What do you think about Poland?

Followers of a particular lord or warriors from a certain territory (and such "territorial" banners were more numerous - both in Polish, Teutonic and Lithuanian armies). In other words - they were organized into military units called "banners" - and each of these unit had its own flag "banner".

Banners mobilized by a particular lord ("followers" of a particular lord) were called "family" or "private" banners in Poland (rodowe / prywatne chorągwie).

Banners mobilized according to place of residence of knights / warriors (territorial) were called "chorągwie ziemskie" ("land banners").

Each "unit-banner" consisted of smaller units called "kopie" ("lances") or "poczty" ("retinues").

Each "kopia" ("lance") or "poczet" ("retinue") usually consisted of 1 knight + his retinue (usually several squires).

Several dozens up to several hundreds "lances" / "retinues" were organized into one unit called "banner".

Units called "banners" were sometimes joined together / grouped into larger groups / units called "hufce" ("detachments").

I even wrote about this here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=497989

attachment.php
 
I'm afraid your understanding here is both over-rationalistici and anachronistic.

Do you even know the Latin word Dlugosz used for "banner" here?
 
Banderium (plural Banderia), IIRC.

Why should knowing this word in Latin change anything?

so some will have more men behind them that others.

Well, that is exactly what I wrote. Some units called "banners" had more men, some had less.

But for example if a certain land could deploy too few knights to battle, it did not form a separate banner but knights from 2 or more lands were in such case joined together into one banner. On the other hand if some land had too many knights to deploy - they did not fight as part of one banner but were divided into few banners (like knights from Podolia in case of battle of Grunwald). This shows that even though sizes of various banners were different, some numerical interval for a unit called banner was still accepted (= there were no enormously huge banners as well as no ridiculously small ones).

Knights which fought in territorial banners were generally those who were not hired / did not join to any family / private banner.

Apart from family and land banners there were also court banners / royal banners (like Wielka / Goncza in Polish - Haupt / Rynn in German).

It is doubtful such banners were even part of Lithuanian political culture, as such a custom (at least in the form Dlugosz was familiar) is of French (or at least Mediterranean) origin and Poland, in contrast to Lithuania-proper, was highly Francisized.

Organization of Polish armies was more similar to that of German armies of that time - not French.
 
Banderium (plural Banderia), IIRC.
Why should knowing this word in Latin change anything?

Because that would be the actual word being used. If you are going to discuss a particular term, there is no use using only English or Polish translations.

Particularly useful here, as you are presenting later Polish terminolgy as technical terms (and we're talking about Lithuania!) and presenting metonymic usage (more common in later centuries) as the norm.

Well, that is exactly what I wrote. Some units called "banners" had more men, some had less.

So what for goodness are you trying to argue?
 
So what for goodness are you trying to argue?

You was trying to argue that: "banners were not units"???

(and we're talking about Lithuania!)

Apart from your theory that Lithuanian army was not organized into units (or at least that they were not called "banners") not much have been talked here - from your side at least - about the Lithuanian army so far...

Ethnic composition of the army was diversified, as apart from Lithuanians and Samogitians a numerically strong Ruthenian element existed, and to lesser extent also Polish element from Mazovian-colonized Podlachia. There was also a Tatar contingent recruited of political refugees from the Golden Horde, shaken by constant internal conflicts.

And in the Polish army at Grunwald there also might have been some ethnic Lithuanians:

Serving in the banner of duke Zygmunt Korybutowicz (51st banner of the Polish army according to Dlugosz):

attachment.php

attachment.php
 
You ommited the part: "The same took place in Poland". And in Hungary.

No, I said what I meant - if the Bohemian crown lands were behind the Low Countries or western Germany in terms of social and technological development, then Poland and Hungary were behind Bohemia by at least the same measure.

So I don't think that this is the reason why Bohemia was more developed.

It's one of the reasons, which is what I really said. The German colonists were invited for a reason; they brought with them more advanced agricultural practices, manufacturing techniques and other useful forms of knowledge which contributed to faster urbanisation in Bohemia/Moravia/Silesia. At the same time, the relatively small size of the Bohemian lands coupled with their proximity to the other Imperial lands allowed them to adapt and absorb Western trends faster and to trade with them more. Poland and Hungary were much bigger and more isolated by their geographical position. Later the Ottoman/Russian interference deepened the lag between Bohemian crown lands and most of the rest of central Europe.

The reason was rather that a) Bohemia had more natural resources (especially deposits of various minerals and metals) and b) Bohemia had bigger population density - and this had been the case yet in period when Poland was an infant as a state (in 11th century Poland had ca. 5 people / km2 while Bohemia 8 people / km2; then in 14th century when Poland had ca. 10 people / km2, Bohemia had ca. 15 or 16 people / km2).

Population density wasn't a cause, it was a consequence - a measure of how well-off the land really was.

And this is one of the reasons nobody cares much about Polish history and your supposed glory. You've always been a backwater, but even today people like you contribute to the popular notion that you're too proud as a nation to admit it and deal with it psychologically.
 
in terms of social and technological development,

Poland was not technologically behind Western Europe in 14th / 15th centuries (that's the period we are talking about).

By "social" development what exactly do you mean? If you mean politically stronger / more influential / more unified towns & townsmen, then yes.
 
The German colonists were invited for a reason; they brought with them more advanced agricultural practices, manufacturing techniques and other useful forms of knowledge which contributed to faster urbanisation in Bohemia/Moravia/Silesia .

This is said a lot by historians, and undoutedly it's true. But I can't help but feel that the reasons most Slavic princes were doing this is because these foreigners, cut off from their world and completely dependent on them, allowed them to get one up on their local rivals.
 
The German colonists were invited for a reason; they brought with them more advanced agricultural practices, manufacturing techniques and other useful forms of knowledge which contributed to faster urbanisation in Bohemia/Moravia/Silesia.

The same was introduced to Poland (also to territories where Germans colonists didn't come or came in insignificant numbers). By agricultural practices you mean mainly the 3-field-rotation system. This appeared in Poland already in mid-12th century. By late 13th century was already widely spread.

When we speak about development of Poland in 13th - 15th centuries then one should also not forget that not every part of Poland was equally developed. Generally most developed parts of Poland were Silesia (later during this period it became part of Bohemia), Land of Cracow, Greater Poland and Cuiavia - level of development of these was roughly equal (but Greater Poland, Cuiavia and Land of Cracow managed to catch up with Silesia only in late 13th / 14th century). Land of Sandomir followed closely. Mazovia was visibly behind southern & western Poland even though it was densely populated (but it was mostly rural, urbanization level was much smaller than in Greater Poland / Lesser Poland). Pomerelia (with Gdansk) was also one of less developed regions.

Population density wasn't a cause, it was a consequence - a measure of how well-off the land really was.

Not really since I already wrote that population density was bigger in Bohemia yet in 11th century (before any German came there).

Also large population density was not always a real measure of how well-off the land (and especially its people) really was / were.

Overpopulated areas in Medieval had very significant number of people living in poverty - this also refers to large towns.

In Poland Mazovia was even slightly more densely populated than Lesser / Greater Poland, while being backward compared to them.

In 16th / 1st half of 17th century Poland was not less well-off than most of Western Europe, while still being less populated.

But Poland's wealth in 16th century was based mainly on its export of agricultural goods to overpopulated West.

You've always been a backwater

Actually no. From the mid-14th century to the late 16th / mid-17th century one can observe a fast development of "industrial sector" (as we would say today) of Polish economy as well as agriculture and towns (urbanization) as well as education (literacy level, for example). Of course I am talking here mainly about Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Royal Prussia (Pomerelia) and Mazovia - core of Poland. Not about the PL-LT Commonwealth as a whole.

What destroyed it, impeded the Polish social-economic development and doomed Poland for being a backwater for the next 300+ years were the destructions caused by wars which started in mid-17th century. Especially the so called Swedish Deluge was devastating for Polish economy because while Khmelnytsky's Uprising, wars with Russia na such devastated already mostly underdeveloped parts of the country (i.e. eastern territories of the Crown of Poland and territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), the Swedish Deluge devastated this part of the Commonwealth which produced most of its GDP.

the relatively small size of the Bohemian lands coupled with their proximity to the other Imperial lands allowed them to adapt and absorb Western trends faster and to trade with them more. Poland and Hungary were much bigger and more isolated by their geographical position.

Poland ceased to couple with the proximity of its lands only after the Union of Lublin of 1569. This dispersed the economic and demographic potential of Poland into vast areas of Ukraine and Lithuania. As the result it hampered and slowed down further socio-economic and demographic development of actual Poland. Eastern expansion is what doomed us. The "Kresy Empire" Poland built was too vast for it to efficiently maintain.

Not mentioning the fact that Union with Lithuania & accession of Ukraine added some new strong enemies - mainly Moscow (Russia) and Ottoman Empire. So also military potential of Poland was dispersed as Poland had to help GDL to defend its eastern borders and had to defend Ukraine.

That's why I wrote yet several pages ago that Poland did not benefit at all from its Union with Lithuania in long term.
 
Pangur Bán;11160573 said:
This is said a lot by historians, and undoutedly it's true. But I can't help but feel that the reasons most Slavic princes were doing this is because these foreigners, cut off from their world and completely dependent on them, allowed them to get one up on their local rivals.

That goes without saying. Although some level of "proto-nationalism" was present, for most lords and princes at the time it didn't matter one bit what language their peasants spoke, so far as they worked the land and thus contributed to their wealth and power.
 
Actually no. From the mid-14th century to the late 16th / mid-17th century one can observe a fast development of "industrial sector" (as we would say today) of Polish economy as well as agriculture and towns (urbanization) as well as education (literacy level, for example). Of course I am talking here mainly about Greater Poland, Lesser Poland, Royal Prussia (Pomerelia) and Mazovia - core of Poland. Not about the PL-LT Commonwealth as a whole.

What destroyed it, impeded the Polish social-economic development and doomed Poland for being a backwater for the next 300+ years were the destructions caused by wars which started in mid-17th century. Especially the so called Swedish Deluge was devastating for Polish economy because while Khmelnytsky's Uprising, wars with Russia na such devastated already mostly underdeveloped parts of the country (i.e. eastern territories of the Crown of Poland and territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), the Deluge devastated this part of Commonwealth which produced most of its GDP.

For example I made such a graph showing urbanization level (based on data which I found in several sources / books for various years):

This is based on statistics from three regions (Greater Poland - 57,900 km2; Lesser Poland - 55,900 km2 and Mazovia - 31,800 km2). Time frame is from 1340 (when population of these provinces was ca. 1,3 million) to 1780 (population ca. 3,93 million and in 1790 - 4,1 million). Number of towns increased from 111 in 1333 to 707 in 1800. Note the huge drop of urban population during the 2nd Northern War (1655 - 1660) and 3rd Northern War (1700 - 1721) - at the same time the total drop of population of these provinces was much smaller (from 3,9 million in 1650 to 2,9 million in 1660 and from 3,3 million in 1700 to 2,9 million in 1720), so towns suffered more than countryside. Greater Poland suffered most during those periods:

urbanization1.png


In 1580 level of urbanization in Greater Poland was 25,2% (with total population ca. 1,2 million and population density ca. 21 / sq km) in Lesser Poland ca. 26,3% (population ca. 1,25 million and density ca. 22 / sq km) and in Mazovia 14,1% (with population 0,7 million and density 22 / sq km). By comparison in entire France before the revolution of 1789 urbanization level was 16% (but population density was much higher). Of these three provinces of Poland listed above the least urbanized was Mazovia, as you can see. But even in Mazovia number of towns with over 2,000 people increased from 2 around year 1340 to 11 by the end of 15th and 15 by the end of 16th century. Overall number of towns (in Greater & Lesser Poland and Mazovia) per each 1,000 square km increased from ca. 1 in 1340 to ca. 4,5 in 1650.

The wars of 1648 - 1667 and 1700 - 1720 affected most painfully very small towns (those with several hundreds people each). As the result many of these smallest towns "pauperized" and turned into agricultural villages - crafts and trade died down in these small towns. Larger towns survived, even though suffering heavy losses. For example Poznan in 1600 had 20,000 population. In 1660 - 14,000. In 1720 - 5,000. Many of the large towns did not manage to reach the pre-1650 level of population until the very last partition in 1795. Even Gdansk had less population in 18th century than in 17th century. Only growth of Warsaw was not so significantly slowed down by wars and its population constantly increased - as the result it became the largest Polish city in 18th century and one of the largest cities in this part of Europe (but it was the only large city in Poland at that time - by Western European standards).

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

And here some data on breakdown of population (both rural and urban) of several provinces of Poland in 16th century (ca. 1580):

Spoiler :

Greater Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 25,2 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent
Nobility - 5,6 percent

Lesser Poland:

Peasantry - 68,9 percent
Townsmen - 26,3 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent
Nobility - 4,6 percent

Mazovia:

Peasantry - 62,4 percent
Townsmen - 14,1 percent
Priesthood - 0,1 percent
Nobility - 23,4 percent

Royal Prussia:

Peasantry - 59,3 percent
Townsmen - 36,5 percent
Priesthood - 1,2 percent
Nobility - 3,0 percent


Now only categories of rural population of these provinces by the end of 16th century (ca. 1580):

Spoiler :

Greater Poland:

Yokels - 53,0 percent
Smallholders and landless - 29,0 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 10,0 percent
Farm nobility - 4,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 3,5 percent
Priesthood - 0,4 percent

Lesser Poland:

Yokels - 48,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 33,3 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 12,0 percent
Farm nobility - 5,3 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 1,0 percent
Priesthood - 0,3 percent

Mazovia:

Yokels - 41,1 percent
Smallholders and landless - 24,8 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 6,7 percent
Farm nobility - 5,5 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 21,7 percent
Priesthood - 0,2 percent

Royal Prussia:

Yokels - 39,2 percent
Smallholders and landless - 43,4 percent
Craftsmen and minor merchants - 9,9 percent
Farm nobility - 3,1 percent
Smallholding and landless nobility - 2,1 percent
Priesthood - 2,3 percent


Here explanations what people each category of rural population consisted of (for example yokels):

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=403582
 
more unified towns & townsmen, then yes.

In Poland a unified community of towns was never born like in some other countries, for example France or England (which enabled bourgeois revolutions taking place in both countries - in England yet in 17th century, in France by the end of 18th century).

I.e. most of large towns saw other large towns rather as competition than as partners. Also there was no unified town law but each town had different privileges and law. When you was a citizen of one town it didn't mean that you was a citizen of all towns. This is why Polish towns were not politically strong & influential enough to fight with nobility. There was no united "anti-noble" front. As the result nobility remained the dominant factor in Polish political life. Townsmen were not strong enough to be a real counterbalance for political aspirations of nobility until the reforms of late 18th century at least.

On the other hand, the rules of nobility were not that bad and were actually quite progressive and good for the country (if not counting a number of Acts passed by Parliament which increased the rights of nobility at the expense of the rights of peasants and townsmen) as long as medium nobility was in charge of the state. But in 17th century medium nobility lost its dominant position to a handful of powerful magnates who - after the Union of Lublin from 1569 - managed to develop enormous real estates, chiefly in vast eastern territories of Ukraine (incorporated to Poland in 1569) and Lithuania. Most of these magnates actually originated from families of either Ruthenian or Lithuanian descent (just to mention Wisniowieccy - who originated from Ruthenian boyars; or Radziwillowie - famous traitors to the motherland during wars against Sweden - or Sapiehowie - both of whom originated from Lithuanian nobility). Only some were of Polish descent (like Zamoyscy). Such magnates and the hordes of their clients (recruited from poor nobility who received "protection" of powerful magnates in exchange for their votes while acting as deputies) dominated political life and this was fatal for the future of Poland-Lithuania. What contributed to the mentioned decline of position of medium nobility was - once again - that series of devastating wars. During those wars everyone lost property - but those who had considerable wealth, the magnates, could cope with loosing part of it. While vast percentage of families who were medium nobility in early 17th century, unfortunately became poor nobility in the second half of the century, as they lost majority of their property.

This is yet another reason why - IMO - the Union of Lublin of 1569 was ruinous for Poland, in long term. It gave the opportunity for certain people to become very powerful and influential, dangerously influential considering the way how Polish political system worked at that time.

Lithuanian & Ruthenian boyars - after they were granted the same privileges as Polish nobility had - were able to create huge fortunes taking advantage of vast territory of Ukraine and Lithuania. Especially Ukraine which was sparsely populated gave the opportunity of conducting colonization and at the same time expand your estates (this is what Wisniowieccy did - they colonized Ukraine, but of course colonized territory was becoming their hereditary estate).

As long as medium nobility, which was generally patriotically oriented, ruled the country - Liberum Veto was never used in practice. Medium nobility produced also some excellent soldiers (i.e. soldiers of a regular formation of the Polish-Lithuanian army called Husaria, aka Winged Hussars - most of whom were recruited from this class - had excellent morale, and this contributed to their successes no less than training, tactics, leadership & equipment).

The Union of Lublin was not fatal per se - but combined with several other factors & events, it turned out to be fatal.
 
Anyone here feel like they initially liked Poland a reasonable amount but because of this 'Polandz da BEST' romp, are now sliding towards 'anything but Poland?"
 
Hey, Domen, I just want to say I realy apreciate your input. I wasnt sarcastic when I wrote I like Poland. I didnt actualy mean to say that Czech is superior to Poland even though it may be true in some respects just as Poland is superior in other ways - thats just natural. But also what may prove superior in some doesnt have to be so in totaly different circumstances... And when it comes to actual psychological complex I believe what I have red some time ago: the superiority complex is just complex of inferiority expressed in clever way.
 
Once more Domen I apreciate the detailed info. If I have learned something I would say that to become great one needs not just personal effort but also great deal of luck. Think for instance what would have become of England if it didnt stop the Spanish Armada or how an obscure and destitude Habsburgs came to rule large empire.
On the other hand the future of Poland may be better than many others.
 
A German, a Russian, an American and a Pole look at an elephant.

The German thinks: "What a huge animal... I wonder, were it tamed and trained, how much work could it do?"
The American thinks: "What a huge animal... I wonder, were it caught and put into cage, how much money could be made showing it?"
The Russian thinks: "What a huge animal... I wonder, how much vodka could it drink?"
The Pole thinks: "What a huge animal... I wonder, what does it think about me?!"
 
Estonian stands near them, thinking: "What a huge company... I wonder what they are doing here". Three minutes later, aloud: "They are watching an elephant!"

:satan:
 
^ lol
 
Back
Top Bottom