4 ms·
Thing is, European Countries before the Napoleonic Age were quite a bit "intertwined"; Several times between ~1400 ... 1700, Polish (or shall I say, Polish-Lith
by fch42 2y ago
Thing is, European Countries before the Napoleonic Age were quite a bit "intertwined"; Several times between ~1400 ... 1700, Polish (or shall I say, Polish-Lithuanian?) Royalty also ruled Bohemia, Hungary, Wallonia (modern Romania), Sweden, almost got there in Moscow during "the Troubles", while at other times the German / Central European Wettin (Saxony) or Luxemburg (Bohemia) families also held the Polish Crown. Nevermind military alliances (Jan Sobieski's contributions to to lifting the Turkish Siege of Vienna in 1683 got him a memorial in the sky to this day ... the constellation of Scutum).
The way to become King of Poland was not quite as elaborately ritualized as the German electorate, but not generally/universally hereditary either. But neither did Poland isolate itself from its neighbours, on the contrary. Up until internal strife and the great Nordic War, it involved itself a lot with both central and eastern Europe. And while one may look at the partitions as predatory, let's also remember that for 80 years before the Polish Duma flogged the crown to the highest bidder (August the nth of Saxony, for three generations), which, and realize it's a strong word, also sold the country. Let's remember "predatory" territorial expansions also a little in context; Turkey overrunning the Balkans and Hungary between 1300..1526 eradicated a dozen countries. Louis XIV's wars of reunion were very predatory and gained France territory the size of Switzerland. The Austria-Turkey wars after 1683 "undid" 200 years of Turkish rule in Hungary within two decades, as did Russia taking over the Cossack Hetmanates, Crimea; the wars of the Spanish and Austrian succession changed territorial "ownership" on a large scale as well. What Napoleon, in league with quite a few of the German states, did to "countries" in Germany was neither less disruptive nor, territory-wise, smaller in scale than the partitions of Poland.
That doesn't make them "right". I would contest though that they were a "uniquely polish" sort of doom. Other countries lost their independence for centuries as well (Serbia, Hungary, Bohemia/Czechy, Lithuania if you like ...).
The difference "then" was that such changes in overlordship only began to be associated with forceful removals of population - ethical cleansing - after the rise of nationalism post Napoleon. My country (Germany) did rather evil there, and can't blame others for having taken retribution. No need for "love lost". It's not deserved.
The real evil was less the partitions and the "ganging up" on Poland, but the nationalism in the 19th century. The idea that within your country's boundaries, there shall be one language, one culture. It'd have been considered very odd up to ~1700 for sure. And it created
all the evil between 1780 and 1945. Looking at Russia trying to eradicate Ukraine, maybe ... to this day.
And yet, it's all _shared_ history.
- michael9423 2y ago"European Countries before the Napoleonic Age were quite a bit "intertwined"" Excellent contribution. Marion Gräfin Dönhof talks about this, a descendant of both Prussian and newly turned "Polish" political elite and aristocracy. Some of her german ancestors adopted polish names and became thus polish. Before the rise of nationalism, there was not really such a gap between nations as today. Germans sometimes even ruled parts of Poland with no issues. There were also special laws and leaders in Poland exclusively for Germans, in other words, the Germans in Poland ruled themselves, living side by side respectfully with the Polish people. All of this makes one ask what nations really are and what national identity really is in the end, beyond political propaganda. National coherence was forced onto people everywhere, with dramatic consequences and suffering. People have lived hundreds or even thousands of years without the need for unified nations, often many different cultures coexisting with each other under a banner of a "nation", which was mostly just the culture of a given ruling aristocracy at that time.
- surfingdino 2y agoIt seems that creation of nation states was a way of scaling up tribalism.
- dzink 2y agoIt’s money - taxes and tax collection a then the power of those with bigger coffers.
- keiferski 2y agoThe sketch of history you’ve laid out here is misleading and wrong. You’re conveniently forgetting the fact that larger powers deliberately set out to destroy local languages in favor of their own imperial ones, and that Romantic nationalism was a direct response to this. Polish nationalism in the 19th century was continually boosted by the anti-Polish cultural behavior of the larger empires, which tried to erase Polish culture and language in favor of German or Russian. Conversely in the Austrian partition, there was more local tolerance for Polish culture and subsequently Poles had a slightly more amicable relationship with the Austrian-Hungarians. It seems you simply don’t know your history.