The Geopolitics of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth filled the map from the Eastern Baltic to the Black Sea during the early modern period, after the 1569 Union of Lublin solidified a personal union between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As well as the titular territories, the Commonwealth also encompassed a diverse set of communities, including Ukraine, Ruthenia, parts of Livonia, and, in its early days, the Duchy of Prussia. Forming such a union required balancing Polish, Lithuanian and Ruthenian interests, as well as a long-standing proclamation of religious toleration.
The Commonwealth is especially noteworthy for its political culture. Although headed by a monarch, the nobility wielded the greatest agency, leading to the Commonwealth’s characterisation as a ‘Republic of Nobles’. The noble szlachta elected the king, possessed the right to individually veto legislation and formed confederations to force through political agendas. The so-called ‘Golden Liberty’ attracted praise and condemnation in equal measure. Supporters marvelled at the equality amongst nobles, whilst detractors labelled it as anarchy. In 1791 and under threat of damaging foreign interference, King Stanisław II August Poniatowski, launched the 3 May constitution which reined back many noble powers and rearranged the Commonwealth into more of a constitutional monarchy.
The geopolitical success of the Commonwealth is also a controversial issue. Poland-Lithuania experienced many highpoints including the brief capture of Moscow in 1610, and the famous repelling of the Ottomans from Vienna in 1683. Nevertheless, it is argued that the Commonwealth often suffered from stagnation and vulnerability to its absolutist neighbours, starkly illustrated when it was eventually carved up by Russia, Prussia and the Habsburg Empire. After the First World War, when Poland and Lithuania gained independence, federal arguments romanticising the Commonwealth from figures such as Józef Piłsudski lost out to nationalist conceptions. Nowadays, the debate about the weakness or strength of the Commonwealth is linked, perhaps anachronistically to federal ideas about Europe, as well as the Three Seas Initiative.
This webinar will feature experts of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and ask what the legacy of this early modern polity is, whether it can be seen as a successful geopolitical entity, and whether it holds importance for Baltic history, as well as that of Central-Eastern Europe.
Speakers:
Professor Richard Butterwick-Pawlikowski, Professor of Polish-Lithuanian History at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, UCL. Author of 'The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1733-1795: Light and Flame' (2020) and Principal Historian of the Polish History Museum in Warsaw.
Professor Robert Frost, Burnett Fletcher Chair in History at the Univeristy of Aberdeen. Currently writing volume two of the 'The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania', with volume one, 'The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385-1569', having been published in 2015.
Dr Anna Kalinowska, Senior Researcher in the Institute of History at the Polish Academy of Sciences. Head of Publishing and Digital Resources at the Polish History Museum, as well as Head of Historical Research at the Royal Castle, both in Warsaw. Anna is an expert in early modern diplomacy and news in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Western Europe.
Chair: Dr John Freeman, Research Assistant, Centre for Geopolitics and historian of the Duchy of Courland
Thank you from the Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth 2.0
Polish-Lithuanian
We need more of this content
Great talk! Thank you.
Poland-Lithuania was tolerant and cosmopolitan compared to the backwards autocracy of Muscovy.
And there was a reason why Muscovy was so backwards. It was created as a struggle to regain freedom from Mongols. To achieve that Muscovy employed exactly same methods as Mongols. Mongols at that time were just a parasite living off the conquered nations. They didn't even station their troops in Muscovy. They were expecting annual tribute. Mongols would only pillage if the tribute was not paid. Usually it was organised in away that two leaders of the biggest domains were present at the tribute and were trying to win over Mongol's favour over each other. Very often only one was going back alive. This engrained bribery into the Muscovy as a natural way of doing things.
Apparently, the Cossacks of Bogdan Khmelnitsky rebelled, unable to withstand Polish tolerance.
Thank you.
12:55 Important is understanding the internal power balance. King is less powerful than Magnateria (Highest Aristocracy). King is coming from Lithuania so it has to campaign to get noble's support. This results in always expanding rights and privileges for nobility. After end of Jagiellonian dynasty kings are elected so they don't even think long term as they are unable to secure succession for their offspring. This leads to situation in which nobility in Poland has rights which are introduced in rest of the Europe 200-300 years later (ownership, bodily integrity, right to fair trial).
17:04 - the blueline shows extent of Swedish maximum control not how far the Muscovite forces got. There is nothing on the map showing their actions and territory control.
Nobody will understand Polish history (from XV century) and Polish soul (current point of view) without understanding very fundamental difference between Poland and all other countries in that time. Starting from XV century Poland became a REPUBLIC (name Rzeczpospolita is direct translation of Latin Republic "Res Public"). So the subject of country idea was citizen - nobles - szlachta (people owning some land, about 10% of population, in some districts even 20% - very high number of political life participants even for current times!) with their rights - to private property, freedom, religion etc... There were local Parliaments (Sejmiki) electing delegates to main Parliament - SEJM, which was electing our Kings to serve the people - not vice versa!!! (they had to swear-in "pacta servanta"). King power was very limited, he had only few hundreds of clerks, very small army, and there were really no taxes. Law system was build around protecting citizen rights so central power was very limited. Every time there were needed extra funds (for war/military) or some extra action taken - like in diplomacy, the King had to get approval from our Parliament. In case of war each citizen has duties as there was common mob and had to serve in person or fund somebody else (with all equipment) - our army especially Calvary was very famous. Parliament can approve new laws only via consensus - and this worked excellent way till XVIII century when our oligarchs and foreign powers started to corrupt delegates (unfortunately we were not hanging traitors) blocking any changes in political system. There was even treaty signed in 1720 in Potsdam between Prussia and Russia - they agreed to "protect" Polish law system from any changes making it operational again... really the same situation as we have today with EU (or rather with Germany ruling EU).
Republic is excellent system made for people, guarantying personal freedom, nobody can oppress you without clear reason (especially on your own property!!!) but on other side it has very weak government. In Republic you are always ready to fight for your rights and you do not respect too much hierarchy and oppressing laws. Very good example of Republic is shown in Star Wars with Harrison Ford and all that diverse ZOO-like citizens - weak but free for everybody.
Monarchies, Imperia and all Tyranies have much stronger country organisation but people are like servants - they HAVE TO follow all laws and respect all government bodies... so they could have legal concentration camps, people can be jailed for comments in Internet, they children can be taken from them... they are like Sturman uder Darth Wader 😀
So PLC was weak, nearly anarchic political being with no authority and that's why it came to an end. That was inevitable - merely a logical consequance of not having strong protector in the form of succesive kingship.
Royal Prussia (stupid name) is Gdańsk Pomerania and it was Polish for more than 300 years before Teutons conquered it.
They were more baltic if we’re talking about the same time period
@@REGameFly Royal Prussia wasn't part of the Old Prussian territory so it wasn't Baltic, but Slavic (unlike Ducal Prussia)
@@rafatymoniewicz7735 It’s a sad fact that they stopped being baltic and were dispersed later. We have books how to speak Prussian for fun
@@REGameFly Once again, area called Royal Prussia (or Gdańsk Pomerania) had Slavic native population not Baltic. They didn't speak Prussian. It was part of Polish Kingdom till 1309 when this land was conquered by Teutonic Order. You are confusing this territory with lands east from Vistula which were the proper Prussia where native population was composed of many Baltic tribes which got slowly germanized.
@@wojtek1582 K
Additional historic comment...
Till 1569 Union of Lublin Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was really on king level only - Polish agreed to have Lithuanian king (Jagiello family) but countries were separated including laws and citizenship (maybe because of that there were so big problems with diplomacy!). After 1569 Union went deeper and now citizens could move between countries, many Polish moved east (in many cases due to war rewards which was land on east parts - there was very low population density, and still is). Unfortunately during that time Polish nobility was not inclusive, especially for new citizens and that made huge problems later on...
It was good with enemies at the gates but disaster was a nobleman's veto away. It's tenacity is proved by the Constitution it formed, and I write as a Habsburg supporter. I really think the Habsburgs should have been elected.
Habsburgs were traitors, stabing us together with Prussians and Russians. I think John III Sobieski is still turning in his grave, after battle of Vienna.
You think wrong.
@@kml8732 No, you.
@@johnnotrealname8168 You know nothing about Polish history. Habsburgs were always rivals of Poland. No Habsburgs never took polish throne because of many valid reasons. Stick to your wet german dreams of power and leave history to the ones that know it.
@kamil8732 Habsburgs were not always rivals to Poland, in fact more times than not they were allies. Actually until the end, reluctant as Maria Theresia was, they were allies. The main reason the Habsburgs were not on the Throne was Balance of Power and France.
skip richard butterwick