don't tend to look at counter-factual history, but if things had gone differently, I believe Eastern Central Europe might well have been dominated by a Polish-based Empire.


Well, although the Commonwealth wasn't officially called an 'empire' it certainly was as it was a major power in central and eastern Europe and could defeat any invasion from every side whenever it was Russia, Sweden or Ottoman empire (as well as being incredibly wealthy economically due to fertile lands in eastern Europe (especially Ukraine)). It might have been different to rest of European empires which were usually colonial empire with many lands abroad but Poland was more landlocked and couldn't afford to send a navy away as it needed its full military potential to defeat other opponents. If we look into history we will see that the countries that had some of the biggest colonial empire were Britain, Spain, France and Portugal which were all in relatively good geographical position away from bigger conflicts.

#9 Mr. D. Bryant

Mr. D. Bryant
  • Moderating Teacher & Admin
  • 1,036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire
  • Interests:History teacher, with special interest in military history.

Posted 21 October 2011 - 08:53 PM

Well, although the Commonwealth wasn't officially called an 'empire' it certainly was as it was a major power in central and eastern Europe and could defeat any invasion from every side whenever it was Russia, Sweden or Ottoman empire (as well as being incredibly wealthy economically due to fertile lands in eastern Europe (especially Ukraine)). It might have been different to rest of European empires which were usually colonial empire with many lands abroad but Poland was more landlocked and couldn't afford to send a navy away as it needed its full military potential to defeat other opponents. If we look into history we will see that the countries that had some of the biggest colonial empire were Britain, Spain, France and Portugal which were all in relatively good geographical position away from bigger conflicts.


I think (it's quite a long time since I posted on this topic), that I meant that a greater Polish state might well have survived independently, instead of slowly being reduced and then dismembered by other powers. However, one might argue that, situated as it was, with relatively indefensible borders and surrounded by numerous strong powers, it was only Poland's military strength and resilience which saved it from going under much earlier.

Your comparison with colonial empires is interesting; I agree that Poland does not fit with this model. I was speculating about a 'continental empire' perhaps similar to the Austro-Hungarian lands which stretched over such a wide area of different lands and peoples. However, if you list France as being in a 'relatively good geographical position away from bigger conflicts' I would disagree with you. Until France managed to unite a disparate collection of territories and push its borders to the Pyrenees, the Alps and close to the Rhine, its rulers would not have agreed that there were generally safe. Even after this period, France pursued a long series of wars with Austria, Britian and, later, Prussia.

#10 Denxson

Denxson
  • Student
  • 4 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peterborough
  • Interests:Polish Military, Military History, WW1, WW2, Polish-Soviet War, Military Intel, Unit 2 of The Polish SHQ, Home Army, German East Africa, Japanese Imperial Army, Finnish Army, Winter War and Continuation War.

Posted 26 October 2011 - 03:34 PM

I got to say that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was pretty storng, mostly due to its military force. Mostly thanks to the Winged Hussars, who rearly lost any battles. But near the end of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the economy was having a crisis (if can remember right), the military was under strenght and under equiped.

#11 poland first to fight

poland first to fight
  • Student
  • 67 posts

Posted 27 November 2011 - 06:39 PM

I got to say that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was pretty storng, mostly due to its military force. Mostly thanks to the Winged Hussars, who rearly lost any battles. But near the end of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the economy was having a crisis (if can remember right), the military was under strenght and under equiped.


Yes, to be clear there was a period in time that lasted 125 years in which winged hussars haven't lost a single battle. Later on the military got weaker but the overwhelming forces of partitioners were just to strong.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users