What do you think?
Rate this book
Poland: A History
As Zamoyski set out to update The Polish Way, his bestselling first history of Poland, he realized the task required not so much re-writing as re-thinking the known facts well as the assumptions of the past. The events of the last twenty years and the growth of the independent Polish state allowed him to look at Poland's past with a fresh eye. Tracing Poland's complex development from the Middle Ages to present day, Zamoyski examines the country's political, economic, and military struggles, as well as its culture, art, and richly varied society through the ages, bringing the major events and characters in Poland's history to life.
426 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
About the author
Adam Zamoyski
28 books310 followersA historian and a member of the ancient Zamoyski family of Polish nobility. Born in New York City and raised in England. He is Chairman of the Board of the Princes Czartoryski Foundation. On June 16, 2001, in London, England, he married the artist Emma Sergeant.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
March 14, 2018
I have never read a complete history of Poland, alltough eye-catching bits like the winged Husaria of the Commonwealth, Copernicus and the tragedies of WWII stuck earlier. Zamoyski doesn't tell the complete history either, but he will make you love the soul of a nation that was often a model of tolerance, yet torn off the map three times over.
The participation of the Polish elite in the culture of the Renaissance was eye-opening. It contrasts stubbornly with the backwardness so often attributed to it in later times by tsarist Russia, home of the Polak joke before the lightbulb was invented. The racial theories of Nazi Germany, with its double contempt for Slavs and Jews, equally obscure the accomplishments of the Polish Kulturnation.
The hagiographic element does not hinder the reader to spot the weak points: the fierce anti-authoritism of the nobility, often richer in blood than in material possessions, weakened the central power of the country to the point were it was unable to stand up to its absolutist neighbours. It would come back to haunt the government of the interwar republic. The Habsburg empire, the Romanov authorities as well as the Prussian bureaucracy left this distrust as their common mark. I can't help but wonder to what the artistic vibes of these empires influenced Polish intelligentsia for the better: where did Chopin mine his inspiration ?
Zamoyski knows how to unroll a tapestry so that you never loose sight of the big picture: the main lines of Polish history run clear through the 400 pages... except once the rubble of Warshaw stops smoking. The chapters covering the communist and contemporary periods feel rushed & incoherent compared to the bulk of the book.
You will see many Zamoyski's pass the revue.... It doesn't bother me. There is no better way to kindle an interest in history than what we see every day; in a noble family, this means gazing down the tree and notice that the likes of yourself where around for some pretty important and impressive moments. On a common scale, my generation's WWII interest tends to begin with grandfather's recollections, too.
In short, it is a great primer before moving on to some bricks with footnotes. I'm certain Norman Davies' God's Playground will oblige.
The participation of the Polish elite in the culture of the Renaissance was eye-opening. It contrasts stubbornly with the backwardness so often attributed to it in later times by tsarist Russia, home of the Polak joke before the lightbulb was invented. The racial theories of Nazi Germany, with its double contempt for Slavs and Jews, equally obscure the accomplishments of the Polish Kulturnation.
The hagiographic element does not hinder the reader to spot the weak points: the fierce anti-authoritism of the nobility, often richer in blood than in material possessions, weakened the central power of the country to the point were it was unable to stand up to its absolutist neighbours. It would come back to haunt the government of the interwar republic. The Habsburg empire, the Romanov authorities as well as the Prussian bureaucracy left this distrust as their common mark. I can't help but wonder to what the artistic vibes of these empires influenced Polish intelligentsia for the better: where did Chopin mine his inspiration ?
Zamoyski knows how to unroll a tapestry so that you never loose sight of the big picture: the main lines of Polish history run clear through the 400 pages... except once the rubble of Warshaw stops smoking. The chapters covering the communist and contemporary periods feel rushed & incoherent compared to the bulk of the book.
You will see many Zamoyski's pass the revue.... It doesn't bother me. There is no better way to kindle an interest in history than what we see every day; in a noble family, this means gazing down the tree and notice that the likes of yourself where around for some pretty important and impressive moments. On a common scale, my generation's WWII interest tends to begin with grandfather's recollections, too.
In short, it is a great primer before moving on to some bricks with footnotes. I'm certain Norman Davies' God's Playground will oblige.
December 17, 2015
My people! My hapless, invasion-prone people. I can’t help but love the place (pogroms and such aside). I like to think of my ancestors working the land for the author’s ancestors. My people come from villages not far from Zamosc. Zamoyski’s family founded Zamosc. Respect.
I’m usually skeptical of uncited histories. Zamoyski just includes an index. I think we are in good hands here regardless. He has written a mature, sober history of a very emotional, turbulent place. He thinks of Poland as the more inclusive Rzeczpospolita Polska (he translates it as the Commonwealth), not just an ethnic group of people. I forgive him for going a little easy on the Poles (4.5 stars). On a side note: To my ear, Polish is a very pretty, nasally, soft language when pronounced correctly. Sadly, many names sound bad with an English pronunciation.
Poland has had horrible neighbors and a weak exec and has been quite diverse. At times enlightened, at other times egged on (you sure?) into atrocious behavior. The Poles have been quite pragmatic about being colonized. However, their overlords (be it Prussian, Russian, Austrian, Soviet), contrasted to the Brits, bungle so badly that the Poles end up revolting. The Catholic Church played a big, positive role in communist times. Yay, for once. Poles are traditionally suspicious of central authority. The liberum veto was not originally meant to be used often. Poles have had a thing for Italian and Persian culture. They seem to be the only mostly pro-American friends we have.
As a philo-semetic, Polish-American raised among Christians, I always enjoy a good account of anti-Semitism cuz it MAKES NO SENSE. Zamoyski mostly delivers but I sense a bit of hanging the anti-Semitic burden on the backs of others. Jews were welcomed in at first. Then they became “middlemen, agents, rent collectors and inn keepers—all of which made them odious to locals.” Later on they were massacred and came into conflict with Christian merchants, resulting in widespread poverty. They grouped in sad ghettos in cities, sad shtetls in the country and they were easy to identify by the dress. Also, Jews had little incentive not to work with whichever power was in charge, Including non-Christian Poles. This did not endear them to their co-inhabitants. Finally, the Christians were over-burdened by their own victimhood and were more in tune with themselves rather than the horrifically traumatized Jews. That's it? When asked her thoughts about my family surnames, a Polish friend tells me you can't always learn much from Polish names as everyone is scrambling not to sound Jewish by changing them. Still. Today.
Finally, communism really messes people up. It takes (a) generation(s) to recover from it.
Few Poles heeded the call to join the Crusades. Loveably, ”…[A]ny self-respecting Polish knight could [not] be induced to go to the Holy Land, where, they had been informed, there was no wine, mead, or even beer to be had.” Can we figure out an antidote for the jihadis?
“…Polish folklore had it that the German nation had been deposited through the rectum of Pontius Pilot.” Priceless.
Karl Marx: “With all its faults, this [Polish] constitution seems to be the only act of freedom which Eastern Europe has undertaken in the midst of Prussian, Russian and Austrian barbarism. It was, moreover, initiated exclusively by the privileged class, the nobility. The history of the world knows no other example of similar noble conduct by the nobility.”
Joseph Conrad (born in Poland): ”Under a destructive pressure, of which Western Europe can have no notion, applied by forces that were not only crushing but corrupting, we have preserved our sanity.” Or have we? Fingers crossed. Looking promising.
“Poland: A History” reinforces a lesson I’ve long understood. Russians should never, ever be in charge of admin (“the Russian system was, … a huge merciless machine, working by night and by day, crushing thousands of hearts and minds every minute.”). They make superb lit, ballet, music, science, ice hockey, etc, but please deny them a leadership role anywhere. Pity Ukraine. My heart goes out. Niech żyje Polska!
I’m usually skeptical of uncited histories. Zamoyski just includes an index. I think we are in good hands here regardless. He has written a mature, sober history of a very emotional, turbulent place. He thinks of Poland as the more inclusive Rzeczpospolita Polska (he translates it as the Commonwealth), not just an ethnic group of people. I forgive him for going a little easy on the Poles (4.5 stars). On a side note: To my ear, Polish is a very pretty, nasally, soft language when pronounced correctly. Sadly, many names sound bad with an English pronunciation.
Poland has had horrible neighbors and a weak exec and has been quite diverse. At times enlightened, at other times egged on (you sure?) into atrocious behavior. The Poles have been quite pragmatic about being colonized. However, their overlords (be it Prussian, Russian, Austrian, Soviet), contrasted to the Brits, bungle so badly that the Poles end up revolting. The Catholic Church played a big, positive role in communist times. Yay, for once. Poles are traditionally suspicious of central authority. The liberum veto was not originally meant to be used often. Poles have had a thing for Italian and Persian culture. They seem to be the only mostly pro-American friends we have.
As a philo-semetic, Polish-American raised among Christians, I always enjoy a good account of anti-Semitism cuz it MAKES NO SENSE. Zamoyski mostly delivers but I sense a bit of hanging the anti-Semitic burden on the backs of others. Jews were welcomed in at first. Then they became “middlemen, agents, rent collectors and inn keepers—all of which made them odious to locals.” Later on they were massacred and came into conflict with Christian merchants, resulting in widespread poverty. They grouped in sad ghettos in cities, sad shtetls in the country and they were easy to identify by the dress. Also, Jews had little incentive not to work with whichever power was in charge, Including non-Christian Poles. This did not endear them to their co-inhabitants. Finally, the Christians were over-burdened by their own victimhood and were more in tune with themselves rather than the horrifically traumatized Jews. That's it? When asked her thoughts about my family surnames, a Polish friend tells me you can't always learn much from Polish names as everyone is scrambling not to sound Jewish by changing them. Still. Today.
Finally, communism really messes people up. It takes (a) generation(s) to recover from it.
Few Poles heeded the call to join the Crusades. Loveably, ”…[A]ny self-respecting Polish knight could [not] be induced to go to the Holy Land, where, they had been informed, there was no wine, mead, or even beer to be had.” Can we figure out an antidote for the jihadis?
“…Polish folklore had it that the German nation had been deposited through the rectum of Pontius Pilot.” Priceless.
Karl Marx: “With all its faults, this [Polish] constitution seems to be the only act of freedom which Eastern Europe has undertaken in the midst of Prussian, Russian and Austrian barbarism. It was, moreover, initiated exclusively by the privileged class, the nobility. The history of the world knows no other example of similar noble conduct by the nobility.”
Joseph Conrad (born in Poland): ”Under a destructive pressure, of which Western Europe can have no notion, applied by forces that were not only crushing but corrupting, we have preserved our sanity.” Or have we? Fingers crossed. Looking promising.
“Poland: A History” reinforces a lesson I’ve long understood. Russians should never, ever be in charge of admin (“the Russian system was, … a huge merciless machine, working by night and by day, crushing thousands of hearts and minds every minute.”). They make superb lit, ballet, music, science, ice hockey, etc, but please deny them a leadership role anywhere. Pity Ukraine. My heart goes out. Niech żyje Polska!
March 20, 2014
First sentence: "In the Middle Ages, when people favored simple explanations, Polish folklore had it that the German nation had been deposited on this earth through the rectum of Pontius Pilate."
October 3, 2018
A very interesting book that offers a comprehensive picture of the history of Poland from the Middle Ages to a few years ago. I particularly like the fact that is showing the great differences that this history had compered with the rest of Europe, with the resistance to centralized power giving the tone to the beginning and then greatly influence the development of the Polish state, in any form. My particular impression was made by the reference to the contribution of the Poles to European culture, even at the time when their state did not really exist. Of course, I can not tell whether this narrative of history is entirely objective and whether there are some exaggerations, but I do not think it is unimportant to know the facts from the Polish side, especially since the author as much as is influenced by his patriotic feelings this do not lead him to fanaticism. Sure, however, is an excellent historical book.
Ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο που προσφέρει μία ολοκληρωμένη εικόνα για την ιστορία της Πολωνίας, από τα χρόνια του Μεσαίωνα μέχρι λίγα χρόνια πριν τις μέρες μας. Μου αρέσει ιδιαίτερα που δείχνει τις μεγάλες διαφορές που είχε αυτή η ιστορία σε σχέση με τις υπόλοιπες χώρες της Ευρώπης, με την αντίσταση στην συγκεντρωτική εξουσία να δίνει τον τόνο στην αρχή και στη συνέχεια να επηρεάζει σε μεγάλο βαθμό την εξέλιξη του πολωνικού κράτους, όποια μορφή και να είχε αυτό. Ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση μου έκανε και η αναφορά του στην συνεισφορά των Πολωνών στον Ευρωπαϊκό πολιτισμό, ακόμα και την εποχή που ουσιαστικά το κράτος τους δεν υπήρχε. Βέβαια δεν μπορώ να ξέρω αν αυτή η αφήγηση της ιστορίας είναι απολύτως αντικειμενική και αν υπάρχουν κάποιες υπερβολές, δεν νομίζω, όμως, ότι δεν είναι σημαντικό να γνωρίζουμε τα γεγονότα από την Πολωνική πλευρά, ειδικά από τη στιγμή που όσο και αν επηρεάζεται ο συγγραφέας από τα πατριωτικά του συναισθήματα αυτό δεν τον οδηγεί στον φανατισμό. Σίγουρα, όμως, είναι ένα εξαιρετικό ιστορικό βιβλίο.
Ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο που προσφέρει μία ολοκληρωμένη εικόνα για την ιστορία της Πολωνίας, από τα χρόνια του Μεσαίωνα μέχρι λίγα χρόνια πριν τις μέρες μας. Μου αρέσει ιδιαίτερα που δείχνει τις μεγάλες διαφορές που είχε αυτή η ιστορία σε σχέση με τις υπόλοιπες χώρες της Ευρώπης, με την αντίσταση στην συγκεντρωτική εξουσία να δίνει τον τόνο στην αρχή και στη συνέχεια να επηρεάζει σε μεγάλο βαθμό την εξέλιξη του πολωνικού κράτους, όποια μορφή και να είχε αυτό. Ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση μου έκανε και η αναφορά του στην συνεισφορά των Πολωνών στον Ευρωπαϊκό πολιτισμό, ακόμα και την εποχή που ουσιαστικά το κράτος τους δεν υπήρχε. Βέβαια δεν μπορώ να ξέρω αν αυτή η αφήγηση της ιστορίας είναι απολύτως αντικειμενική και αν υπάρχουν κάποιες υπερβολές, δεν νομίζω, όμως, ότι δεν είναι σημαντικό να γνωρίζουμε τα γεγονότα από την Πολωνική πλευρά, ειδικά από τη στιγμή που όσο και αν επηρεάζεται ο συγγραφέας από τα πατριωτικά του συναισθήματα αυτό δεν τον οδηγεί στον φανατισμό. Σίγουρα, όμως, είναι ένα εξαιρετικό ιστορικό βιβλίο.
November 29, 2023
it should be self evident that writing a book to span the entire history of a country (here about 900 years) is a difficult task, especially regarding the question of with how much depth each era is visited. as such, this book felt a lot like it was just a procession of events: x followed by y followed by z. while not necessarily statistics and numbers heavy, it does tend to use those over more personal anecdotes to illustrate various points (where, for example, other history books might cite or quote primary sources — i don't know the state of primary sources for poland across a lot of the time covered, though, so perhaps this isn't possible). but in the end, this made it all feel a little dry, particularly in the section between about the fifteenth century and the partitions of the late eighteenth, where it really does just feel like a procession of political machinations.
as other reviews have noted, the chapters about post-1770 is where zamoyski's narrative picked up, although i would say, despite building up a head of steam up to the first world war, that dissipated somewhat in discussing the aftermath. the twentieth century section was characterised, much like the fifteenth to eighteenth century sections, by almost a narration of politics and how the power bounced between parties. now, this needn't have been the slog it was (at times), but what i found zamoyski unable to do was imbue any sense of personality into his writing. when it became a slog, it was a real slog.
perhaps choosing this book was already the wrong move from the start: there were glimpses of the potential for it here and there, but zamoyski did not bring poland to life. repeating my complaint about it feeling like a procession of events, because of that, i never really got the sense of what poland was like from an individual's perspective living in the era. for a lot of it, i could have read a timeline of events and got as much information from it. part of this may also be down to the dryness of zamoyski's writing, but it doesn't help when the overwhelming focus is more on the political manoeuvres of bigger actors. within poland, that is. if you want to situate poland within the broader european context across the time period, you will need to have other books alongside as you read this. sometimes it felt like these events were happening in a vacuum, only for zamoyski to turn around and note briefly that other powers were involved.
i also feel that this book, in contrary to what a lot of reviews say, does require a rudimentary understanding or knowledge of polish history. there are quite a few terms which, granted don't have exact translations, but aren't really described in any way that clarifies what is meant by them. i picked it up along the way, of course, but it made grappling with the initial few centuries of this history a bit challenging. aimed as a sort of primer, though, a quick overview before you read more in depth about certain people, events, or time periods, it does the job alright, i suppose.
as other reviews have noted, the chapters about post-1770 is where zamoyski's narrative picked up, although i would say, despite building up a head of steam up to the first world war, that dissipated somewhat in discussing the aftermath. the twentieth century section was characterised, much like the fifteenth to eighteenth century sections, by almost a narration of politics and how the power bounced between parties. now, this needn't have been the slog it was (at times), but what i found zamoyski unable to do was imbue any sense of personality into his writing. when it became a slog, it was a real slog.
perhaps choosing this book was already the wrong move from the start: there were glimpses of the potential for it here and there, but zamoyski did not bring poland to life. repeating my complaint about it feeling like a procession of events, because of that, i never really got the sense of what poland was like from an individual's perspective living in the era. for a lot of it, i could have read a timeline of events and got as much information from it. part of this may also be down to the dryness of zamoyski's writing, but it doesn't help when the overwhelming focus is more on the political manoeuvres of bigger actors. within poland, that is. if you want to situate poland within the broader european context across the time period, you will need to have other books alongside as you read this. sometimes it felt like these events were happening in a vacuum, only for zamoyski to turn around and note briefly that other powers were involved.
i also feel that this book, in contrary to what a lot of reviews say, does require a rudimentary understanding or knowledge of polish history. there are quite a few terms which, granted don't have exact translations, but aren't really described in any way that clarifies what is meant by them. i picked it up along the way, of course, but it made grappling with the initial few centuries of this history a bit challenging. aimed as a sort of primer, though, a quick overview before you read more in depth about certain people, events, or time periods, it does the job alright, i suppose.
September 4, 2016
Poland: a History is a brief account of what happened with Poland since her beginnings up till the current moment.
My education has somehow failed when it comes to history. I wanted to get to know my country better. I was hoping this would give me a better understanding of what is happening here nowadays.
The book has fully lived up to my expectations and needs. It lays out the history of Poland and puts it into a meaningful context. It is informative and resourceful without going into details of every particular event it mentions.
It also gives a 'distanced' perspective on Poland. What I mean is that it (at least) seems to be free from different kind of bias that you may observe in the local discourse on Poland.
I would recommend this book to everybody who wants to have a basic knowledge about Poland. I understand that if somebody is looking for a deep insight into particulars, their interest will not be satisfied.
My education has somehow failed when it comes to history. I wanted to get to know my country better. I was hoping this would give me a better understanding of what is happening here nowadays.
The book has fully lived up to my expectations and needs. It lays out the history of Poland and puts it into a meaningful context. It is informative and resourceful without going into details of every particular event it mentions.
It also gives a 'distanced' perspective on Poland. What I mean is that it (at least) seems to be free from different kind of bias that you may observe in the local discourse on Poland.
I would recommend this book to everybody who wants to have a basic knowledge about Poland. I understand that if somebody is looking for a deep insight into particulars, their interest will not be satisfied.
September 5, 2014
Written by a very good historian, this book is the best one-volume history of Poland available. I think that Norman Davies two-volume history "God's Playground" is superior in direct proportion to its much greater length. If this shorter work better matches the time you have available, then it is better choice.
December 13, 2015
I now want to go to Poland.
I would have sworn reading the first hundred pages that this book had a slight eastern European accent, little turn of phrase that sounded charmingly translated. 'Put it in H! (Mr Plow - The Simpsons)'. No Adam Zamoyski is a New York native, but he writes with such a exasperated nostalgia that only a true native has.
Poland felt like they were the hipsters of Europe, all intellectual irony but no practice. Yeah no government is great in theory (yeah I know high horse too political, and a way to board a statement), but you will be invaded by Germany and Russia, twice. One of my favourite descriptions is the last days of the USSR where there is a collective, f*@k this.
I loved how Zamoyski transitioned from politics, economics, culture seemingly effortlessly giving a vivid landscape of different cultures mashed together to create something very different.
I would have sworn reading the first hundred pages that this book had a slight eastern European accent, little turn of phrase that sounded charmingly translated. 'Put it in H! (Mr Plow - The Simpsons)'. No Adam Zamoyski is a New York native, but he writes with such a exasperated nostalgia that only a true native has.
Poland felt like they were the hipsters of Europe, all intellectual irony but no practice. Yeah no government is great in theory (yeah I know high horse too political, and a way to board a statement), but you will be invaded by Germany and Russia, twice. One of my favourite descriptions is the last days of the USSR where there is a collective, f*@k this.
I loved how Zamoyski transitioned from politics, economics, culture seemingly effortlessly giving a vivid landscape of different cultures mashed together to create something very different.
Read
November 20, 2015As a young (relatively) Russian, I was always perplexed by the encounters - infrequent as they were - of mutual animosity between my people and the Poles. We can understand significant amounts of each other's language (to a degree again), stem from one Slavonic family, share name pools and laying claims on inventions of v/wodka, borsch/t and kas/zha. Being and two different branches of Christianity for me is an empty sound, since I counted on some advances atheism worked on both peoples. I am a one. Anyway, I was told by both parties that "it's historical". Now I decided to see it myself.
This book...Well, the author is definitely proud of his ancestors (or namesakes?) Zamoyskys, new members of which he introduces to readers with nearly each passing century. Well, that's mildly amusing, but OK. What I definitely lacked were footnotes and references. Although in the Introduction he explains their absence as removal of unnecessary nuisance to wider audience, and claiming that there's no need for those, since all he says is a scientifically accepted and wildly acknowledged facts, I found several of his assertions if not outright questionable, then at least in need of those abrogated asterisks. Many questions he touches upon are still matters of scientific debates, let alone name calling at international football matches. To give you a taste: When counting languages used in courts of XVI century Lwow, he names quite a few, Armenian, Jewish (which of them), Ukrainian and BELORUSSIAN among others. I mean quite a lot of people wouldn't agree that Belorussian language (with all due respect) was a written language at the time (and some would deny it was fully formed at all back then). I mean I'm not protesting or denying Belorussian it's proper due, but I just want a serious corroboration for a thing served matter of factly. While it's not a trifle for a book of history.
All in all my ideal of a country's history remains The Pursuit of Italy, whose author didn't show the nation as populated mostly with valiant and noble forefathers and surrounded by mostly hapless or conniving neighbors.
P.S. My Spring trip to Poland was awesome.
This book...Well, the author is definitely proud of his ancestors (or namesakes?) Zamoyskys, new members of which he introduces to readers with nearly each passing century. Well, that's mildly amusing, but OK. What I definitely lacked were footnotes and references. Although in the Introduction he explains their absence as removal of unnecessary nuisance to wider audience, and claiming that there's no need for those, since all he says is a scientifically accepted and wildly acknowledged facts, I found several of his assertions if not outright questionable, then at least in need of those abrogated asterisks. Many questions he touches upon are still matters of scientific debates, let alone name calling at international football matches. To give you a taste: When counting languages used in courts of XVI century Lwow, he names quite a few, Armenian, Jewish (which of them), Ukrainian and BELORUSSIAN among others. I mean quite a lot of people wouldn't agree that Belorussian language (with all due respect) was a written language at the time (and some would deny it was fully formed at all back then). I mean I'm not protesting or denying Belorussian it's proper due, but I just want a serious corroboration for a thing served matter of factly. While it's not a trifle for a book of history.
All in all my ideal of a country's history remains The Pursuit of Italy, whose author didn't show the nation as populated mostly with valiant and noble forefathers and surrounded by mostly hapless or conniving neighbors.
P.S. My Spring trip to Poland was awesome.
April 24, 2019
Când îmi pregătesc viitoarele călătorii, încerc să aflu cât mai mult despre istoria locurilor vizitate. Așa am ajuns și în fața acestei cărți, pe care autorul Adam Zamoyski a construit-o ca o carte de istorie pentru marea masă de cititori nespecialiști. Nu este deloc greoaie, nu este deloc complicată (mai ales pentru pasionații de istorie) și chiar autorul mărturisește că a scris-o bazându-se pe lucrurile general acceptate de către istoricii polonezi, așa încât nu are nici măcar bibliografie. 400 de pagini de istorie pură, din care aflăm o mulțime de lucruri noi despre istoria polonezilor, care seamănă în multe privințe cu cea a românilor, mai ales când vorbim despre Evul Mediu (mereu o țară vânată de puterile din jur) și despre perioada post-1989 (o mulțime de partide, dar conducerea a aparținut tot neo-comuniștilor.
Alte date și informații interesante, așa cum reies de aici:
-universitatea din Cracovia este inaugurată în 1364. Imediat după Universitatea din Praga și înaintea celor din Viena și Heidelberg. Așadar a doua astfel de academie din Europa centrală;
-Parlamentul din Polonia (Sejm) a fost fondat în 1468, iar în 1493 a fost divizat în Senat și Sejm;
-Kazimierz/Cazimir IV a domnit pentru 46 de ani (1447-1492) a avut cu soția sa, Elisabeta de Habsburg, 7 fete, care îl face strămoșul fiecărui monarh al Europei zilelor noastre, și șase fii (un sfânt, un cardinal și 4 regi);
-mai mereu (nu mereu!), Polonia a fost un câmp al toleranței religioase: între 1550-1650, Contrareforma nu a ucis decât 12 polonezi protestanți; în schimb, în aceeași perioadă, în Anglia au fost omorâte peste 500 de persoane, iar în Olanda, aproape 900;
-despre cărți, pentru a face o comparație cu România: în 1534, Stefan Falimirz a publicat primul dicționar medical polonez; în 1565, Stanisław Grzepski a publicat Geometria. Avem șase traduceri ale Noului Testament — Königsberg (Luterană, 1551), Lwów (Catolică, 1561), Brześć (Calvinistă, 1563), Nieśwież (Arianî, 1570), Kraków (iezuită, 1593), Gdańsk (Luterană, 1632). În 1568, prima gramatică poloneză cuprinzătoare a fot realizată de Piotr Stojeński, un arian (interesantă religie!) de origine franceză; în 1564, Jan Mączyński a publicat un lexicon polono-latin la Königsberg; în 1594, scriitorul Łukasz Górnicki a realizat o ortografie poloneză definitivă;
-Polonia era privită ca Pământul Sfânt de către Shabbetai Zevi, un eretic evreu care s-a proclamat Mesia în anii 1660;
-Doi episcopi polonezi, Józef și Andrzej Załuski, au cumpărat un palat în Varșovia, și-au adunat colecțiile de cărți și manuscrise și, în 1747, au donat națiunii Prima bibliotecă publică din Europa continentală. Biblioteca a tot crescut, pentru că Sejm-ul a obligat editorii să doveze prima copie a fiecărei cărți tipărite spre bibliotecile publice, până la aproximativ 500.000 de cărți. Număi că au venit rușii, au furat cărțile în 1795, care au devenit piatra de temelie pentru Biblioteca Imperială Rusă.
Alte date și informații interesante, așa cum reies de aici:
-universitatea din Cracovia este inaugurată în 1364. Imediat după Universitatea din Praga și înaintea celor din Viena și Heidelberg. Așadar a doua astfel de academie din Europa centrală;
-Parlamentul din Polonia (Sejm) a fost fondat în 1468, iar în 1493 a fost divizat în Senat și Sejm;
-Kazimierz/Cazimir IV a domnit pentru 46 de ani (1447-1492) a avut cu soția sa, Elisabeta de Habsburg, 7 fete, care îl face strămoșul fiecărui monarh al Europei zilelor noastre, și șase fii (un sfânt, un cardinal și 4 regi);
-mai mereu (nu mereu!), Polonia a fost un câmp al toleranței religioase: între 1550-1650, Contrareforma nu a ucis decât 12 polonezi protestanți; în schimb, în aceeași perioadă, în Anglia au fost omorâte peste 500 de persoane, iar în Olanda, aproape 900;
-despre cărți, pentru a face o comparație cu România: în 1534, Stefan Falimirz a publicat primul dicționar medical polonez; în 1565, Stanisław Grzepski a publicat Geometria. Avem șase traduceri ale Noului Testament — Königsberg (Luterană, 1551), Lwów (Catolică, 1561), Brześć (Calvinistă, 1563), Nieśwież (Arianî, 1570), Kraków (iezuită, 1593), Gdańsk (Luterană, 1632). În 1568, prima gramatică poloneză cuprinzătoare a fot realizată de Piotr Stojeński, un arian (interesantă religie!) de origine franceză; în 1564, Jan Mączyński a publicat un lexicon polono-latin la Königsberg; în 1594, scriitorul Łukasz Górnicki a realizat o ortografie poloneză definitivă;
-Polonia era privită ca Pământul Sfânt de către Shabbetai Zevi, un eretic evreu care s-a proclamat Mesia în anii 1660;
-Doi episcopi polonezi, Józef și Andrzej Załuski, au cumpărat un palat în Varșovia, și-au adunat colecțiile de cărți și manuscrise și, în 1747, au donat națiunii Prima bibliotecă publică din Europa continentală. Biblioteca a tot crescut, pentru că Sejm-ul a obligat editorii să doveze prima copie a fiecărei cărți tipărite spre bibliotecile publice, până la aproximativ 500.000 de cărți. Număi că au venit rușii, au furat cărțile în 1795, care au devenit piatra de temelie pentru Biblioteca Imperială Rusă.
December 10, 2022
У 1772 році Росія ініціювала перший поділ Польщі, хоча офіційно була гарантором її територіальної цілісності. Словом, місцями знайома історія.
June 26, 2018
Poland is a country well known, but little understood. If one thinks of Poland, perhaps it may be the first victim of WWII, a key area of East-West Cold War tension, or a country with a global populaiton. But few really understand the pre 20th century history.
Adam Zamoyski sheds light on all of it, and leaves no stone unturned. Zamoyski begins at the beginning of Polish history, with the first origins of the country, from it's namesake meaning people of the fields, to it's involvement with the Teutonic Knights, and it's union with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, reavealing a country that was torn between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and even the Hussite movement, but moreover, a very early democracy.
One should consider that the earlier part of the book is the more difficult part, and one needs to be encouraged to persevere, as the latter part of the book, approaching the 20th century, is by far the more readable, or at least it was to this reader, who is more familiar with 20th century history.
Despite the book being rather netural in tone, and devoid of any agenda pushing, one cannot help but feel sympathy for the Polish nation, as it is one that has been frequently subject to subjugation, being partitioned by it's neighbours, and falling under foreign domination one way or another.
But it is a heartfelt story of a national struggle, a struggle that has only been realized in recent years.
A recommened read that should be read by anyone who wants to extend their historical knowledge into a part of the world frequently neglected by historians.
Adam Zamoyski sheds light on all of it, and leaves no stone unturned. Zamoyski begins at the beginning of Polish history, with the first origins of the country, from it's namesake meaning people of the fields, to it's involvement with the Teutonic Knights, and it's union with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, reavealing a country that was torn between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and even the Hussite movement, but moreover, a very early democracy.
One should consider that the earlier part of the book is the more difficult part, and one needs to be encouraged to persevere, as the latter part of the book, approaching the 20th century, is by far the more readable, or at least it was to this reader, who is more familiar with 20th century history.
Despite the book being rather netural in tone, and devoid of any agenda pushing, one cannot help but feel sympathy for the Polish nation, as it is one that has been frequently subject to subjugation, being partitioned by it's neighbours, and falling under foreign domination one way or another.
But it is a heartfelt story of a national struggle, a struggle that has only been realized in recent years.
A recommened read that should be read by anyone who wants to extend their historical knowledge into a part of the world frequently neglected by historians.
June 29, 2017
'Poland: A History' show us that Polish nationalism meant something totally different than what now our current government is trying to suggest. It is a real relief to find in Zamoyski’s book many theses which emphasise a liberal side of Polish patriotism.
In the 16th century, Poland was home to large minorities of Lithuanians, Belarusians, Germans and Jews. In these times a Polish nationalist was a republican, pretty tolerant and open-minded. Like Roman citizens in the glory days, the Polish gentry believed themselves to be members of an elite club. They looked with a pity on their neighbour countries which were ruled by tyrannical lords in a climate of religious persecution and censorship.
Thanks to author’s writing style I enjoyed this book far more than I expected. It was a real pleasure to rediscover that a history of Poland is so exciting.
In the 16th century, Poland was home to large minorities of Lithuanians, Belarusians, Germans and Jews. In these times a Polish nationalist was a republican, pretty tolerant and open-minded. Like Roman citizens in the glory days, the Polish gentry believed themselves to be members of an elite club. They looked with a pity on their neighbour countries which were ruled by tyrannical lords in a climate of religious persecution and censorship.
Thanks to author’s writing style I enjoyed this book far more than I expected. It was a real pleasure to rediscover that a history of Poland is so exciting.
August 4, 2016
This is a useful introduction to Poland, and it explains the main points well enough, but it could use more visual support beyond maps with changing borders. I'm much more used to biographies and social history, so this style of Big Events history feels dated and vague to me - and it has too many statistics to remember. Again, Big History seems to be all about wars and pacts signing - and no women ever, at all, were part of that, apparently. Seriously. Religious reformation? No nuns in sight. Jewish people were visible? They ALL had beards. I've seen that the author has mostly written military history, and it shows, but... Come on. Give me something beyond five names in total. Question Big History as it's made.
June 27, 2010
Bought this 2009 book in Poland. For some reason, it's not available in the U.S. yet, just Amazon/UK and not even on Kindle. Adam wrote an incredible book on Poland's history in 1988 and he noted it can seem like ``reading a book written in another century'' because of all the change that's occurred in -- and because of -- Poland since then. This is a great read, summing up 1,044 years of history in 409 pages...
January 2, 2022
Been meaning to read this for a while and it certainly was a readable, well-organized study of Polish history. Every history book on a topic one knows nothing about is a line through straight fog, revealing the depth of how much one doesn’t understand. This book felt revealing, in a good way, about broader European history in a thoroughly understudied nation.
November 1, 2016
Having recently bought a flat in Poland, I thought it was high time I learnt more about the history of this fascinating country. This book fit the bill perfectly - a good overview of what has brought Poland to where it is today. I already knew a few bits and pieces from visits to various places, but this filled in the gaps. Before reading it I had no idea about the Commonwealth or the cultural dominance over the area before the 1600s. It was easy to read too, which was a real bonus.
August 11, 2025
This history of Poland, starting with the crowning of Mieszko 1 around 1000 C.E. is really good if you don't know anything about Poland, like I did. Now, I think I know a lot more and at the very least have context to do further reading. I've never really read a history book before, so maybe what I am about to say will seem stupid, but it was my experience. For one, this presumed a pretty large knowledge of broader European history that I (sadly) don't really know. Also, the presentation seemed a bit scattered at times. That said, Polish history is also a bit confusing in general because every freaking king is named Bolesław and Władysław! Whatever. Still a good book, and I'm excited to learn more.
January 4, 2020
In case you wonder about Poland, its people, culture, churches, people, language, towns, countryside, religion, and how some extremely dramatic events led to their the current situation, this is your book. Such an interesting and clarifying view to the last 1000 years before today. And a remarkable piece of European history as a bonus. You will understand so much more about the current day politics and power play after this book. A must-read.
February 8, 2026
Much appreciated. I am always frustrated by how little historians of World War II consider the historic role of Poland as an imperial power, or it's relation to the collapse of Russia. The Poles were never innocent democrats, even if the Commonwealth did have some uniquely liberal features at an early date.
August 24, 2021
Poland is a sympathetic and surprising country. In the 16th century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was once the largest country in Europe. In the 18th century, it was divided up by strong neighbors three times and disappeared from the map. After more than a century of hard work, in the 20th century, the immortal Poland was finally reborn. The whole process is full of tragic and tragic colors as described in the Polish national anthem "Poland Is Not Perished".
Why did Poland suffer such a setback? What kind of country is Poland? What kind of people are Poles? These questions can be answered in the book "History of Poland" by the Polish-born British historian and writer Adam Zamoyski. "History of Poland" starts with the creation of the Kingdom of Poland by Meszko I and shows how Poland entered the modern era after its rebirth, showing the ups and downs that Poland has experienced in the millennium.
After reading "History of Poland", I have a feeling that Poland is different from other countries, and Polish people are also different from people in other countries. Poles love freedom and oppose dictatorship from the bottom up. Therefore, a very unique national system has been established in Poland. The partition of Poland can be said to be the inevitable result of this fragile system, but the rebirth of Poland also benefits from the legacy of this system.
Poles’ fear of autocratic rule makes the King of Poland become senior wage earners
Poles, or more precisely, the Polish aristocracy who can participate in politics, love freedom and actively maintain equal rights among aristocrats. The fear of autocratic rule can be said to be deep in the bones. They treat the kingship as a scourge, as if the king will become a tyrant once he has power, and ultimately damage their freedom and rights. Therefore, they are extremely afraid of the royal power, always cautiously and strictly guarded, and seize every opportunity to continuously weaken the royal power.
Faced with the restrictions of the nobility, what did the Polish kings do? The political skills of the kings themselves were not mature enough. They could not consciously establish the authority of the kings and concentrate more power. On the contrary, they complied with the requirements of the nobles in most cases, which made their status more and more embarrassing.
The kings of the Piast dynasty created the foundation of the Kingdom of Poland. It can be said that the achievements have been remarkable. For example, King Kazimierz expanded the land from 106,000 square kilometers when he took the throne to 260,000 square kilometers when he died. But they are better at opening up territories externally, rather than establishing effective governance internally. Their ruling power is not enough to manage the existing territories, nor can they stop the continuous expansion of local aristocratic power. Sometimes they could not even maintain the unity of Poland's vast territory, but split the country into separate management for their sons.
Władysław I planned to divide the land between his two sons. His youngest son Boleslaw III successfully drove his brother away and inherited the throne alone. But in the end, Boleslaw III, under the coercion of the local nobles, distributed the land to his five sons. This divided situation requires the subsequent kings to make more efforts to reunite. The king took the initiative to split the country, instead of trying his best to unify the territory, which shows that they are indeed incapable of ruling the country.
The same is true for the kings of the Jagiellonian dynasty. They are good at opening up territories. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the rule had occupied one third of the entire Europe at the end of the 15th century, but they lacked the experience of governing a huge empire and did not retain their power. This gave the nobles an opportunity. Poland had not established a system of feudal feudalism and had no channels to exercise central power. The role of the "lord" assigned by the king to each city is limited, and each city is basically in a state of autonomy and controlled by the local nobles. Now, the nobles seize every opportunity that the king needs funding or military support, bargaining with the king, and constantly exchange for more privileges. As a result, the power of the nobility became greater and greater, and the power of the king was increasingly restricted.
When the Jagiellonian family died out, the nobles decided to elect a new king. The candidates included foreign nobles in addition to their own nobles. For the Polish nobles, “it’s never a problem without a king”, because national affairs are decided by the parliament, and the elected king is just a senior worker who temporarily sits on the throne, with very limited power. Even the new king must swear allegiance to his subjects when he takes the throne, instead of swearing allegiance to the king by his subjects as in other countries. If the king violates any agreement or agreement, he will lose his throne. It is conceivable that such a king is not an enviable job, and it is difficult to do anything outstanding.
It is even more unreliable to choose a foreign nobleman to be the king. Can you imagine pulling someone from your neighbor to take care of your own house? A foreign nobleman is suddenly elected as the king of Poland. It is like a pie in the sky. He will not consider Poland's national interests wholeheartedly. He is likely to have his own small abacus. Gone. Therefore, it is inevitable that the French nobleman Henry Wallois abandons the Polish throne and runs away.
As the author Adam Zamoyski said, “the fear of autocratic rule is the root of all the surprising practices in the political system of the Polish aristocratic republic”. The king mixed into wage earners, this result is really unexpected. Can other Polish institutions effectively manage Poland? The answer is equally disappointing.
Henry Wallois flees Poland
Defective democratic system, immature government agency
Poland formed its own parliamentary system very early, which was earlier than that of Western European countries such as the United Kingdom. But this kind of parliamentary democracy has been flawed since its birth.
First of all, because this kind of democracy is limited to the nobles, the Senate is controlled by the big nobles, and the House of Representatives is controlled by the small and medium aristocrats. Because it is completely controlled by the aristocracy, this minority democratic system only focuses on the interests of the aristocracy and completely ignores the interests of the remaining 90% of the common people. The members of the nobility have become more and more complex, and their opinions and interests are very different, and it is difficult to reach consensus.
Secondly, although the parliament is a legislative body, it also has the power to declare war, sign contracts, enter into alliances, etc., and also have the power to audit the treasury, but the parliament itself cannot implement decisions. Decisions that cannot be implemented become empty words. This institutional defect is vividly called "epilepsy."
In addition, the "free veto" is also a major obstacle to the normal operation of the parliament. Because one person cannot pass the objection, the "free veto power" gives individual members the possibility to prevent decision-making. As long as the decision discussed is not in the interests of any member, or even just a certain member’s retaliation or frustration, the early efforts to fight for a decision can be wiped out. This power does guarantee the freedom that Poles value most, and to a certain extent prevents Poland from becoming an autocratic monarchy, but it also makes the Polish government very fragile and inefficient.
The performance of the Polish-Lithuanian federal government agencies in other areas is equally unsatisfactory.
Poland does not have a formal financial management system. In areas where the economy is most active, such as trade controlled by nobles and large-scale economic activities in Jewish communities, they are all tax-free. Gdansk, the largest economic center, also enjoys many tax-free privileges. Projects that can collect taxes are very inefficient.
The Polish army is small and lacks defensive capabilities. This is not only because the nobles are afraid of spending money, but also because they are afraid that any standing army may eventually become a tool of the king's autocratic rule. In the Taiping period, this shortcoming was not very obvious. Once the surrounding strong neighbors confronted each other, the fragile army would not be able to defend the country.
Polish diplomacy is also ridiculous. Throughout the 17th century, Polish diplomatic missions had a bad reputation in Europe. They used a large number of camels and golden shovel to show a flashy diplomatic image of wealth. They only gave people a misunderstanding of getting rich, but in fact they did not formulate any truly effective foreign policy.
In short, although the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century reached 990,000 square kilometers and became the largest country in Europe, it also maintained a state of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural symbiosis on the surface, but it had a flawed democratic system and an immature government. The institution is really very fragile. As the author commented: "The most surprising thing about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is that this country has no administrative system at all. This is even more puzzling considering its large area and many ethnic groups." The fragile state could not withstand the impact of external forces. Therefore, in the 18th century, facing the three partitions of the three strong neighbors, Poland had no power to fight back.
The political legacy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth helped Poland rebirth
Although the fragile and inefficient government agencies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth failed to preserve Poland in the face of the partition of strong neighbors, the continued influence of its political heritage among the people ultimately helped Poland overcome the difficulties, allowing Poland to be reborn and find itself again. The road.
Since the 14th century, Poland has gradually formed its own national concept. This view holds that the sovereignty of the Polish state belongs to Poland in terms of geography, not to the Polish king himself. The Polish land here includes land occupied by foreign countries. Therefore, after Poland was partitioned, the Poles identified with the Poland they had always thought of, rather than the foreign government that ruled them at the time. In addition, it is difficult for Poland to be colonized. This is because the original Polish government institutions are very imperfect and have a weak sense of existence. As a result, no matter which foreign government transfers its original government institutions, it makes Poles feel that this is a foreign object. , Produce a strong discomfort.
Even though the country was divided, the Polish nation was not divided by this. Whether it is Poles under foreign rule or Poles forced to exile, they have always insisted on their Polish nationality. The common language helps Poles strengthen the self-identity of the Polish nation. When Polish teaching materials were banned, the lower-level clergy of the church set up schools in private to help Polish people preserve their common language. Polish literature during the partition period was very prosperous, and even "underground conspiracy, illegal printing and smuggling of books have once again become part of the daily life of Polish society." Polish prints united the scattered Polish people spiritually. They have never forgotten that they are Polish, they have never forgotten their homeland Poland.
More importantly, the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prompted Poles to reflect on the shortcomings of the previous political system. They realized how fragile and inefficient the past system was, and further thought about what kind of country Poland should be built if Polish independence is to be restored. Despite the lack of past experience, the Poles are indeed actively looking for new development directions and daring to try. The process of trying to establish a new Poland is very long, and it has not been possible to avoid constant trial and error. After all, the missing lessons in the millennium history have to be made up for in practice. This is a challenge that Poland must face, and this is the future of Poland that Adam Zamoyski wants to explore in his "History of Poland".
Why did Poland suffer such a setback? What kind of country is Poland? What kind of people are Poles? These questions can be answered in the book "History of Poland" by the Polish-born British historian and writer Adam Zamoyski. "History of Poland" starts with the creation of the Kingdom of Poland by Meszko I and shows how Poland entered the modern era after its rebirth, showing the ups and downs that Poland has experienced in the millennium.
After reading "History of Poland", I have a feeling that Poland is different from other countries, and Polish people are also different from people in other countries. Poles love freedom and oppose dictatorship from the bottom up. Therefore, a very unique national system has been established in Poland. The partition of Poland can be said to be the inevitable result of this fragile system, but the rebirth of Poland also benefits from the legacy of this system.
Poles’ fear of autocratic rule makes the King of Poland become senior wage earners
Poles, or more precisely, the Polish aristocracy who can participate in politics, love freedom and actively maintain equal rights among aristocrats. The fear of autocratic rule can be said to be deep in the bones. They treat the kingship as a scourge, as if the king will become a tyrant once he has power, and ultimately damage their freedom and rights. Therefore, they are extremely afraid of the royal power, always cautiously and strictly guarded, and seize every opportunity to continuously weaken the royal power.
Faced with the restrictions of the nobility, what did the Polish kings do? The political skills of the kings themselves were not mature enough. They could not consciously establish the authority of the kings and concentrate more power. On the contrary, they complied with the requirements of the nobles in most cases, which made their status more and more embarrassing.
The kings of the Piast dynasty created the foundation of the Kingdom of Poland. It can be said that the achievements have been remarkable. For example, King Kazimierz expanded the land from 106,000 square kilometers when he took the throne to 260,000 square kilometers when he died. But they are better at opening up territories externally, rather than establishing effective governance internally. Their ruling power is not enough to manage the existing territories, nor can they stop the continuous expansion of local aristocratic power. Sometimes they could not even maintain the unity of Poland's vast territory, but split the country into separate management for their sons.
Władysław I planned to divide the land between his two sons. His youngest son Boleslaw III successfully drove his brother away and inherited the throne alone. But in the end, Boleslaw III, under the coercion of the local nobles, distributed the land to his five sons. This divided situation requires the subsequent kings to make more efforts to reunite. The king took the initiative to split the country, instead of trying his best to unify the territory, which shows that they are indeed incapable of ruling the country.
The same is true for the kings of the Jagiellonian dynasty. They are good at opening up territories. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the rule had occupied one third of the entire Europe at the end of the 15th century, but they lacked the experience of governing a huge empire and did not retain their power. This gave the nobles an opportunity. Poland had not established a system of feudal feudalism and had no channels to exercise central power. The role of the "lord" assigned by the king to each city is limited, and each city is basically in a state of autonomy and controlled by the local nobles. Now, the nobles seize every opportunity that the king needs funding or military support, bargaining with the king, and constantly exchange for more privileges. As a result, the power of the nobility became greater and greater, and the power of the king was increasingly restricted.
When the Jagiellonian family died out, the nobles decided to elect a new king. The candidates included foreign nobles in addition to their own nobles. For the Polish nobles, “it’s never a problem without a king”, because national affairs are decided by the parliament, and the elected king is just a senior worker who temporarily sits on the throne, with very limited power. Even the new king must swear allegiance to his subjects when he takes the throne, instead of swearing allegiance to the king by his subjects as in other countries. If the king violates any agreement or agreement, he will lose his throne. It is conceivable that such a king is not an enviable job, and it is difficult to do anything outstanding.
It is even more unreliable to choose a foreign nobleman to be the king. Can you imagine pulling someone from your neighbor to take care of your own house? A foreign nobleman is suddenly elected as the king of Poland. It is like a pie in the sky. He will not consider Poland's national interests wholeheartedly. He is likely to have his own small abacus. Gone. Therefore, it is inevitable that the French nobleman Henry Wallois abandons the Polish throne and runs away.
As the author Adam Zamoyski said, “the fear of autocratic rule is the root of all the surprising practices in the political system of the Polish aristocratic republic”. The king mixed into wage earners, this result is really unexpected. Can other Polish institutions effectively manage Poland? The answer is equally disappointing.
Henry Wallois flees Poland
Defective democratic system, immature government agency
Poland formed its own parliamentary system very early, which was earlier than that of Western European countries such as the United Kingdom. But this kind of parliamentary democracy has been flawed since its birth.
First of all, because this kind of democracy is limited to the nobles, the Senate is controlled by the big nobles, and the House of Representatives is controlled by the small and medium aristocrats. Because it is completely controlled by the aristocracy, this minority democratic system only focuses on the interests of the aristocracy and completely ignores the interests of the remaining 90% of the common people. The members of the nobility have become more and more complex, and their opinions and interests are very different, and it is difficult to reach consensus.
Secondly, although the parliament is a legislative body, it also has the power to declare war, sign contracts, enter into alliances, etc., and also have the power to audit the treasury, but the parliament itself cannot implement decisions. Decisions that cannot be implemented become empty words. This institutional defect is vividly called "epilepsy."
In addition, the "free veto" is also a major obstacle to the normal operation of the parliament. Because one person cannot pass the objection, the "free veto power" gives individual members the possibility to prevent decision-making. As long as the decision discussed is not in the interests of any member, or even just a certain member’s retaliation or frustration, the early efforts to fight for a decision can be wiped out. This power does guarantee the freedom that Poles value most, and to a certain extent prevents Poland from becoming an autocratic monarchy, but it also makes the Polish government very fragile and inefficient.
The performance of the Polish-Lithuanian federal government agencies in other areas is equally unsatisfactory.
Poland does not have a formal financial management system. In areas where the economy is most active, such as trade controlled by nobles and large-scale economic activities in Jewish communities, they are all tax-free. Gdansk, the largest economic center, also enjoys many tax-free privileges. Projects that can collect taxes are very inefficient.
The Polish army is small and lacks defensive capabilities. This is not only because the nobles are afraid of spending money, but also because they are afraid that any standing army may eventually become a tool of the king's autocratic rule. In the Taiping period, this shortcoming was not very obvious. Once the surrounding strong neighbors confronted each other, the fragile army would not be able to defend the country.
Polish diplomacy is also ridiculous. Throughout the 17th century, Polish diplomatic missions had a bad reputation in Europe. They used a large number of camels and golden shovel to show a flashy diplomatic image of wealth. They only gave people a misunderstanding of getting rich, but in fact they did not formulate any truly effective foreign policy.
In short, although the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 16th century reached 990,000 square kilometers and became the largest country in Europe, it also maintained a state of multi-ethnic and multi-cultural symbiosis on the surface, but it had a flawed democratic system and an immature government. The institution is really very fragile. As the author commented: "The most surprising thing about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is that this country has no administrative system at all. This is even more puzzling considering its large area and many ethnic groups." The fragile state could not withstand the impact of external forces. Therefore, in the 18th century, facing the three partitions of the three strong neighbors, Poland had no power to fight back.
The political legacy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth helped Poland rebirth
Although the fragile and inefficient government agencies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth failed to preserve Poland in the face of the partition of strong neighbors, the continued influence of its political heritage among the people ultimately helped Poland overcome the difficulties, allowing Poland to be reborn and find itself again. The road.
Since the 14th century, Poland has gradually formed its own national concept. This view holds that the sovereignty of the Polish state belongs to Poland in terms of geography, not to the Polish king himself. The Polish land here includes land occupied by foreign countries. Therefore, after Poland was partitioned, the Poles identified with the Poland they had always thought of, rather than the foreign government that ruled them at the time. In addition, it is difficult for Poland to be colonized. This is because the original Polish government institutions are very imperfect and have a weak sense of existence. As a result, no matter which foreign government transfers its original government institutions, it makes Poles feel that this is a foreign object. , Produce a strong discomfort.
Even though the country was divided, the Polish nation was not divided by this. Whether it is Poles under foreign rule or Poles forced to exile, they have always insisted on their Polish nationality. The common language helps Poles strengthen the self-identity of the Polish nation. When Polish teaching materials were banned, the lower-level clergy of the church set up schools in private to help Polish people preserve their common language. Polish literature during the partition period was very prosperous, and even "underground conspiracy, illegal printing and smuggling of books have once again become part of the daily life of Polish society." Polish prints united the scattered Polish people spiritually. They have never forgotten that they are Polish, they have never forgotten their homeland Poland.
More importantly, the collapse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth prompted Poles to reflect on the shortcomings of the previous political system. They realized how fragile and inefficient the past system was, and further thought about what kind of country Poland should be built if Polish independence is to be restored. Despite the lack of past experience, the Poles are indeed actively looking for new development directions and daring to try. The process of trying to establish a new Poland is very long, and it has not been possible to avoid constant trial and error. After all, the missing lessons in the millennium history have to be made up for in practice. This is a challenge that Poland must face, and this is the future of Poland that Adam Zamoyski wants to explore in his "History of Poland".
June 22, 2023
This was a great overview of Poland’s history. The history nerd wishes a few topics had more details, and there are a couple of obvious biases, but overall it was a pleasure to read. I most enjoyed the social context right after WWII, and the influences that changed how Poland changed from being a multicultural, tolerant society to being more suspicious to those who aren’t Poles.
May 12, 2024
I liked
February 3, 2023
For someone that gave himself the unenviable task of summarizing the history of a country as vast as Poland, Zamoyski does a fairly good job at it.
You're never really bored about any of the periods of Polish history, and it was very easy to find yourself drawn in to the changeable nature of Poland, how many events it went through, the insane amount of border changes and, at its most recent times, how its neighbours attempted hard to erase it entirely from history (and how cool it is that they failed to do so).
You're never really bored about any of the periods of Polish history, and it was very easy to find yourself drawn in to the changeable nature of Poland, how many events it went through, the insane amount of border changes and, at its most recent times, how its neighbours attempted hard to erase it entirely from history (and how cool it is that they failed to do so).
October 8, 2019
This is a very interesting book following the history of a part of the world that is often ignored! The story of Poland is a harrowing one, but also one of incredible resilience, and this book is great at getting that across to the unfamiliar reader. My only major gripe is the lack of referencing in the book as it makes it somewhat hard to find out more about the topic. However, despite this, I heartily recommend this book to anyone who wants an overview of Polish history!
March 30, 2025
En tydlig översikt, men mer av en faktaansamling än något slags dramatisering, vilket är olyckligt för en bok med (vad jag tolkar som ett) populärhistoriskt anslag. Det finns många nedslag som är spännande som i princip underbehandlas - intrigerna mellan polen och mongolerna avhandlas på knappt två sidor, unionen som splittrades vid varna får mer utrymme, men knappast det som den förtjänar, medan august den starke i princip blir depersonaliserad. En bra översikt som sagt, men utan de krokar som kommer hjälpa en läsare att lägga saker på minnet vilket är djupt olyckligt. Det finns en tänkare som heter Schiller, som jag inkluderar i min epistemologiundervisning för ungdomarna på jobbet, som uttrycker något som är självklart för alla som läst psykologi eller marknadsföring - det finns för många stimuli i världen, och när vi då skall sortera våra intryck, gör vi det på romantisk grund, dvs. vi prioriterar det som är häftigt, spännande, eller vackert. I sin tur innebär det att ett populärhistoriskt verk, just eftersom det är avsett som översiktsverk, måste tillåta sig att dramatisera, att fånga det fascinerande snarare än att bara presentera en god översikt, såsom hade varit fallet om man skrev en akademisk historia. Det innebär att exakthet kommer att stryka på foten - som antiknörd blir jag nästan arg varje gång jag försöker läsa om Tom Holland - men det spelar inte så stor roll, eftersom uppdraget för en populärhistorisk skrift är att skapa nya minnesbanor hos läsaren. Det är här jag irriteras över boken, för det uppdraget ignoreras. Jag råkar ha läst om Polen förut, eftersom jag både är libertarian (och därmed fascinerats av både medeltidspolens fribönder, renässanspolen med dess religiösa neutralitet och det senare liberum veto), och dessutom tycker om att läsa historia, men jag vågar slå vad om att jag om tre veckor inte kommer komma ihåg ett enda namn från denna bok som jag inte redan kände till. Och det är inte ett bra betyg på en historiebok.
June 11, 2010
It was a very interesting book, although I have to say, it took me much longer time to read than I expected. It is a very detailed and an interesting book, but the author just runs through the Piast dynasty. The book is also not just a list of facts, but a thourough explanations. The years being described also change in a weird pattern (at one page you have the year 1703, on the next one 1699, then you have 1705 etc.), but then, the book is not boring. I recommend it to everyone who likes history. (Counts as multiple books)
October 4, 2016
As a Pole, this was my first time reading a history book about the land of my birth. I enjoyed it, but it has the same problem that most history books have: you read so many names, events, and years that it all starts to blur together after a while. It's a fine primer, but it demands extemporaneous research if you want to get a more detailed understanding of certain people, periods, and events. That said, it definitely ignited my interest in learning more about Polish history, so it did its job. It's best enjoyed in short chunks and subsequent reflections.
August 5, 2024
My first of four (five?) books I’m trying to read before my trip to Poland, this book is definitely the most extensive. I was looking for a comprehensive book on the country, and this one certainly gives you that.
Zamoyski starts in the 900s AD(!), takes us through the Middle Ages, a bunch of Kingdoms and Churches vying for power, all through the three major partitions, two world wars, and the eventual government that runs today.
I’m not going to go step by step on what Zamoyski describes; instead, I’ll offer some thoughts on what I thought was most amusing, or surprising, as well as some themes, in Poland’s history, a history with a territory that has “expanded and contracted, shifted and vanished so dramatically,” existing as almost a “random compromise resulting from the Second World War.”
First, I didn;t realize Poland, as the rest of Europe was catching a bit of Church fever, stayed true to their guns, placing constitutional or legal issues before religious ones, ultimately leading to a general failure of Reformation. But at the same time, the country used the Church to gain more contact with the outside world.
Additionally, Poland was super progressive early on, with its open borders and its sanctuary-like environment for survivors to flee to: “the far from populous Poland felt no such need for expansion, and her rulers welcomed the immigration of Jews, Boehmians, and Germans who provided useful services.”
But Poland bucked the trend of other European countries in more than one way, including its relationship with centralized government and monarchies; while other countries swept under the rule of Hapsburgs or Bourbons or Tudors, Poland took the opposite course, with a surprisingly democratic system and separation of powers between monarch and parliament.
Poland’s shifting borders is another common theme — making the history of the country and a people all the more complicated — constantly merging lines with Lithuania, Germany, Belarus, Ukraine, and the like, which led to multiple languages and an interesting hybrid of Eastern and Western cultures.
This, of course, didn’t last forever. And another theme was Russia as a bully (has it always been this way??), with the number of military advances and political partitions that eventually removed Poland from the map altogether: “The Commonwealth had effectively ceased being a sovereign state in 1718 with the imposition of the Russian ‘protectorate.’”
What follows are a series of wars between Austria, Prussia, France, and Russia that are hard to keep track of, with Poland acting as a sort of buffer zone or army of convenience, who could be put to use and motivated by a vague promise of autonomy: “Whereaver there were Russians, Prussians, Aaustrains, or their allies to be fought, there were Poles in their ranks.”
All the while Poland struggled to hold onto an identity, clinging to the ideals of the Commonwealth and its political testament, and an independence, which threatened the stability of Central Europe and its power players, which is why they were generally ground to submission when possible.
“The quest for the lost state of innocence … was becoming inextricably confused with the quest of the lost motherland, or rather, the state of being that had vanished with it.”
Thus gave rise to a resistance movement, encouraged by the “inability of the three powers to provide a congenial framework for ordinary life and accommodate minimal cultural aspirations that kept their Polish provinces in an explosive condition.”
“The attendant strain, mental, emotional, and psychological, marked by Polish society all the more as it refused to accept this state of affairs and continually tried to regain control of its destiny, by rational means, through word, print, and, where possible, action.” Queue a bunch of resistant movements and WWI, and in 1919, Poland was to become a nation again.
What follows are some shaky years between Poland and its German and Russian neighbors, alongside a growing alliance with Western powers like France and Britain, until, of course, WW2 broke out after a secret deal between Nazi Germany, which invaded from the West, and the USSR, which invaded from the east.
Perhaps one of the most powerful passages is one that closes out WW2 and leads us into the age of the Iron Curtain: “It is a grim irony that although it had been a member of the victorious alliance, Poland was the ultimate loser of the Second World War. It lost its independence, and more than half its territory — in defense of which the war had been declared.”
Under the decades of brutal reign of Russia, Poland cling to religion and resistance, and eventually, with the labor movement of the 1980s, created its own freedom movement, and ultimately was the first country to break out of the Eastern Bloc, while also being the first country to recognize Ukraine and the second to recognize Lithuania.
All in all, Poland: A History, is dense at times, lacking a central figure to drive the narrative, or some witty editorializing to keep us entertained, but it is what it sets out to be: A pretty remarkably comprehensive history of over a millennium of Poland.
I just wish Zamoyski would take a step back every once in a while and explain the significance of all the events taking place. It’s really easy to get lost in all the action, especially if it’s the first time you’re hearing of something!
Zamoyski starts in the 900s AD(!), takes us through the Middle Ages, a bunch of Kingdoms and Churches vying for power, all through the three major partitions, two world wars, and the eventual government that runs today.
I’m not going to go step by step on what Zamoyski describes; instead, I’ll offer some thoughts on what I thought was most amusing, or surprising, as well as some themes, in Poland’s history, a history with a territory that has “expanded and contracted, shifted and vanished so dramatically,” existing as almost a “random compromise resulting from the Second World War.”
First, I didn;t realize Poland, as the rest of Europe was catching a bit of Church fever, stayed true to their guns, placing constitutional or legal issues before religious ones, ultimately leading to a general failure of Reformation. But at the same time, the country used the Church to gain more contact with the outside world.
Additionally, Poland was super progressive early on, with its open borders and its sanctuary-like environment for survivors to flee to: “the far from populous Poland felt no such need for expansion, and her rulers welcomed the immigration of Jews, Boehmians, and Germans who provided useful services.”
But Poland bucked the trend of other European countries in more than one way, including its relationship with centralized government and monarchies; while other countries swept under the rule of Hapsburgs or Bourbons or Tudors, Poland took the opposite course, with a surprisingly democratic system and separation of powers between monarch and parliament.
Poland’s shifting borders is another common theme — making the history of the country and a people all the more complicated — constantly merging lines with Lithuania, Germany, Belarus, Ukraine, and the like, which led to multiple languages and an interesting hybrid of Eastern and Western cultures.
This, of course, didn’t last forever. And another theme was Russia as a bully (has it always been this way??), with the number of military advances and political partitions that eventually removed Poland from the map altogether: “The Commonwealth had effectively ceased being a sovereign state in 1718 with the imposition of the Russian ‘protectorate.’”
What follows are a series of wars between Austria, Prussia, France, and Russia that are hard to keep track of, with Poland acting as a sort of buffer zone or army of convenience, who could be put to use and motivated by a vague promise of autonomy: “Whereaver there were Russians, Prussians, Aaustrains, or their allies to be fought, there were Poles in their ranks.”
All the while Poland struggled to hold onto an identity, clinging to the ideals of the Commonwealth and its political testament, and an independence, which threatened the stability of Central Europe and its power players, which is why they were generally ground to submission when possible.
“The quest for the lost state of innocence … was becoming inextricably confused with the quest of the lost motherland, or rather, the state of being that had vanished with it.”
Thus gave rise to a resistance movement, encouraged by the “inability of the three powers to provide a congenial framework for ordinary life and accommodate minimal cultural aspirations that kept their Polish provinces in an explosive condition.”
“The attendant strain, mental, emotional, and psychological, marked by Polish society all the more as it refused to accept this state of affairs and continually tried to regain control of its destiny, by rational means, through word, print, and, where possible, action.” Queue a bunch of resistant movements and WWI, and in 1919, Poland was to become a nation again.
What follows are some shaky years between Poland and its German and Russian neighbors, alongside a growing alliance with Western powers like France and Britain, until, of course, WW2 broke out after a secret deal between Nazi Germany, which invaded from the West, and the USSR, which invaded from the east.
Perhaps one of the most powerful passages is one that closes out WW2 and leads us into the age of the Iron Curtain: “It is a grim irony that although it had been a member of the victorious alliance, Poland was the ultimate loser of the Second World War. It lost its independence, and more than half its territory — in defense of which the war had been declared.”
Under the decades of brutal reign of Russia, Poland cling to religion and resistance, and eventually, with the labor movement of the 1980s, created its own freedom movement, and ultimately was the first country to break out of the Eastern Bloc, while also being the first country to recognize Ukraine and the second to recognize Lithuania.
All in all, Poland: A History, is dense at times, lacking a central figure to drive the narrative, or some witty editorializing to keep us entertained, but it is what it sets out to be: A pretty remarkably comprehensive history of over a millennium of Poland.
I just wish Zamoyski would take a step back every once in a while and explain the significance of all the events taking place. It’s really easy to get lost in all the action, especially if it’s the first time you’re hearing of something!
January 22, 2011
A fine, concise history of my ancestral homeland. Adam Zamoyski has a fluid writing style that makes this book incredibly easy to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews