Tell me some cool shit about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

The longest union in European history (1385-1795). Captured Moscow. The noble democracy actually worked for most of its history but bad political decision led to its downfall. The eastern region was like the Wild East with Poles, Ruthenians, Cossaks and annual Tatar attacks. The richest noblemen were more powerful than kings at least in those parts. Radziwiłł was probably the most famous with one of them famous for "selling" the country to the king of Sweden. His descendant was JFK's brother-in-law and another one is a minister in the Polish government.

A neat one. The guy who captured Moscow (Stanisław Żółkiewsk) died in a battle with Turks 10 years later. There was an inscription on his grave which read: exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor (May you arise an avenger from our bones)

His great-grandfather was Jan Sobieski. The king of the Battle of Vienna fame.

>>2670602
>>2670614
does that make them the only European country in history to succeed in taking Moscow? Neat.

>>2670617
intact moscow, yes

napoleon captured the ruins

>>2670621
Pretty much.
Although one schoold of thought says that it was also captured by international Bolsheviks. Better than trying to whitewash its criminal history. There are a couple Russian historians who prefer that version.

It can also be noted that Napoleon had Polish Legions with him when he entered Moscow.

>>2670876
Never enter Moscow without them.

>>2670584
Interesting democratic government where every noble could vote.

Mind you, non-nobles couldn't interact with the government.

>>2670614
>His great-grandfather was Jan Sobieski

Other way around, Sobieski was Żółkiewski's great-grandson.

>>2670896
>Mind you, non-nobles couldn't interact with the government.

so just like everywhere?

>>2670928
Oh shit yeah that's what I meant obviously.

>>2670896
They did have a higher proportion of nobles than everybody else, though. I think it was like 20% of the country at its peak, but I could be wrong.

One peculiar thing that contributed both to its era of prosperity and the later decline is the fact the Commonwealth never had a conscription system and until the very collapse of the country its introduction was strongly opposed. All of its military forces were fully voluntary.

As the partitions happened (which took place over two decades) the partitioning powers had to station significant forces along the borders with the Commonwealth because commoners would try to flee there to avoid conscription.

>>2671004
Yeah, I read that by the time the partitions began the PLC only had a standing army of 16,000 men, compared to Prussia and Russia whose were in the hundreds of thousands.

>the partitioning powers had to station significant forces along the borders with the Commonwealth because commoners would try to flee there to avoid conscription.
A big reason why the partitions happened was that Russia and Prussia were sick of losing peasants to Poland for reasons like this one. Same with Austria but not to the same degree.

File: 1490215190475.png (17KB, 746x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 746x600px

Does anyone have pics of what the 18th century decline Commonwealth's soldiery looked like in comparison to the western armies? Did they have a uniform, or were they still backward pike-wielding throwbacks to the late 17th century? Furry hats and traditional eastern clothing n shit

File: Polish_soldiers_1697-1795.png (2MB, 1135x875px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1135x875px

>>2671050
Under Bathory(second half of 16thC) Pikemen-musketmen ratio has changed in favor of firearms.
In early 17thC, infantry resigned from pikes entirely. So in that therms Polish army was quite ahead of time.
As for uniforms, they started using them under Bathory.

>>2671050
I guess in the first half of the 18th century when Poland was ruled by the Saxonian Wettin dynasty they looked similar to theirs.

it's a mix. The Kosciuszko Insurrection had its own style of course

File: kosynier1.jpg (72KB, 592x800px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 592x800px

>>2671088
>>2671090

You beat me to it with this pic.

Have peasant infantry from the uprising (1794)

File: 72b57f58747013715fe8f1d35021c456afa1403902c97b1cf5980371bbb3b2d7.png (50KB, 780x646px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 780x646px

>>2671088

East-West transition clothing is so damn beautiful lad

File: kosynierzy-powstanie-styczniowe.jpg (61KB, 750x469px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 750x469px

>>2671094
Same type of unit on the pic from the January Uprising (1863-64). They had guns too but those scythes were way scarier.

>>2671050
>>2671088
Also mass infantry formations wasn't ever a thing (outside the Kosciuszko uprising, sort of) in the Commonwealth, partly because of the lack of conscription. Their army was 60% cavalry even in the XVIII century and more than that earlier.

In terms of cavalry officer corps they were still among the best in the world, various Polish officers would go on to serve in other militaries across the world and influenced them greatly (e.g. Pulaski in the United States).

The infantry that they did field was very similar to Western ones.

>>2671088
Mind you, most of higher ranking soldeirs, especially those from nobility, would keep their eastern-styled attires until the end of PLC, and even way into the partitions. The spirit of Sarmatia was very strong with them.

File: king.h1.jpg (12KB, 284x359px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 284x359px

>>2671112
Too bad king Leszczyński turned out to be a Germaboo.

File: 1484242667266.jpg (100KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 480x640px

>>2671088
/fa/ as fuck

File: faggot.jpg (94KB, 543x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 543x600px

>>2671114
Don't ever elect a king named Stanisław.

t. Saint Stanislaus

>>2670584
The weather.

On a sidenote, Romanian chronicles of the time frequently mention how easy it was to pillage Poland because of the slow response time from the Szlachta. As a result, şleahtă came to mean disorganised band in Romanian. Of course when they finally got their shit together the Poles would just rek you silly.

>>2670617
We didn't "succeed" in taking Moscow. First of all we didn't really "take it". We were let in by friendly boyars. And we lost Moscow again in 2 years. We gained Smolensk, but it was only temporary. We didn't manage to crush the Moscow's power.

>>2671245
Ekhem.

It wasn't a friendly visit. Yeah for some nobles (and peasants) it made no difference who ruled the country but it was the direct result of the Battle of Klushino. It was temporary because they were left alone when King Siggi decided that he doesn't his son to convert. Officially the king's son was the Tsar for 2 years. He wasn't a prince of Poland because the monarch was elected. Not like any Pole needs any reminder. We all know that story. Polish and Russian history would've been much better and less painful if that project succeeded.

>>2671264
Oh yeah, it would've certainly be better for Russians if they go an incompetent king. We saw how that turned out for Poles.

>>2671245
I didn't mean "take" as in conquer and annex, I'd call a two year occupation successful.

>>2671445
This. Basically all Polish rulers after Stefan Batory were just completely incompetent. Russian rulers exploited the people but Russia, as a state, thrived.

>>2671471
Władysław IV and to some limited extent Jan Sobieski weren't bad. Also there wasn't many kings left after Batory anyway so it's a bad comparison.

>Russian rulers exploited the people but Russia, as a state, thrived.

It did? Didn't notice. Anyway it sounds like a fucking HORRIBLE trade off.

>>2670965
As far as I remember, you are correct. If you are incorrect, then the number would be higher, not lower.

>>2671445
Oldest son of Sigismund was fairly competent and even popular among Cossacks. It was his younger brother that succeeded him that was bad. The youngest of brothers would probably be a better choice.

>>2671033
>be super aggressive and fuck horses
>your people flee the country to avoid war just like you fled yours to live with QT redpilled BF
>partition the country you owe your life to

>>2671245
I think you have mistaken Dymytriads with 1610 Polish-Russian war.
In 1605 Polish adventurers with Dmitry I after some battles were invated to Moscow. One year later he and all Poles were massacred.
But in 1610 there war proper war, and by any means Poles were not invited.

>>2671487
>>2671577
Also, keep in mind that once Vasa dynasty lost the elections for Polish throne (and you can bet your ass Polish nobles wouldn't vote for a Tzar of Russia to be their king), it is likely that Russia would go to war with Poland to recover the throne, so pretty much the same thing would happen like in history, only Russia might've been more aggressive in conquering Poland.

And yes, after the TIme of Troubles, Russia only grew larger. It would've probably be the most powerful state in Europe if technological advancement didn't make quantity not as important as before.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3000x1997px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x1997px

>>2670876
>Poles either captured or helped capture Moscow, twice
neat

pic related is the only real Polish picture i have, Polish Leo 2 oper8ing with an English Chally 2
>lads

File: 1491676341220.gif (620KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 498x498px

>>2671245
>we

File: IMG_1070.jpg (191KB, 888x1120px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 888x1120px

>>2670584
Siege of Vienna 1721
Nuff said

File: Pany.png (48KB, 790x810px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 790x810px

Friendly reminder.