What do you think about Poland?

[Domen]

Once again you mistakenly confuse hate of tyrants and dictators with alleged "Russophobia".

But if you call hate of dictators "Russophobia", then yes - I am also a "Chinaphob" and a "North Koreaphob". And I'm not ashamed of it.

Domen, do not even try

Do not try what? Do not try to insult His Greatest Majesty, Graciously Reigning Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ??? Ok I won't. How could I even dare insult him?! He picked up a 6th century treasure from the Black Sea in 3rd attempt (!) and killed a moose with his bare hands! He's a great prime minister!

 

[Verbose]

Point taken. I think some kind of "identity building" takes place everywhere. I'm maybe the wrong person to talk about this, because I'm not that patriotic anyway, but I'd argue that there's a difference in these examples. The alternative to historical identity is "present identity", i.e. instead of being proud of what a (in some cases only vaguely related) polity that carried the same name as yours did in the past, to be proud of what you're good at at the moment. In the case of Germany, that's often economic performance, because it's doing quite well there most of the time and it doesn't imply militaristic or imperial tendencies. Wirtschaftswunder and Deutsche Mark are referenced because they have a continuity to this present identity, I suppose.

On the other hand, Jan Sobieski's campaign against the Ottomans, for instance, isn't quite related to what defines Poland today, unless you think it's a nation that identifies itself as a militaristic country.

Quite.

Though I think it still bears stressing that some things being more recent don't make them different in kind to more distant stuff various nations pick up on. It's collective imagination about an "us" at work. It's about what stories are working out for you.

But since they vary, from that point it's possible to start dissecting out why and how that is.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Do not try what? Do not try to insult His Greatest Majesty, Graciously Reigning Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin ???

Well, if he is what you say he is, then he's definitely an example of intelligence, cunning and luck far superior to Polish. Cause only Poles could embark all of their government on one plane at once, and then have it crushed on the soil of their most hated political enemy, the same day they planned to bite it with their regular defamation.

 

[Verbose]

I've given thought to it in the past and give conclusion that for Poland anyway, it's a response due to Western Ignorance. Polish history isn't taught in schools or universities in the west (most likely due to the Iron Curtain) and Polish achievements and history is often overlooked. Most westerners only know Poland for being screwed over in the last two hundred years and er.. charging tanks with horses and I don't find it odd at all that Poles choose to defend this.

I am sure there are other factors at work as well at a national level that further promote this 'defending'. (I think they've already been discussed at detail in this thread)

I think the English nationalism on the internet and and IRL are much more notorious though. I have the picture that English people genuinely believe they are the center of the world. Maybe it's an expression result of the mass immigration their society has to endure in recent decades, or maybe I just spent too much time on English football forums.

I think the question is:
Why would any of this bother the Poles? They know who they are, don't they?

Generally speaking, everyone is damn ignorant of most of the more (or less) illustrous history of everyone else anyway. It really only matters when a nation stops keeping this as an internal discussion, and it starts to matter what the rest of the world might think or know.

I think I can generally assume with our varied national origins, we're all a bit curious about the figure our respetive nations cut, but we still respond a bit differently when finding out. And all nations tend to have a collective inflated sense of self.

 

[Verbose]

Well, if he is what you say he is, then he's definitely an example of intelligence, cunning and luck far superior to Polish. Cause only Poles could embark all of their government on one plane at once, and then have it crushed on the soil of their most hated political enemy, the same day they planned to bite it with their regular defamation.

And you claim not to hate the Poles?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

And you claim not to hate the Poles?

Where? I have not claimed whether I do or not. And he got the same he gave me.

 

[Verbose]

Where? I have not claimed whether I do or not. And he got the same he gave me.

Well, it was a question, if a rhetorical one.

And you're still going to have to explain how disliking Putin and the way he has shaped politics in Russia in the last decade or so constitutes hating Russia and Russians in general?

And you might need to explain how what you did equates Domen's thinking Putin is the grave-digger of democracy in Russia? Which Domen is hardly alone in thinking.

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

If you do not see how the manner he did it is hateful, then I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Domen]

Cause only Poles could embark all of their government on one plane at once, and then have it crushed on the soil of their most hated political enemy, the same day they planned to bite it with their regular defamation.

You see, we are wise - we already had our unwanted leader crushed (true, there was some collateral damage - other passengers, including his innocent wife; but abolishing unwanted rules is never bloodless). You should do the same with Putin & Medvedev, watch and learn.

on the soil of their most hated political enemy

Since when Smolensk is in Belarus?

all of their government

Nah... there were only few deputies from the "good" parties - most of the passengers were from PiS.

But, as I wrote, collateral damage is always unavoidable!

then have it crushed

With some help of "qualified" flight controllers of that thing which is called "airfield" (but undeservedly) by some persons.

Cause only Poles could embark all of their government on one plane at once, and then have it crushed

And Russians could embark 173 persons (including small children) on a ferry which is adapted to transport much fewer, then have it rapidly sunk in the middle of a river cuz that ferry was a wreck, then have 122 persons killed due to lack of life jackets & lifeboats. And everything due to corruption.

Not mentioning other spectacular Russian catastrophes of the last 20 years (like anti-terrorist actions in that cinema or in Beslan school both of which killed much more hostages than actual terrorists; the ineffectual saving of the "Kursk" submarine; many spectacular air catastrophes; etc.)

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

<...>
spectacular

Now you've passed from politicians to common Russians to savour your hate. Keep it going.

And everything due to corruption.

And Mr. Putin personally!

 

[Domen]

I have not passed from politicians to common Russians.

Politicians are responsible for the air catastrophes (at least for the condition of air transport.).

In Poland also negligence of the 36th Special Aviation Regiment by political structures responsible for examining its condition and taking actions necessary to keep it in good condition led to the Smolensk catastrophe (and 2 others before it). Politicians were at the top of the control mechanism.

And Mr. Putin personally!

If he picked out a treasure from the Black Sea why couldn't he pick out sinking children from the Volga?

 

[Verbose]

If you do not see how the manner he did it is hateful, then I have nothing to say to you.

Entirely up to you of course. Perhaps just a little convenient though, no?

 

[Pangur Bán]

However, I don't think that Polish history is underrepresented in Western pre-university education. The goal of school education in history is to give a general idea of the main developments that lead to the state of the world today. It's not about giving every nation equal credit for their "achievements", which is a highly arbitrary concept anyway.

In western history education, esp. with regards to political history, there tends to be a focus on either the Age of Imperialism + the "classical" ages + plus the national details of any particular country. Poland is thus peripheral because it was at its peak in an age no-one is taught to care about ... instead all we learn is Poland as that place with the Russo-German back garden fence going through it. By contrast, Poles learn about their greatness, how they civilized the wild poverty-stricken barbarous east and saved Europe from the vilanous Turk, and then the long era of being oppressed and then kept away from their true inner westerness by the evil chop-stick using Russian.

We need a better balance. Polish complaints are valid, and they are one of the most important European nations. But we need less national history generally ... not to promote the EU, but because national history distorts facts and is divisive.

BTW, since there are so many Polish people here, can anyone tell me why your prime minster has a Scottish name?

 

[Winner]

And that's why - in both short & long run - you used to oppress your Slovak neighbours?

When did we do that, exactly?

BTW - some in this thread accused Poles of contemptuous attitude towards Lithuanians / Lithuania. But surprisingly nobody mentioned contemptuous attitude of Czechs towards Slovaks / Slovakia.

Because there is very little of it, and it's mostly confined to the realm of jokes and mutual making fun of each other?

I have many Slovak friends, and we are making these jokes all the time, it's actually very entertaining.

And it is common to find on Czech history websites (even these which don't refer to Slovakia at all - so it is pure Off-Topic there) notes like: "Praha at that time was the biggest city and cultural center in Central Europe. While Slovakia was still a wilderness without culture." or similar.

Never read that on any serious page. When we say this, we mean it as a jest. One of the professors at my college does this all the time "Yes, there was very little actual fighting in the Czechoslovak territory at the end of WW2. Well, there was some in Slovakia, but there was hardly anything there to destroy..."

Please remind our users what was the participation of ethnic Slovakians in the government of pre-war Czechoslovakia?

Don't remember, wasn't alive then. Were you?

And why Slovakians were considered as "hostile" minority - almost as hostile as Germans - in that Czechoslovakia?

They were not...? There officially wasn't a Slovak nation, just the Czechoslovak one with two branches, or some such crap.

Come back when your relations with the Lithuanians move to the point when you can make fun of each other without either side taking offence at every joke.

For the most part of Czech history German colonists actually helped to develop Bohemia economically & to strengthen the links of Bohemia with the West.

Very true. That's partially why Bohemian crown lands have been more developed than any other central European 'country' (Poland and Hungary).

 

[Domen]

Regarding the Lithuanian army at Grunwald:

"Due to clear shortage of appropriate research not much can be said about the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. But it can be assumed that the grand-ducal army marching to meet with forces of the Kingdom consisted only of cavalry, called to arms on principles similar to those, which existed in the Teutonic state. Lithuanian and Ruthenian boyars were arriving on the call of their dukes mounted, armed and with retinues, strength of which depended on "land duties", that is size of landed property of each boyar. Banners formed according to the territorial rule predominated, but also banners mobilized by more significant magnates and numerous princes existed. 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. In total Witold commanded 40 banners, of which we know by name only 21. They were accompanied by supply trains size of which is hard to define. Artillery, consisting of over a dozen guns, probably of small calibre, marched within the supply trains. This artillery, just like Polish, was not used in combat at Grunwald. (...)"

From "Grunwald 1410" by Andrzej Nadolski, Bellona, Warsaw 1996, p. 68.

Jan Dlugosz in his chronicle also writes that Lithuanian banners were genrally smaller (less numerous) than Polish.

So maybe you would like to share your knowledge about the GDL's army - apparently you did some research?

 

[Pangur Bán]

So maybe you would like to share your knowledge about the GDL's army - apparently you did some research?

I've already told you, we don't know the size of the contingents (banners are not a guide to numbers! btw, like I already said too!). I think you might want to reflect on why you are so interested in "mine is bigger than yours" as the objective of historical research?

 

[Domen]

Yes but Jan Dlugosz (a 15th century chronicler) wrote that Lithuanian banners were smaller than Polish. Besides - we know the size of some banners (both from Polish & Teutonic army and other armies of that time) and basing on this info we can assume what was the average size of an average banner.

For example the Teutonic banner of mercenary knights from Meissen at Grunwald numbered ca. 750 men (including 80 knights-lancers + 299 squires-lancers and around as many mounted crossbowmen as lancers in total). Of course this banner was rather among those bigger than average.

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

That's partially why Bohemian crown lands have been more developed than any other central European 'country' (Poland and Hungary).

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

So I don't think that this is the reason why Bohemia was more developed. 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). Hungary on the other hand also had many resources (just to mention Hungarian gold mines), but had low population density - the Mongol invasions contributed to this situation too.

In Poland the Mongol & pagan invasions only devastated eastern and southern parts of the country (including some towns plundered west of the upper & central Vistula). But significant population decrease was observed only east of the upper & central Vistula, in the Lublin province (where population density was in the range of 1 - 3 people / km2 while west of the Vistula and San it was much higher, with the highest density of 20 - 30 people / km2 in the region of Krakow and over 30 people / km2 in the area around the town of Wislica).

Anyway the advancement of Bohemia was not much bigger than other countries of the region, Poland & Hungary. And maybe I'm wrong but it seems that Silesia region was more developed than Bohemia, even yet before Silesian dukes started to pay tribute to Bohemian kings.

Silesia had rich natural resources (including gold mines) so when Poland lost Silesia in 14th century it was a really painful loss. Casimir the Great attempted to regain Silesia but in the end he abandoned his attempts (in exchange for a certain sum of money and declaration of Bohemian king that he would not claim rights to the Polish crown) and focused on expansion into Halych-Volhynia instead. The Jagiellon dynasty wasn't interested in westward expansion. I wrote an essay about dynastic policy of early Jagiellons long time ago. They had many good opportunities of regaining Poland's lost western territories (Silesia, Western Pomerania) but unfortunately did not exploit them. They were more interested in eastern policy.

By contrast, Poles learn about their greatness, how they civilized the wild poverty-stricken barbarous east and saved Europe from the vilanous Turk, and then the long era of being oppressed and then kept away from their true inner westerness by the evil chop-stick using Russian.

There is not that much focus on Poland in pre-university history education in Poland. On the other hand there is also not that much focus on the Age of Imperialism + the "classical" ages - as you wrote regarding the western history education. In Polish pre-university history education it seems that similar attention is devoted to each historical era. There is a separate handbook for each era (usually something like: Prehistory & Antiquity; Middle Ages; Modern Era; 19th century; 20th century). Of course the same can't be said about each country / civilization. Usually everything is Eurocentric. But this also depends on level of education of a particular class - whether it is a class with basic or extended level of history education.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Yes but Jan Dlugosz (a 15th century chronicler) wrote that Lithuanian banners were smaller than Polish.

THe banners being physically smaller is a big deal too?!? I refer you to my last point "I think ... historical research".

 

[Domen]

THe banners being physically smaller is a big deal too?!?

Banners = military units... Bigger banners = more men deployed to battle.

NOT banners = flags...

I refer you to my last point

I am not interested in this. I was asking you about the composition / organization of the Lithuanian army rather than its size.

You claimed you know the organization of the Lithuanian army. Now I checked a book written by professional historian who writes that "(...) not much is known on the Lithuanian army due to clear shortage of appropriate research. But it can be assumed that (...)".

Then I think - wow, this guy from Albania who has only some "enthusiasm" in Medieval history of this part of Europe (at least that's what he wrote), knows much more about the Lithuanian army than one of the best of Polish historians who specialize in this part of history.

Then I think - wow, professional historians can only assume without certainty, while this guy from Albania knows - and knows best!

So I assume that you conducted some detailed research on the Lithuanian army and I'm interested if you could share your knowledge.

Especially your statement that Lithuanians were 100% "professional warriors" and "more professional than everyone around" (commando ???).

Also your statement that Lithuania had no peasants but only warriors is interesting. Who worked?

 

[Pangur Bán]

No, banners represent groups that have banners; for example, followers of a particular lord, so some will have more men behind them that others. 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.