Poland had a Golden Age?

[St Exupère]

Nestorius didn't either, really: his views were fundamentally the same as those of Theodore of Mopsuestia, supposedly his cousin, who has always been the main authority for the Assyrian Christians. Indeed, later Persian theologians such as Babai the Great were, if anything, more Nestorian than Nestorius.

Really? I thought Babai the Great rejected Nestorianism and proclaimed Jesus was only one person, with two essences. I obviously need to work on the theological reasons for the schism, I do not know much in fact.

I'm sure we can have a thread in History on the decline (or not) of religion in Europe in the twentieth century if we want.

Good idea.

 

[Plotinus]

Really? I thought Babai the Great rejected Nestorianism and proclaimed Jesus was only one person, with two essences. I obviously need to work on the theological reasons for the schism, I do not know much in fact.

Yes, Babai said that Christ was a single person (prosopon), but then so did Nestorius. Babai insisted, contra Chalcedon, that Christ was two hypostaseis; his point was that hypostasis is not the same thing as prosopon. Except that he was writing in Syriac, which makes it all even more complicated. Nestorius had insisted that Christ is one prosopon with two ousia; he was ambiguous about hypostasis, which he seemed to treat interchangeably with ousia, in contrast to Cyril of Alexandria, who insisted (like the Cappadocians) that they must be carefully distinguished. Babai thus represents a stronger break with the Alexandrian and Chalcedonian traditions than Nestorius did.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd like to address many of the other points that have been raised on this page, but as someone said, none of this has much to do with Poland's Golden Age, so let's save it for somewhere else. I'm sure we can have a thread in History on the decline (or not) of religion in Europe in the twentieth century if we want.

That's true. This is getting seriously off-topic... (My fault as much as anyone's, of course.)

 

[Squonk]

There are also many Arians today: they are called Jehovah's Witnesses.
.

with all my respect and love to you, there is huge theological difference between arians and JW. Arians weren't against divinity of Jesus, though it is what they were accused of later on. The differences between them and orthodoxy were much more subtle, like if there was a time when Christ didn't exist etc.

 

[Yui108]

There may be more atheists in the world, but that certainly does not mean less religion. The republican evangicals are possibly the most powerful American political party, and just think about the Radicalists in the Middle Easts. Is religion past its time to them eh??

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Much of the land was Lithuania's, but it was more or less just Lithuanian inhabited lands. Poland "modernized" the lands to it's time, and Poland basically revolutionized the Lithuanian lands. Poland played the key role in the commonwealth just like Austria did with Hungary. So comparing Poland-Lithuania with Austria-Hungary is a good idea when you want to compare poland to something. <(i have no clue what i just sayed)

I wouldn't make that comparison. Poland-Lithuania was far less hierarchical than Austria-Hungary. It existed in a pre-nationalist age, whereas the logic behind how the Austro-Hungarian empire was organized did not make sense without an undercurrent of Hungarian and Slavic nationalism. Plus, the ruling dynasty came from Lithuania.

Speaking of Hungary, though, one thing that has always interested me is that the second King of Poland-Lithuania, Wlyadyslaw III, was also elected King of Hungary. This meant that he could walk from the Baltic to the Adriatic stepping only on territory where he was the sovereign.

He got himself killed at Varna shortly thereafter at the age of 21 or 22, but sometimes I wonder what would have happened had he lived. Probably, he would have been stymied by Polish and Hungarian nobles, as neither Kingdom had a strong executive, and the personal union would have ended with his death, but still.

 

[Plotinus]

with all my respect and love to you, there is huge theological difference between arians and JW. Arians weren't against divinity of Jesus, though it is what they were accused of later on. The differences between them and orthodoxy were much more subtle, like if there was a time when Christ didn't exist etc.

Arians most certainly did reject the divinity of Jesus; Arius himself denied that Jesus is identical with the Logos (he believed that Jesus was permanently inspired by the Logos, not identical with him) and he denied that the Logos is divine. The Arians insisted not simply that there was a time when the Logos did not exist but that because there was a time when he did not exist, he could not be divine. This argument was especially central to the views of Aetius and Eunomius, the most important Arian philosophers. That is why it was such an important point. While there were big differences between the various theologians who were all branded "Arian", the denial of the true divinity of the Logos was common to them all.

Now of course modern Jehovah's Witnesses are not historically connected to the fourth-century Arians, and there are many other differences between them, but their understanding of Christ as the greatest of God's creatures is fundamentally the same. From the viewpoint of Nicene orthodoxy, the Jehovah's Witnesses are a kind of Arian.

 

[Domen]

Sorry for resurrecting but I have an advice for the author. First read, only then create threads like this:

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/materialy/Chocim1621/Chocim1621.pdf

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/materialy/Kluszyn.pdf

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/materialy/Liubar.pdf

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika.pl/materialy/Vienna1.pdf

Contrary to popular believe, there are some good reads on Polish history written in English. Not many, but still some.

 

[Domen]

But that posted above is all about military golden age of Poland, not the cultural and economic one.

===============================================

The real golden age of Poland was in 16th century, which was a relatively peaceful period.

In a wider sense, the golden age of Poland was exactly between years 1331 / 1333 and 1648 (maybe even 1696).

As you can see this covers the period from mid-14th to mid-17th or late-17th centuries.

Ironically, the time when in most of Europe Black Death was raging, for Poland was a very good time.

Also in 16th century - when Western Europe was involved in devastating religious wars - was golden and peaceful in Poland.

On the other hand, when in early and mid-18th century Western Europe experienced development, Poland was in decline.

So we can add this to the list of Murphy's Laws - "Poland has good times when Western Europe has bad times and inversely".

 

[ParkCungHee]

1940-1945 must have been a wonderful time for Poland then.

 

[Domen]

1331 - Poland beats off joint invasion of Bohemia and Teutonic Order, securing its existence (BTW - most people don't know that the first agreement of partition of Poland and its annihilation from the maps of Europe was signed by Bohemia, Teutonic Order and Mazovian dukes in July of 1331).

1333 - begininning of the reign of Casimir III the Great

================

1648 - start of the civil war, followed by 20 years long period of constant wars against all neighbours (1648 - 1667)

1696 - death of John III Sobieski

These years mark the boundaries of the Polish golden age, IMHO.

I think Terry Pratchett once described a Golden Age as something like "a time when men with swords could convince people to build big things out of a stone" and "a time so long ago that no-one can actually remember how bad things were". My rough paraphrasing aside, he has a point- Golden Ages are usually viewed from the top, not the bottom. Look at Britain- out "Golden Age" is the late mid-to-late 1800s, the height of the Empire and Victorian industry, yet the majority of the population lived in poverty, the country was run by an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy and the the government was only concerned was in maintaining the status quo. The Irish starved, Africans were slaughtered or enslaved and the poor were routinely imprisoned. Some "Golden Age" that was.
Frankly, if Poland has never had a "Golden Age" then it's purely to it's credit.

But one question - was it any better during non-golden ages? Not really.

If you view non-golden ages from the bottom, they look even worse than golden ages.

 

[aelf]

Can we read the Polish nationalists' aspiration to resurrect the golden age of Poland in their propensity to resurrect threads about Poland?

 

[Domen]

I resurrected only this one thread about Poland during the last 12 months or so ^^.

 

[Ajidica]

Necro!
Just like Poland's Golden Age. It appears Poland has so many Golden Ages, they can safely be summed up as "a time when Poland wasn't being divided up by someone else".

 

[Domen]

And your assumption is based on... ?

BTW - the only time when Poland wasn't independent was after 1795. And even then there were periods of autonomy.

While Poland as a state existed since at least early 10th century (and in 966 it accepted Christianity).

Necro!

Necro > Off-Topic rubbish. And originally author of this thread asked:

"If Poland had [a Golden Age], explain when and why".

I haven't seen a response to this question through all 3 pages of this thread...

On the other hand, what I saw was some completely Off-Topic "chat" about religion.

So I answered as author wanted and explained when. 1331 / 1333 - 1648 / 1696. Why?

Because in 14th century Poland had become a regional power in Europe and remained so until late 17th century.

Centuries 14th to 17th was also the golden age of Polish culture. Many historical monuments date back to this period.

14th century (after reunification) to 17th century marked also the period of greatest territorial expansion of Poland.

Yet during the reign of Casimir III Kingdom of Poland expanded from 102,000 km2 (in 1333) to 244,000 km2 (in 1370).

To explain "why" in detail would require a much more thorough and lengthy essay.

 

[Ajidica]

I think I answered 'when Poland had a Golden Age' quite well. It can be summarized as whenever Poland wasn't being carved up like the Thanksgiving Turkey.

 

[Domen]

Assuming that you are right would mean that Poland had a golden age for 85% - 90% of its history.

So I guess that you are wrong and my dates of 14th - 17th centuries are more correct...

 

[Domen]

Wonder why you assume that Poland was carved up in its history more than other states if for example shortly before the time when England was slaughtered by Norman-French invaders, Poland extended its rule to Slovakia, Bohemia, eastern provinces of Germany and Polish army captured Kiev...

But I do not consider this time (first decades of 11th century) as golden age since those conquests turned out to be only temporary.

 

[warpus]

1331 - Poland beats off joint invasion of Bohemia and Teutonic Order, securing its existence (BTW - most people don't know that the first agreement of partition of Poland and its annihilation from the maps of Europe was signed by Bohemia, Teutonic Order and Mazovian dukes in July of 1331).

Citation?

 

[Domen]

Citation?

Maybe description?:

In July 1331 Bohemian king Johann von Luxemburg and grand master of the Teutonic Order Luther von Braunschweig established plans of joint military action against Wladyslaw Lokietek (Polish king). Teutonic army was to invade Poland from the north while Bohemia from the south across Silesia. Both sides agreed that their armies would meet near Kalisz (second largest town of the province of Greater Poland after Poznan).

The strategic goal of Johann von Luxemburg was to conquer Greater Poland, to which he claimed his rights as heritage after Przemy&#347;lidzi dynasty. It must be added that Bohemian king in his own documents called himself "king of Poland", while he called Wladyslaw Lokietek just "king of Cracow". Most of Polish dukes of the fragmented for several duchies Mazovia - which was independent from the Kingdom of Poland - supported the Teutonic Order during that war.

The Grand Master wanted to capture Cuiavia and northern parts Poland.

Mazovian dukes would probably expand their duchies into Lesser Poland (including Cracow).

Teutonic invasion army reinforced by some Mazovian contingents crossed the Polish border sooner than their Bohemian allies. They plundered the Lands of Sieradz and Leczyca and approached to Kalisz, attempting to capture the town. After several days of futile siege and waiting for arrival of Bohemian forces, they retreated from the walls of Kalisz and marched north in order to besiege Brzesc Kujawski and to capture Cuiavia.

During that Teutonic withdrawal from Kalisz Polish main forces (ca. 5000 strong) followed and chased them up to the area of Radziejow and Plowce. Polish forces harrased the Teutonic army during that march but Lokietek's army was less numerous than their enemies (ca. 7000 strong) and thus had to wait for a good opportunity and favourable conditions to attack and destroy the Teutons.

In the meantime Bohemian invasion was delayed by problems with the so called Anti-Luxemburgian League (Hungary and Austria). Their army also had to bypass the borders of the independent Silesian Duchy of Swidnica which was ruled by Bolko II (from Piast dynasty), who sympathized with Poland.

Finally Bohemian army marched across Wroclaw, Glogow and Koscian and approached Poznan. After approaching Poznan (the main town of the Greater Poland province), initial attempts to capture the city failed and the Bohemian army had to start a regular siege.

In the meantime, on 27 September 1331, Lokietek, who lead the main Polish army - 5,000 men strong - finally decided to destroy the Teutonic army (7,000 men strong but divided into 3 columns during its march) and delivered them a battle near the village of Plowce.

Before the battle king Wladyslaw - concerned over his son's and successor's (Casimir) live - sent him back so he didn't fight in the battle.

In the first phase of the battle, Polish forces ambushed the rear column of the Teutonic army and destroyed it completely. Alarmed by remnants of that column, the remaining two columns hastily turned back to the battlefield and counterattacked the Poles.

After fierce and long battle during which both sides suffered heavy losses, the less numerous Polish army detached from the enemy in good order and withdrew from the battlefield to regroup, taking away a few hundred captured Teutons with them. The Teutons - who also held a few hundred prisoners - too exhausted and decimated to chase the Poles, quickly murdered all prisoners and hastily retreated back to their country.

Poles were not any better and also slaughtered most of Teutonic prisoners.

Bishop of Cuiavia - Maciej - who organized burial after the battle, counted bodies of 4187 dead "Christians" on the battlefield. He didn't write how many of the fallen were Poles and how many were Teutons but we can see that casualties of both sides were considerable.

After receiving news about the Teutonic "defeat" at Plowce (in fact the battle was inconclusive in tactical sense - but it was definitely a strategic victory for the Poles), Johann von Luxemburg also resigned from further attempts of capturing Poznan and retreated back to Bohemia.

As the result enemy plan of partitioning Poland failed.

=================================

Regarding estimations of forces of both sides in the battle of Plowce:

Numbers generally range from 6300 to 7000 Teutons against 4500 to 5000 Poles.

So around 35% - 40% of all participants of the battle were killed (4187).

Battle was depicted in a movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aouKLHgjQqI

Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Płowce