So about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.





I would like to take up an equally unpopular topic, namely to tell about the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as the true Empire of Freedom, which existed for a total of four hundred years, and which did not die even after its official death, which was the partitions of Poland at the end of the 18th century. The idea of the former Republic of Poland, awareness of the country of religious freedom, freedom of speech and the press (no one was a censor here), a country of incredible tolerance (as evidenced by the settlement of many peoples in Poland: Germans - I myself have German roots, so I know what I am writing about, Italians , French, English, Scots, Spaniards, Tatars, Russians and Jews) and a country "without pyres" where everyone could breathe full breasts and if he didn't spread scandal and respected the laws of the Commonwealth - he could live here in peace and security.

The First Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a country that Aristotles would dream of - the first republic of conscious citizens. It was a country of tolerance and a natural social order, which was not made by any invented system, but a brilliant adaptation of the system to the daily practice and requirements of the earth. Religious wars raged around the Republic of Poland, absolutist monarchies and tyrannies grew stronger, and tolerance and respect for the free voice, the freedom of the policyholder, flourished in its territory. That Poland was a phenomenon on a global scale, and it was shaped not by an idea of ​​a madman, but by pouring the character of the nations inhabiting it into the cup of the common system. And if it weren't for the savagery and primitivism of our neighbors, we would have continued for many centuries. Well, it was too good to last long after all.

However, we had a country that excelled in tolerance, self-government and attempts to build a reasonable democracy - according to the dreams of Aristotles himself. We have never colonized anyone, nor exploited anyone. If any people joined our effort, we quickly admitted them to an equal company. Such a Poland was spoiled by Germanic and Ruthenian groups of barbarians.

But she survived.

And now, when most of Europe is plunging into insane slush, we have survived, we have transferred our genes to the present day. Poland is a great Thing and at the same time Common to all those who join our ethical community, because anyone who agrees to such a community and wants to popularize it can be a Pole. Today, the continent needs Poland more than it needs its bland, self-proclaimed officials. The war in Ukraine shows that the times of great hardening are coming. I can only be happy about it.

For I'm convinced that today history comes full circle and the old Commonwealth is reborn, the one that is depressed, destroyed, the one shot in Palmiry and Katyn, the one massacred in the Warsaw Uprising in 1944, the one destroyed in German Concentration Camps and Soviet gulags - this Poland again is being reborn, and the support that Poles provide to Ukrainians is an example of this (3 million Ukrainians are already in Poland, and we do not open any camps for them, as was the case in Western Europe after 2015. Only Poles receive Ukrainians directly in their homes, as our guests, and as the old Polish proverb says: "Guest at home, God at home"). This is how the old unity is revived, in spite of the barbaric nations of Germans and Russians - the sowers of doom, death and constant conflict.

Russia must emerge from this war broken and decimated, divided into a number of small countries. The same should happen with Germany, which should return to the situation before 1871. I think so, because the united Germany (although I myself have German roots after my father) is a nation that brought only misfortunes to Europe. They started world wars twice and flooded Europe with immigrants from the Middle East, who in a few years will pose a serious danger in Western European countries (I believe that bloody civil wars will take place there). They do not deserve a united state. I will not even mention the Ruskies (recently I listened to a recorded telephone conversation of a russian soldier who called his girlfriend and boasted that ... he was killing civilians in cold blood. He said that he shot them in the back of the head and he did not feel sorry for them, although on his knees they asked him to spare his life). The Russians are a nation of slaves, barbarians and criminals who may become civilized in the future after the collapse of the anomaly that is Russia. The countries of the Intermarium (Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc.) will probably help them.



Murderers who kill innocent people in this way are not worthy of being called human at all. Attention, the drastic scenes from the movie about the Warsaw Uprising 1944.




That is why a new, geopolitical shape of Europe should be worked out, now and not after the war. Russia must become a pariah, "sick man of Europe"  with whom no one will have any contact except the most obvious. When the Russian economy collapses, the country will start to fragment and there will be an opportunity for all of Europe, especially for the countries of the Intermarium. Finally, after three hundred years of weakness and occupation, we will return to our ancient path - to the power of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And this will bring peace and security to Europe.



"We looked around us, Riga from above, Vienna from below, and Moscow a stone's throw or a half. Oh, what a great honor for us, an extraordinary Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth (...) They stare in amazement London, Paris, the Muezzin and the Mandarin, the Kremlin are burnt, the Tsar is turned into pinscher (...) Because there will be a colander, alias sieve, who wants to strike the Polish-Lituanian Commonwealth".

We'd all like to see Russia weakened or at least run by a level-headed leader, but a devastated Russia split up into ever smaller countries will only lead to more wars. Look at what happened in the years immediately following World War I - myriad little ex-Russian states emerged, some only survived a matter of weeks and all were involved in brutal territorial wars. 
Your German notion is pure fantasy however appealing the patchwork quilt of tiny Principalities might look on a map. We've seen the last of such pocket handkerchief states as the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg.

I agree that the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a fascinating study, although the one thing that sticks in my mind is the flawed nature of the elective Monarchy which led to a series of internal problems brought about by conflicting families vying for the top job, all to the detriment of the State as a whole. Too busy arguing which each other to halt the progress of their rapacious neighbours.

Sigbert, at my (Catholic) primary school there were some children whose parents had either fought with the Free Poles or had ended up in the UK as displaced persons after World War II.  I even knew one girl at senior school whose mother had lost (as in lost, not as in he died) a son in the aftermath of the War.  Her mother had been dangerously ill and a nurse had been taken by the lad and I suppose you would say nowadays kidnapped him and was able to disappear with him in the chaos that was Europe after the War.  B______'s mother did trace her son after he grew up but he said something along the lines of the woman who brought him up was his mother as far as he was concerned and she (B_____'s mum) could be his mother if his adoptive mother predeceased him.  So not a happy ending.  I just hope the nurse gave the lad a good life.  I think she did genuinely think B_____'s mum was going to die.

Getting back to Polish history.  For A level at school I did some "European" history though in retrospect it must have been a somewhat bare bones version.  For A level (which had two components - British history and European history) my class studied from about the Restoration of the British Monarchy (1660) to the Reform Act of 1832.  I've forgotten a lot of my "European" history though I remember mention of John Sobieski and of the Golden Silence.  There were three partitions of Poland if I remember - it being carved up between the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Russia and Prussia.

I read James A Michener's Poland in the late 1980s or early 1990s.  It was a historical fiction book but J A Michener I felt kept faithful to actual history.  That said, I sometimes have a memory like a sieve and would have to remind myself of the details of the history.

I had a discussion on this site with a member who is no longer with us after having seen a documentary Assault on East Prussia about the last days of East Prussia as a German province and the bombing of Konigsberg.  I felt very sorry  watching newsreel about the people who were expelled from former East Prussia then.  Many of them didn't make it.  I know it's a difficult subject because some of the land that became Polish after World War II had been Polish before the partitions.

I don't believe that all Russian people are evil though.

LadyinRetirement wrote:

I read James A Michener's Poland in the late 1980s or early 1990s.  It was a historical fiction book but J A Michener I felt kept faithful to actual history.

I read it around the same time LiR. I seem to remember in an interview Michener saying that, despite being famous for writing about the Pacific Ocean and North America, he thought that the history of Poland was the most fascinating of any country. So taken was I with the novel that it inspired me to find out more about Polish history and I then read Norman Davies’ 2 volume history of Poland God’s Playground (1981) which is truly excellent. Davies is particularly good at showing the contrasts and contradictions in Polish history. For instance he points to a saying relating to the reign of Augustus II of the House of Wettin, the Elector of Saxony who in 1694 was himself elected King of Poland & Grand Duke of Lithuania:

"Za króla Sasa jedz, pij a popuszczaj pasa!"

"Under a Saxon king, eat drink and loosen your belt!"

Augustus’ election ushered in a nearly 40-year reign which saw an unparalleled era of peace and prosperity for the Commonwealth.

Vizzer wrote:

Augustus’ election ushered in a nearly 40-year reign which saw an unparalleled era of peace and prosperity for the Commonwealth.

Let me disagree with you, Vizzer.

The times of the reign of Augustus II the Strong (also known in Saxony as Frederick Augustus I) are the times of the slow decline of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Yes, there was a saying that you quoted above, but it primarily meant at that time the incredible debauchery and supremacy of the nobility, who controlled the entire country, and the nobility was controlled by magnates - i.e. representatives of great families who bought their votes at the Seyms (e.g. during the election of kings).

From the former noble democracy, which was an exception on a global scale (and a double exception, because each foreigner who came to Poland, he knew that there was a monarchy here, because there was a king, and when asked what system Poland governed, he was answered that it was a Republic (in Polish it reads as "Rzeczpospolita" - a common thing, common to all citizens), the system was turning into a magnate oligarchy.

At that time, it was already a deeply sick and weak state, without a standing army, without constant taxes and without the nobility's willingness to stick their necks in battles and wars (which was their duty). This state of affairs was so dangerous that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was still a very large country and didn't have an army. In a situation when absolutist monarchies (Austria, Prussia, Russia) were forming next to us, which could raise armies of several hundred thousand, Poland was then "God's Playground" with them.

But it was not always like that, we used to be a real power, even a european superpower.

In 966, the country of Lechites converted to Christianity. The statues of the old Slavic gods were overthrown (although the people remained largely pagan for another two hundred years) and in 1000 the first archbishopric in Gniezno, independent of Germany was established (then religion was an extension of politics and such nuances were of great importance).

In 1000, the Roman-German Emperor Otto III came to Gniezno to meet the Polish ruler - Bolesław I the Brave and ... crowned him there with his imperial crown as an equal ruler (Otton was charmed by the power of Bolesław's country, the multitude of people, settlements, warriors - Bolesław had even a small number of female warriors - Amazons. There were also exotic animals, such as camels, because Poland traded with the East and South, and from the Arabs through Byzantium and Bulgaria and Hungary, these animals came to the Vistula, then Bolesław and his successors donated several camels to the Roman-German emperors).

For Otto had a plan to restore the former Roman Empire to what would now be the European Christian Empire. It was related to the Millennium that was lived then (end of the millennium) and the vision contained in the biblical Book of Daniel that there were only four great empires in history (Babylon, Persia, the Empire of Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire). The Roman Empire was to be the last one, followed by the end of the world and the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Judgment of the Living and the Dead. Therefore, in order not to go to hell, people at that time began to donate their possessions, gave huge money to the poor, etc.

Therefore, Otto III wanted to renew the Roman Empire in the spirit of full Christian sacralism and saw four countries as the pillars of this Empire - Germany, France, Italy and Poland (namely Italy, Gaul, Germania and Slavonia/Lechia). And when he visited the country of Bolesław and saw his wealth, he crowned it with his crown, thus giving him an equal position in this Empire, superior to the rulers of the Franks and Italy, who were crowned with other diadems).

In 1138, however, the Piast state was divided into several provinces by Bolesław III the Wrymouth (he wanted each of his sons to receive his province and that they would not have to fight for power as he fought with his brother Zbigniew). This is how the period of the territorial disintegration and political weakening of the country began, connected in the 13th century with the considerable German colonization with the Reich. It was not until the beginning of the 14th century that Prince Władysław I Łokietek (meaning "small" because he was short) managed to unite some polish lands with Krakow and crown himself king in 1320 (after the coronation of Bolesław the Brave, the crown was sent back to Germany in 1079 and subsequent rulers were already princes). From 1320 until the collapse of the state in 1795, Poland was already a monarchy and at the same time a Republic from 1493).

The son of Władysław I was Kazimierz III, who went down in history as "the Great". He reigned in the years 1333-1370 and made a divided, weak country a european power. He built a lot of new castles, fortresses, cities, renewed trade, significantly expanded the borders of the state, although he maintained a salutary peace with the greatest superpower of that time - the Teutonic Order (brought to Polish lands in 1226 by the ruler of Mazovia - Conrad I, to fight pagan Prussia, who then invaded Mazovia). This allowed the country to be strengthened, to make it great and strong again (in 1364 he founded the first University in Krakow in Poland), and on top of that there was the Black Death epidemic, which turned out to be very mild in Poland (apart from a few cases, Poland was free from this plague, which decimated the whole of Europe in the years 1348-1353). both West and East (some cities in Western Europe were so devastated by the plague that they turned into villages.)


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Blackdeath2.gif


Casimir the Great, however, had no sons and was afraid that he would be the last monarch of the Piast family (the dynasty founded in 842 by Piast Wheelwright and his son Ziemowit after the overthrow of Popiel II the Criminal).




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy0ZEbgnZME&t=67s



Kazimierz was married four times (almost like Henry VIII), but he had no sons. His first wife - a Lithuanian princess - Aldona 1325-1339 (she was christened Anna) gave him two daughters.



English subtitles.





The second wife was the daughter of the ruler of Hesse - Adelaide (1341-1365). She was probably sterile, as she did not bear any children to the king, for which the king locked her in the tower, where she stayed for thirteen years, and in 1356 she left for Hesse (although her father forbade her to come back and ordered her to stay with her husband. Adelaide was very unhappy, and the king was unfaithful to her - it was said that he built enough castles to gather all his concubines in them).





The last two wives were married to Kazimierz when was married to Adelajda, i.e. he committed a double bigamy - but he did not care about it. Kazimierz - a great monarch, was at the same time a great womanizer and did not have a son. After his death in 1370, the son of his sister Elizabeth - Ludwik (1370-1382), the king of Hungary - assumed the Polish throne.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM-aLACqb9w


After him, the throne was taken over by his younger daughter - Jadwiga (1384-1399), who reigned in Poland as a king, not a queen. Jadwiga died in childbirth, giving birth to a daughter who died with her.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6BoH0x9A8


In 1386 Jadwiga married the prince of Lithuania - Jogaila, who took the baptism name - Władysław. From then on, he ruled with Jadwiga until her death in 1399, and then independently until 1434 as Władysław II Jagiełło, the founder of the new Jagiellonian dynasty.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--HWjHlGoMA


Thanks to this marriage, Lithuania was baptized (1387) and the first Polish-Lithuanian Union in history was concluded (1385). The power of the state of Kazimierz the Great and the strength of Lithuania connected with Poland caused that in 1410 the greatest power of medieval Europe - the Teutonic Order in the Battle of Grunwald was smashed. This battle is the beginning of the period of Polish superpower, lasting over three hundred years. At that time, knights from all over Europe enlisted in the Teutonic Knights, even the King of England - Henry IV planned to participate in the Battle of Grunwald, but the war with France prevented him from doing so. If he had participated, how would the others probably have been captured (his son later won a great victory over the French at the Battle of Azincourt). However, Jagiełło released all prisoners from the West as soon as they made a vow that they would not draw their sword against the Polish Crown anymore.


English subtitles








In this battle, the power of the German was destroyed, and the Order finally ceased to exist in 1525, when the last Grand Master paid a feudal tribute in Krakow to the grandson of Władysław Jagiełło - Zygmunt I.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnc9Hi_fls


At the end of this long post I would like to add that they emerged from the powerlessness of the eighteenth century on their own adopting in 1791 the first in Europe and the second in the world after the American - modern Constitution, called the Constitution of May 3. It eliminated all evil leading to the anarchization of public life and the omnipotence of magnates and nobility, introduced a hereditary monarchy and permanent taxes on the army. Unfortunately, it was too late, in 1792 the terrified Tsarina of Russia - Catherine II attacked Poland, and King Stanisław August Poniatowski (her former lover) did not believe in victory, despite his successes on the battlefields ... capitulated. It was the end of old Poland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltcJBZdK7kY


And then, alongside Napoleon the Great and in other uprisings, our ancestors fought for independence throughout the nineteenth century, until 1918, when "Poland is risen" and in 1920 saved Europe from the bolshevik flood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k24j4F2o9w

Thanks for disagreeing Sigbert. That is, after all, the essence of a lively forum which otherwise would be a rather dull echo-chamber. Thanks also for those invaluable pointers regarding the earlier Polish kings which I was unware of. I particularly liked the story of Bolesław III the Wrymouth and I have to say that his has now got to be my favourite sobriquet of any monarch anywhere. Just fabulous! You’ve also reminded me that I wrote 1694 as the year of Augustus’ election when, of course, it should read 1697.

I suppose that the differing interpretations of the meaning of the saying "Under a Saxon king, eat drink and loosen your belt!" would seem to be an example of precisely one of the contradictions in Polish history suggested by Norman Davies. What is meant by this is that, although there were low taxes and no standing army for much of that period, this had a beneficial effect fiscally both on the magnates and the peasantry – i.e. they all had more money in their pockets. The flip side of this seemingly hedonistic way of life was (as you say) that this made the country vulnerable to predatory neighbours. And this was exacerbated by the fact that the constitution enabled those same neighbours to exercise undue and sometimes malicious influence both on the internal and external politics of the Commonwealth. So severe was this threat that it did indeed ultimately prove existential.
  
Yet the final phase of the Commonwealth’s existence (from the election of Augustus II to the Third Partition) was nearly 100 years in duration. It’s easy for us with hindsight to point to the divided and confused Polish body politic at the time and wonder why those who saw Moscow as being the main threat were far outnumbered by those who didn’t. Indeed, to our 21st Century minds, the idea that (rather than Russia) the Commonwealth wasn’t so much wary of Prussia or even Austria but really feared Sweden. To us this seems short-sighted in the extreme because we know that Sweden was by then rapidly becoming a spent force. At the time, however, the shock of the Swedish invasion of Poland of 1655 far exceeded any concerns regarding border skirmishes with Muscovite forces in eastern Lithuania. For instance, today in Britain many people may have heard of the Swedish warrior kings Gustavus Adolphus (of Thirty Years’ War fame) and Charles XI (the Swedish Meteor of the Great Northern War) but very few are likely to know of Charles X Gustav who inflicted such a psychological blow on Poland by capturing Warsaw and Krakow in quick succession. This sense of a Swedish threat was further reinforced a generation later when Charles the Meteor (almost incredibly) took on both the Commonwealth and Russia simultaneously and spectacularly defeated each at Klissow and Narva respectively.

Bearing this in mind, therefore, it’s easy to see how the body politic in Poland-Lithuania at the time of the Great Northern War turned against the likes of Stanisław Leszczyński (Augustus’ rival for the throne) as being just a Stockholm-backed stooge. With the benefit of 300 years’ hindsight we can say, perhaps, that the supporters of Leszczyński were actually correct and that it was indeed Peter Romanov in Moscow who was the real threat. Yet the magnates were just glad to have weathered the Deluge and the Meteor and wanted to enjoy some peace for a change. And, of course, which Pole or Lithuanian at the beginning of the 18th Century could have envisaged what future threat was posed by tiny, sandy Brandenburg? Even Augustus’ own Saxony saw Brandenburg’s pretensions at that time (i.e. tentatively referring to Mark Brandenburg and the Duchy of Prussia as a ‘kingdom’) as risible. Again, 300 years later we, of course, know differently.

P.S. Mark Brandenburg isn’t the name of a 1920s athlete-turned-Hollywood actor but is the short version for the Electoral Margraviate of Brandenburg, sometimes also known as the March of Brandenburg (which itself sounds like a marvellous piece of military music).

Vizzer wrote:

I suppose that the differing interpretations of the meaning of the saying "Under a Saxon king, eat drink and loosen your belt!" would seem to be an example of precisely one of the contradictions in Polish history suggested by Norman Davies. What is meant by this is that, although there were low taxes and no standing army for much of that period, this had a beneficial effect fiscally both on the magnates and the peasantry – i.e. they all had more money in their pockets. The flip side of this seemingly hedonistic way of life was (as you say) that this made the country vulnerable to predatory neighbours. And this was exacerbated by the fact that the constitution enabled those same neighbours to exercise undue and sometimes malicious influence both on the internal and external politics of the Commonwealth. So severe was this threat that it did indeed ultimately prove existential.

The basis of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was democracy and freedom (of speech, conscience and the press). The American historian Robert Howard Lord wrote about Poland in 1919: "Great enthusiasm for freedom in every branch of life; the principle of the nation's rule, calling all citizens to participate in government responsibility, the concept of the state not only as a thing itself, but as a tool. serving the social good; aversion to absolute monarchy, standing army and militarism, reluctance to initiate aggressive wars, while outstanding ability to create voluntary unions with neighboring peoples - these are some of the striking features of the former Polish state, which makes it an exceptional unit between robbers and soldiers the monarchies of those ages".

Joseph Conrad wrote in 1916:
"The merging of the areas of the Brightest Republic of Poland, which made it for a time a power of the first rank, was not achieved by force (...) one hundred and three representatives of the Lithuanian and Ruthenian lands, led by the most important of the princes, entered into a political union, unique in world history, a spontaneous and complete union of sovereign states, consciously choosing the path of peace. No political document has ever expressed more truth than the introductory paragraph of the first  Union Treaty of the Crown and Lithuania (1413). Behind it begins with the words: "This relationship, which is the result not of hatred but of love" - words that have not been addressed to Poles by any nation during the last hundred and fifty years".

Polish writer Jerzy Surdykowski stated: "The noble Polish-Lithuanian Republic already had its human rights pacts in the second half of the 15th century, a parliamentary system and a tripartite division of powers at the beginning of the 17th century - two and a half centuries before Monteskiusz (...) Polish democratic thought successful and effective for two centuries the experiment of noble democracy influenced Western European political thought (...). Frycz Modrzewski certainly influenced Hugo Grotius - and so on and so on, up to the great figures of the French Enlightenment. After all, Henry's Articles of 1573, describing the entire political system of the state, are in practice the first Polish constitution, much earlier than the American one".

And a certain prof. Wieńczysław Wagner wrote in 2003:"I believe that no nation in Europe has secured the recognition of human dignity and the abolition of the ruler's arbitrariness as early as the Poles (...) The royal promise of 1432 (neminem captivabimus nisi jure victum - we don't arrest anyone without a court order) is now considered elementary in countries practicing democracy in the correct understanding of the word. The same law as ours polish (Habeas Corpus Act) was abducted in England only two and a half centuries later (...) From other examples one could also mention that "privilege" Czerwiński from 1422 guaranteed that the king would not confiscate private property without the consent of the court. A similar provision was included in the amendments to the US Constitution of 1791, that is three and a half centuries after the adoption of this principle by Poland. He was then treated in the USA as a great democratic achievement (...) Poland was a praiseworthy example of great freedom. You could express your views, profess different religions, participate in making a number of decisions concerning the life of the state, and if the law was not broken, there was no reason to be afraid of the king or other authorities. Meanwhile, in the vast majority of countries, their inhabitants, regardless of the social class to which they belonged, were to a greater or lesser extent slaves in the hands of state power. The rulers could arrest and kill them without any institutional control or accountability. Their property may have been confiscated without justification, and any searches have been conducted without a court order. It happened that state dignitaries (e.g. boyars) could not even marry without the consent of the ruler".





Prof. Jerzy Kłoczowski wrote: "It was the most enduring union in the history of Europe (...) The union of the nations of Central and Eastern Europe that created this state was not the result of conquest, coercion, but the will to be together. The Republic was jointly created by Poles, Lithuanians and Ruthenians. It was their common raison d'état and historical interest".

And prof. Janusz Tazbir, writing about the French Edict of Nantes of 1598 and the Confederation of Warsaw of 1573, added: "It is difficult to comprehend the reasons why not only the French mass media, but also the local scientific world are trying to present the Edict of Nantes as the first act of tolerance of this importance. on the scale of the entire continent (...) It is not national pride, but a careful juxtaposition of these two acts, which allows us to state that the Confederation in every respect superior to the edict issued in Nantes. It granted freedom not to one named confession, but to all denominations, stressing only that "dissidentes in religione" (differing in faith) should live in harmony with each other for the sake of the Commonwealth. Moreover, the confederation solemnly resolved that no one should suffer persecution because of differences in faith. and effectively counteract it. At the time of its adoption, protestant synods had been held for a long time without any obstacles, they were still active dissenting schools, and numerous typographies freely embossed works promoting the principles of the new faith. That is why France was looked upon with superiority, as it finally followed the example of Poland with such a considerable delay".

Poles even claimed that the French finally (in that 1598) took "polish cure" to end the bloody religious wars in their country. And when elected king was in 1573 Henry of Valois (brother of King Charles IX of France), he had to sign a special promise that he would retain religious freedom in the Commonwealth (people feared then what happened during St. Bartholomew's Night in Paris), and already after arriving in Krakow, during the coronation, a separate confirmation of religious freedom was requested from Henry, and the Grand Marshal of the Crown, Jan Firlej, approached the altar, held the hand of the primate who was to crown Henry as king and said in latin: "Si non iurabis, non regnabis" ( that is, "If you do not swear, you will not reign"). The following video is added to the question, spoken by Samuel Zborowski to Jan Zamoyski: "This is the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, John. There is no country in the world where someone would dare to approach the altar and touch the crown".





Despite the fact that the country was dominated by democracy and freedom (which is not conducive to strong power and militarism), the Republic of Poland was a military power for over two hundred years. We had no equal in battles, and our hussars (husaria - winged riders) were the terror of every army and for the first 125 years of its existence it did not lose any battle, which qualifies it as the best horse formation in the world.


"This is a ride that was second to none, when hussars gallop with bowed lances, nothing can resist it, no army to stop it and basically all you can do is terrain obstacles".




It is also not entirely true that Poland did not invade other countries then. Unfortunately, it happened that our ancestors did just that. For example, Polish magnates often traveled to Moldova, overthrowing the local hospodars (followers of Ottoman Turkey) and introducing people raised in Poland to the thrones. Poles were also the only ones in the world to conquer Moscow twice. For the first time in 1610, after the victory at the Battle of Kluszyn, where the combined russian-swedish army stood, where the enemy's advantage was 6: 1. For two years, the polish crew was stationed in the Kremlin, and Moscow had its polish governor. Today, the Russians celebrate the day of the "expulsion of the polish interveners" from Moscow as their greatest national holiday. The Poles entered Moscow for the second time two hundred years later, in 1812 under Napoleon (Polish hussars entered Moscow as the first in the entire Grand Army).


Trailer of the Russian movie "1612"
"You cannot kill me, I am the tsar!" "You were!"




In 1614, polish Cossacks burnt the Turkish Synopa, and in 1615 and 1616 they twice threatened Constantinople, forcing the Sultan to flee the city with the harem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzUMqKQSQ0