>multicultural elective monarchy So, why did it fail?

>>2259376
because of nobles

>>2259378
of and the last polish king was extreme pussy and cuck

>>2259382
oh*

>>2259376
the eternal Austrian and German, out to ruin Europe again.

File: Geografia.jpg (144KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 900x600px

>>2259376
There were several reasons. Main four were:
>Trying to synthesise at least two civilisation
Before this whole circus called union of Brześć Commonwealth had one dominant civilisation - Latin one. It was really strong and was growing rapidlly in east. But then nobles and King listened to cry of Orthodox litugy and allowed them to join Catholic Church with keeping all of thier customs. That was kickstarter for two movements: renovation of Eastern, Turanian Spirit in Ukraine and Moscovy and stupid as fuck idea of "synthesizing east and west" within Commonwealth. And when we have two civilisations on equal terms lesser one wins ALWAYS.
>Monopoly of nobles
It's pretty much self explanatory. Nobles acted like retards and keeped all of power for themselves. And while nobles had equal rights within noblehood, middle class and peasants had nothing to say about country
>Lack of centarl power
It wasn't elective monarchy after, may God protect him, Zygmunt III. It was quasiancap
>Neighbors
They sucked and was lesser than us in civilisation terms. And don't get me started on Great Britan in this whole circus.

>>2259378
le nobles meme. It wasn't that simple.

>>2259466
>lesser
How was the HRE lesser and were germano-slavic relations already shitty in the middle ages?

>>2259376
If I remember my eu4 games, decadent nobility and getting ass-raped by muscowy/Austria at the same time

Plus all this orthodox populace/catholic rulers shit

Recipe for disaster

>>2259683
HRE was since death of Otto III mainly byzantine civilization. Overextended bureaucracy, monism of law, caesaropapism, communities organised in states rather than societies et cetera et cetera. After reformation the byzantinism was even greater and when Second Reich became reality it was zenith of this type of civilisation.

If we speak about relation German-Polish realtions then we must divide it in three
>Teutonic Order/Prussia
Everyone know how it went
>Austria
It was ok fort most of the time, Hapsburg-Jagiellon realtions were cold, but not hostile, only in 1700s it went to shit for century
>HRE
After they get raped by Bolesław I it was the most peacful border in Europe.

>>2259378
"Common" (for lack of a better word) nobles were the good part, the emergent aristocracy were a bigger problem.

But the true main problem was that (contrary to what CK2 teaches) "elective monarchy" as used was not a system that worked. The primary concern of the monarch became using the country to secure some hereditary position for himself or his descendants, either by subverting the elective system of the Commonwealth itself or exploiting the Commonwealth to try and win some throne abroad.

A way to counter the above is to try and curb the power of the monarch as much as possible and this is what was done, but with no other central (e.g. like a prime minister) authority you simply couldn’t enact coherent central policies.

>>2259466
what did Britain do besides BTFO Napoleflop

>>2259754

Kill a bunch of backwards brownies and jerk off to the thought of it

>>2259754
>Sponsored Cossacks
>Sponsored Turks
>Sponsored Muscovites
>Sponsored Sweden
>Made spy network to sabotage economy and Sejm
>Sabotaged efforts to create Polish Navy
>Wanted to do partitions since Elizabeth I
Eternal Anglo is not a meme my friend

>>2259376
((()))

>>2259376
Poles.

File: WW2.jpg (120KB, 567x801px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 567x801px

>>2259754

The Polish Lithuanian commonwealth's multicultural elective system was a product of necessity, it was an alliance of convenience to deter their giant neighbors.

I think it does prove multiculturalism can work. When there is a practical need for it people will instantly drop all their petty antagonism, spooks and memes. However I think this perspective sheds light on the flaws of modern multiculturalism. In the past 2 Polish-Lithuanian nobles would arrange a meeting in a nice setting and arrive in their slavic garb with feathers and stuff and discuss issues in a polite courteous manner that would ordinarly make people want to stab each other in the face, their 2 polities could have been trying to genocide each other a few months ago but now they are waving their little handerchiefs around, bowing and standing astride one another displaying courtly sprezzatura, they would reach an accord then maybe ride their horses around the astoundingly beautiful estate, admiring each others' muscular glutes in their tights as they bounce up and down in the saddle before returning to the great hall to dine on fresh venison and pheasant with plum sauce. Nowadays people resolve their differences by acting like trashy plebs over the slightest thing and shouting each other down.

File: his.jpg (180KB, 523x720px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 523x720px

>>2259466
>"Latin" and Orthodox are different "civilizations"
>everybody is backward but us
>Muscovite-Turanian culture
>we so superior, everybody is jelly

So basically Poles were just as arrogant and autistic as Germans.

>>2259997
>"Latin" and Orthodox are different "civilizations"
"Orthodox" is not a civilization that's the first point. Its denomination. So is Catholicism.
Catholicism was one of "flag ships" and motor of Latin civilization, but it's not synonyms terms. There were Catholic Societies That were Byzantine, Turanian and even Jewish or Chinese. Orthodoxy was present Mainly in Turanian and Byzantine civilizations but there were also exceptions.
Let's take Those two "catholic" and "orthodox" civilizations and compare them.
> Law system
Latin: Dualism
Byzantine: Monism of public law
> Law origin
Latin Society
Byzantine: State
> Marriage law
Latin: monogamous untill death
Byzantine: Just monogamous
> Stage of social life development
Latin: Families create Societies
Byzantine: familes not create diversified communities
> How time is managed
Latin: Historicism
Byzantine Eras
> Form of social organization
Latin: Nations
Byzantine: States
> Purpose, main theme
Latin: Civitas Dei
Byzantine: Hegemonization of all manifestations of community life
>Science
Latin: Free in search of truth
Byzantine: Used to strenghten the state
Et cetera, et cetera.
Funny thing is that Poland didn't really have anything to do with cultures that were both orthodox and byzantine. It was German Byzantinism that we had to deal with. Mostly protestant and reatarded version of Austrian and Teutonic Catholicism. Orthodox Russia and Cosacks were Turanian.
(Cont.)

>>2259997
>>2260436
> Everybody is backward but us
it's true though. Germans in both forms, teutonic and Austriae, were byzantine. Czechs probably too, I have to look up more on them, but it's pretty much pointless since they were part of the Austrian Empire. Slovaks were litterally whos, Hungary upper classes were latin, but society were Turanian, and Russia is Turanian since the Mongol invasion.
Poland, on the other hand, for most of the time were proud culture of latin type. I am not sying That it was alwys like that, we had our moments of weakness (we are still in one) and other three of european civilizations were and still are present in Poland.
> Muscovite-Turanian culture
Let's take other essential Earlier markers from my post and see how Turanian civilization looks like
> Law system
Monism of Private Law
> Law origin
Chief, (Supreme) Leader
> Marriage law
Polygamous
> Stage of social life development
Loosed a camp way of life house system
> How time is managed
Cycles
> Form of social organization
People-Regiments
> Purpose, main theme
Conquest
> Science
Treated in a disparaging manner
Russia is Turanian Civilisation made flesh (without Polygamy of course, but it's a minor point since orthodox teaching on divorces is pretty loose anyway).
Even when you look on "Westernised" leaders like Peter and you will see That he ruled his nation like it was army. He organized the whole system around a quasi-military ranks, made his Church and acted like a bitch and acted like pankrator.
>we so superior, everybody is jelly
See above, plus take in consideration, that I meantion specificlly, that we lost our "supriority" status on our own demand.

File: ppasanen.jpg (47KB, 315x315px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 315x315px

>>2260436
>>2260438

>>2260436
>>2260438
Did you just pull this out of your ass or is there a particular historian adherent to that scheme of categorization?

>>2260870
Feliks Koneczny, professor of history in Vilnius. He was pretty well known before WWII. He wrote many publications about his theory of civilisation, the most essential of them were translated.
Here is his most important work, aboslute starter. It's not even that long.
https://pl.scribd.com/doc/4464979/ON-THE-PLURALITY-OF-CIVILIZATIONS-Feliks-Koneczny-Entire-Book

File: 1485030846539.jpg (118KB, 680x560px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 680x560px

>>2259560
They were a huge factor, though.

Firstly, they were the ones who constantly tried to stop the Commonwealth from obtaining a navy, which negatively impacted the wars with Sweden.

Secondly, they were extremely conservative about cities and did everything they could to stop them from growing. Pretty hard to have a strong country when the majority of it is just tiny villages.

Third, that extreme conservatism is why it was so hard to get a proper military land force - in their eyes the nobles are the ones who are supposed to do the fighting, even though a regular conscript force was much more effective, since during peace time most nobles would just be bored and drink all day.

>>2261358
>Secondly, they were extremely conservative about cities and did everything they could to stop them from growing.
Can you elaborate about that? Some of them even built cities, like Zamojski and his Zamosc.
>Third, that extreme conservatism is why it was so hard to get a proper military land force - in their eyes the nobles are the ones who are supposed to do the fighting, even though a regular conscript force was much more effective, since during peace time most nobles would just be bored and drink all day.
True, but there was nothing wrong in their rationale. The same as today, despite large populations, professional armies are quite small. And most of them is voluntary.
They tried to use peasants in army, but that idea absolutely failed. Not only because Szlachta didn't like that and tried to limit it, the main problem with them was that... they died. Yes, Poles didn't like that to many infantrymen were dying in battles. It's not their fault, that rest of Europe didn't care about soldiers at that time.

Because they followed an opposite trajectory to the rest of Europe at the time: Moving to more independent nobility and decentralized power vs diminished noble power and centralized power

>>2259376

See Austria-Hungary.

File: conan turns on his new monitor.gif (2MB, 623x340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 623x340px

>>2261503
>Can you elaborate about that?
This was prevalent more in Lithuania. Since cities answered only to the King (or the very highest ranking noble families who didn't give a fuck about the lower nobles), they saw cities as a potential danger to their power, as they would back the King in any disputes with the nobles.
There were always exceptions as you mentioned, even here in Lithuania we had cities built by nobles, most notably Birzai, however a lot of times it was only to increase their own influence.
You'd have a hard time finding a noble who would not call cities "hives of sin" and the like back in the day.

Wasn't it because the Sejm had too much authority? I thought that anything they voted on had to approved unanimously, and in a country where every son of a noble was allowed into the Sejm, it meant it was incredibly difficult to get a group of that size to all vote "Yes"

>>2259382
>bon vivant pussy-slayer without any abilities in statecraft
The truth is an equally bad thing made invisible by your lack of language skills and willingness to believe valid points on current social development have universal application.

>>2261552
Um, but Austria-Hungary wasn't multicultural or elective monarchy.

File: find a flaw.jpg (90KB, 1307x268px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1307x268px

>>2259376
if you go all the way with effort to create new religion (greek catholicism) , might as well force entire nation to follow it

>>2259376
>multiculturalism
>elective monarchy
>liberum veto
>nobles and magnates
>cossacs
>żmudzins
>barbaric neighbours
>imbecility in general
>eternal anglo kikes

>>2261950
>Austria-Hungary wasn't multicultural
you what

There's a reason Pan-Germanists were the opposition.

>>2261683
Mostly because a single noble created a precedence when a single poseł leaving for the rest of Sejm, everything gets voided. Liberum Veto + enemies of Poland bribing right people to abuse it.

>>2259376

Largely because it WASN'T multicultural. Polish chauvinism led it to become increasingly Polish-supremacist over the years, which is why modern Lithuanians have no love for Poles despite their shared history.

>>2262569
You might have had a case had the Commonwealth failed due to Lithuanian dissent in the 16th or 17th century as late as the Deluge.

But it didn't, by the time the collapse came the Lithuanian elites had assimilated and were among the foremost fighters against its dissolution.

>which is why modern Lithuanians have no love for Poles despite their shared history.
That's because 19th century Lithuanian nationalist thinkers decried the Polonisation of the elites in earlier centuries, there's no real continuum with the 18th century situation here.

>>2262525
Multiethnical? Sure, but not multicultural.
>>2262569
Lipka Tatars, Jews, Armenians, etc. it was multicultural and quarrel over Vilnius has nothing to do with it.

>>2259376
Sigimund Vasa ruined it. Short story: he created several time bombs which would explode 50 years later and after that it was very hard to recover because of independent Prussia, united Russia and other major empires rising in neighbourhood.
>alienate cossacks
>intervene into russia during times of troubles making them unite against common enemy instead of letting them cannibalize each other
>sperg over swedish throne
>ruin very thin balance between religions with muh catholic supremacy
>ruin middle class by giving shitload of privileges to richest families effectively creating oligarchy

>>2262831
>Multiethnical? Sure, but not multicultural.

Then why did the Poles have autonomy and schools where they could teach in their own language? Why did they have their own party in parliament? Why did the Czechs? And the other nations?

Not even touching the -Hungary bit.

>>2262954
My point was - Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Austrians etc. are not different cultures, they are different ethnics.

>>2259376
>multicultural

>>2262996
retard

>>2262996
They're different ethnicities with different cultures and were allowed to practice their own cultures as official policy.

>>2259376
.

I like how Polen people think they are some kindo of übermensch, but reality is quite opposite lol

>>2264826
Poles are so pathetic. It's hilarious