Poland: The First Thousand Years

by Patrice M. Dabrowski

Since its beginnings, Poland has been a moving target, geographically as well as demographically, and the very definition of who is a Pole has been in flux. In the late medieval and early modern periods, the country grew to be the largest in continental Europe, only to be later wiped off the map for more than a century. The Polish phoenix that rose out of the ashes of World War I was obliterated by the joint Nazi-Soviet occupation that began with World War II. The postwar entity known as Poland was shaped and controlled by the Soviet Union. Yet even under these constraints, Poles persisted in their desire to wrest from their oppressors a modicum of national dignity and, ultimately, managed to achieve much more than that.

Poland is a sweeping account designed to amplify major figures, moments, milestones, and turning points in Polish history. These include important battles and illustrious individuals, alliances forged by marriages and choices of religious denomination, and meditations on the likes of the Polish battle slogan "for our freedom and yours" that resounded during the Polish fight for independence in the long 19th century and echoed in the Solidarity period of the late 20th century.

The experience of oppression helped Poles to endure and surmount various challenges in the 20th century, and Poland's demonstration of strength was a model for other peoples seeking to extract themselves from foreign yoke. Patrice Dabrowski's work situates Poland and the Poles within a broader European framework that locates this multiethnic and multidenominational region squarely between East and West. This illuminating chronicle will appeal to general readers, and will be of special interest to those of Polish descent who will appreciate Poland's longstanding republican experiment.

Genres: History, Poland, Nonfiction, Audiobook

506 pages, Hardcover

First published October 1, 2014

Reviews

[Kbullock · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's an easy read, but I wonder how much of it I can trust. There are minimal footnotes and no endnotes. Of the few footnotes, several cite Norman Davies, which is not reassuring. Dabrowski is a Polish speaker, and she shouldn't need to cite to an English-language history. Norman Davies is an engaging writer but an unreliable historian. I still don't know what the best starting point is for an English speaker interested in Polish history, but I started here.

[Dr G · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title, Poland. The First Thousand Years , rather provides a warning that this book is pretty intense. This is confirmed in the fact that it comprises 450 pages – and could have been significantly larger had its index been more comprehensive. (While I am on that point, I might as well state that I think the 21-page index is totally inadequate for such a study. When I was checking through my notes after reading the book, time and time again, I was unable to locate a name in the index and was therefore limited to skimming through the text, trying – often unsuccessfully – to find particular passages. This is simply unsatisfactory, and is puzzlingly mean in such a scholarly work.) Continuing the subject of my irritations, I might mention the poor quality greyscale illustrations which, in some instances, are of next to no value, and the paucity of maps for a study where the complexity of location is so central. Finally, the editing of the text has allowed too many infelicities to reach print (for example: “passivism”! “a siege lasting three weeks long”; “inmigration”, or “the establishment of a yet another centre-right government.”)
The early section of the book rattles through the history fairly speedily as it catalogues the monarchs and would-be monarchs from 1000CE (after making the point that the Romans did not settle in what would become Poland and, consequently, there was no contemporary writing to chronicle the previous thousand years, which were recorded hundreds of years later in legend).
One of the difficulties in writing a history of Poland is in identifying, other than through the current borders, what one means by “Poland”. There is certainly no Polish race, and at various times, there is confusion between Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, as borders flowed backwards and forwards, particularly during the time of the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania, but also with the partition of the area into spheres managed by Russia, Austria and Prussia. And then there was the period leading up to World War 1, when there was no Poland. And I suppose it is all made more complicated by the spelling of names which trip an anglophone tongue.
One of the recurring themes is the uniformity of its adherence to the Roman Catholic church, as distinct from the Orthodox. Dabrowski sets this as having begun with the 966 baptism of King Mieszko I, the first monarch of the Piast dynasty and, she states, the first authenticated ruler of Poland which, at that time, was a much smaller area, in the region of Poznań, “Polanie” meaning “people of the plains”. The first Jews arrived then, as well, first as Slavic traders and then Ashkenazis fleeing from the Holy Roman Empire. . There were several kings then before the Mongol Khans took the area in 1241; at the same time, Lithuania was gaining in strength, and Poland was seeing the immigration of Germans, Dutch and Flemish through the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. During this time, only the peasants were speaking Polish. However, Kraków University was also established, this in 1364. Poland was extremely fortunate to miss out on the Black death and thus to gain additional trade as afflicted areas were unable to maintain farm productivity.
Throughout this period, the death of a king led to concerns about the succession. Numbers of monarchs died without an heir and so marriage alliances were made, especially with Hungary and Lithuania. Connection with Lithuania presented potential difficulty since it was staunchly Orthodox in religion. By and large, kings had limits to their powers, needing to operate within rules set by the nobles of the Senate, in contrast to other European absolutist monarchs. The fifteenth century saw the rise of new dangers as Muscovy sought to spread its wings. But it also saw the development of paper mills and the printing press (Kraków 1474).
In 1569, Poland and Lithuania formed a formal federated Commonwealth. When King Zygmunt died in 1572, a fascinating experiment was begun. The Polish nobles were worried about the power one of their number might usurp on acceding to the throne. They established a formal election process in which candidates could tout their qualifications, with strict limits on the behaviour of both internal and foreign aspirants. Initially this ran into problems when Henri Valois was elected but, inheriting the French throne and being told he could not rule Poland from France, he disguised himself and sneaked out of Poland. The new election was much more successful with István of Transylvania (Stefan Batory) proving to be committed to his new role.
There were discussions about Muscovy joining the commonwealth but Ivan IV’s demands of Muscovite hegemony, along with his dislike of the commonwealth’s comparatively egalitarian approach, and the thorny Catholicism versus Orthodoxy antagonism led to the plan’s failure. King Zygmunt III had a long, 45 year, reign during which Warsaw replaced Kraków as capital, and the Catholic Church became a bulwark against the Reformation. Ukraine joined the commonwealth but then the Cossacks rebelled during a period of conflict also involving Lithuania, Sweden and Russia.
In 1683 one of Poland’s proudest national events occurred when the cavalry of Jan Sobieski rescued Vienna from the Ottoman Turks. One of its most disastrous events saw the Act of Partition in 1772, the Commonwealth being divided between Austria, Prussia and Russia. These three nations managed their new lands and inhabitants quite differently so that Poles were experiencing different circumstances depending on where they lived. However the Seym continued to operate and attracted a number of enlightened thinkers. Many Poles joined Napoleon in Russia, but from the fifth Corps, 37,000 went in and 2,000 came out. When, in 1831, the Polish Seym sought to dethrone Tsar Nicholas, the Great Powers were reluctant to assist a rebellion against the world order they had established at the Congress of Vienna. The Tsar responded violently and there was a mass exodus of poles to Britain, France and Belgium.
As would be the case in Russia, the peasants presented something of a problem: liberals sought to develop a sense of Polishness amongst them, but the conservatives were fearful of them.
In the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, Poles offered to assist the Japanese but their offer was declined. During World War I, they fought variously with the three partition armies. Finally, in 1918 the victorious powers declared that Poland would be re-established, and this was ratified at Versailles, although there remained disputes over borders with Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. And Gdansk, the port, was not included in the new Poland. A progressive constitution was agreed; however, there were continuing difficulties as a result of a century of differing partition infrastructure and processes. There were competing philosophies regarding nationalist homogeneity versus official multi-ethnicity, and regarding Roman Catholicism and the place of Jews, with a nationalist anti-Semitic group holding significant influence and supporting Zionism as a means of reducing the Polish Jewish population.
Shortly afterwards, Hitler’s “Final Solution” accounted for 90% of them.
After the war, the USSR took Poland into its orbit, where it remained until the appearance on the scene of Karol Wojtyła as pope and Lech Wałęsa as unionist activist.
I notice that a number of reviewers have queried Dabrowski’s neutral objectivity, favouring Polish perspectives. I must say that that did not cause me any concern, but I am a complete layman in the history of this region. In an interesting review on the web, Lidia Zessin-Jurek provides the judgment: “Dabrowski prepared a well-written informative volume giving an adequate overview of Polish history avoiding controversial historiographical discussions. Instead of passing judgment, Dabrowski offers a positive, if occasionally anodyne, vision of Polish history, saying that Poles should start to appreciate their own success” ( https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf... ). I am comfortable with that assessment, and I am happy with the “anodyne” approach. My goal in obtaining and reading this book was to get a broad sense of Poland’s background. This I achieved.

[Harry Gardner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Poland: The First Thousand Years does what it promises--covering the history of Poland, from first pre-christian kings (around Gniezo) to the end of the Polish People's Republic in 1989. A few trends emerged in this book.

1. Cycles of fragmentation and unity. After the initial Piast state established at the end of the 10th century, itself broke apart by the 12th century. Early attempts to bring together the former lands of the Piast state were impeded by the Mongol Invasions, but by the early 13th century Wladyslaw and Casimir III succeeded in the recreation of a medieval polish kingdom. More recently, in the early modern period, the internal political fragmentation of polish society (primarily in the outsized power that the nobility had to impede reforms and ability to hold on to power) preceded and amplified the effects of the Great Northern War, the Deluge, leading to a scenario where the three partitions of the late 18th century were possible.

2. The issue of legitimacy and succession, and how those events redefined the role of Poland in its environs. In two separate pivotal cases, medieval / early modern Poland faced the issue of a reigning dynasty having no surviving male heirs--in the case of the Polish Piasts upon the death of Louis I of Hungary (whose daughter, King Jadwiga, was crowned king in her own right) and the death of Sigismund August of the Jagiellonian Dynasty.

In the former case, it led to the coronation of a woman as king in her own right (well, girl, she was nine at the time!) and through a series of highly contingent events--the nobility deciding that she ought to marry Jagiello, the pagan Duke of Lithuania, over a Habsburg, her early death in childbirth and Jagiello's long life--led to the formation of a distinct, federative Polish-Lithuania state. This state, although only united in the person of the Jagiello and his heirs, itself led to a radical redefinition of Poland's relationship with the Teutonic Knights--most importantly at the Battle of Grunwald / First Battle of Tannenberg--that established Polish hegemony (the term here is meant rather loosely though) over Prussia for the remainder of the Jagiellonian dynasty.

In the latter case, the death of Sigismund August led to a radical redefinition of the role of the nobility in the government. The tenously elective monarchy (which under the Jagiellonian dynasty effectively rubberstamped the approval of the closest male heir of the reigning King, which in the case of Sigismund August made him king during the life of his father) became a much more strictly elective monarchy with a series of foreign candidates succeeding each other one after another (the first, Henry of Valois, who later became Henry III of France followed by Stephen Bathory of Transylvannian, and then the Swedish candidate, Sigismund III Vasa). More significantly, the practice of pacta conventa , a document issued by each King pledging to uphold certain freedoms (such as the right to practice a dissenting christian faith unmolested or the promise even to not levy Polish troops to fight wars outside of Poland) became a standard fare. Even in the years preceding the extinction of the Jagiellonian dynasty, the role of a noble legislative / deliberative body (open to a multitude of nobles), the Sejm, became formalized. This body though, while beneficial in some senses by providing a political outlet, itself became an impediment--due to the liberum veto, in which any attending noble could veto the proceedings.

[Andrew Morrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

The approach here is to follow the narrative chronologically untill it hits up against another important history, and to then go back and give details for that stream. I think it works quite well for a history of this length, and the author judges when to summarize and when to go back and explain quite well, so you never lose site of the original chain of events.

[Hugolane · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the final pages of this book make clear, this book is contribution to an ongoing argument happening in Poland, as it is elsewhere, about how to tell the story of a nation. Dabrowski, whom I've known since we were both grad students at different institutions, uses this book to make the case that national panegyrics are not the way to go, and instead national narratives must address the many short comings in Polish history. Nonetheless, perhaps because that desire to engage with national apologists this book ends up falling short pleasing neither those for whom Poland did no wrong, nor those who would like to have seen greater discussion of those short comings, especially in regard to relations between the Polish state and diverse populations, and later between Poles and various non-Polish populations living on the territory of the former Commonwealth in the era when there was no independent Polish state.

Seen in that light, the book's focus on medieval and early modern Poland makes some sense. The greater distance and the well established tradition of a critical reading of the Commonwealth in particular leave more room for Dabrowski to introduce broader historical questions and reflect on the Commonwealth's high points and low points that led to the partitions and serious reform efforts. That said, I agree with others that the proportions are off. The real battleground regarding patriotic history really come in the last 250 years, and if these get disproportional attention in contest to the previous 750 years of history, the deserve even more attention, at least half the book, if not three fifths. That, however, would have meant many more arguments that might have alienated those Dabrowski most wants to reach, Polish patriots, who are tempted by a positive national historiography, but remain susceptible to debate.

There is another audience for this book, and that is non-Poles who simply want to know more, and with them in mind, here are a few topics that I would like to see in a contemporary survey of Polish history.
1) Greater discussion of the systemic problems inherent in the Commonwealth. This would include the more elaboration of how the persistence of the Cossacks threatened the serf-based agricultural economy on which nobles's wealth was based, as an explanation of why the Commonwealth acted as it did. Also, how did the gradual decline of the Baltic grain trade drive the increasingly harsh robot obligations, as nobles sought to make up for declining income through increased robot. Finally, more discussion of the Magnates and the myth of noble equality. While we get a glimpse of marriage politics among the Magnates through the discussion of the Czartorscy, it would be helpful to discuss how their marriage with royal families in other parts of Europe separated them, and ultimately undercut their collective support of the Commonwealth.
2) While the establishment of the Second Republic signals that Polish nationalism won, greater discussion of the tri-loyalist alternative, where Poles, especially nobles, in the various partitions accepted Austrian, Prussian, and Russian rule. Until WWI, cooperation with the those states was not obviously a chimera, not that this was viewed equally in the three partitions. Galicians were perhaps the most likely to fall into that view, but as Dabrowski acknowledges, Dmowski continued to imagine cooperation with Russia until 1917.
3) Nations as modern creations, and the complex dynamics that saw imperial powers use the politics of division to undercut broader support for revival of a Polish state. Then how different groups and leading figures approached nationalism beyond just Dmowski and Piłsudski. Also the complex dynamics of the modernization of Jewish identity, and how this, as well as the emergence of Lithuanian, Ukrainian, and Belarus national ideas complicated the creation of a broadly accepted inclusive Polish identity.
4) Greater discussion of the how the triumph of 1989 give way to illiberal democratic ideas that seem more like a negative version of the politics of the Polish Peoples Republic than the open democracy.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a patriotic history of Poland.

Dabrowski's championing of Poland is both this book's most admirable quality and its worst quality. She provides a strong pro-polish history of Poland, in which the Poles are the good guys who have some flaws. The descriptions of Polish historical heroes illustrate their importance to Poland and to the Polish people. However, in pursuit of her goal of explaining the amazingness of the Poles of the past, she exaggerates the positives and mostly ignores the negatives of historical Poles.
For example, she constantly calls Poland before its final partition a multi-ethnic nation which was very tolerant of its subjects. But, this does not fit neatly into Polish-Ukrainian relations. The Ukrainians, who during the partitions of Poland were called Ruthenians or Cossacks, thought Poles were discriminating against them so much that they left to join whoever else would take them (finally settling for the Russian empire over the Ottoman empire). The fact that the Ukrainians ran out of Poland as fiercely as they did brings into question how tolerant of the multi-ethnicity were the Poles.

Dabrowski's unashamed bias aside, the book reads well. she writes accessibly and rarely uses any special terminology. She also repeats significant points to reinforce how events lead to one another.

[JennyB · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history of Poland is long. So long. At times, it seems as long as history itself. But, it's also very readable, not being written in dense academic-ese. I don't know if you can talk about pacing with a history book, but that's a bit odd here: 966 to about 1899 is covered in extensive - you might even say egregious - detail, but then you fly through the entire 20th century in about 100 pages. This part seems mostly like just a list of important personages during that timeframe, but there's little explanation of events, and even less analysis. Maybe that's okay - I was kind of over reading this by then anyway. Overall, I'd say this is a pretty great intro to Polish history, and it was a fun if absurd effort trying to figure out how names and places should be pronounced. Is there a harder, more impenetrable language that uses the roman alphabet? Maybe, but Polish is definitely nuts. Finally, read something else if your main interest is contemporary history.

[Ela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dabrowski writes with eloquence and grace, doing justice to this often-benighted nation's history. A big-picture history with plenty of detail, readable chapters at every turn, and utter professionalism, this book is suitable for a course on Polish History, for context in any class on Europe, be in history or political science, or for the more casual reader interested in genealogy, family history, or any era of history from the year 1000 forward.

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

I mean, it's obvious that a book on this topic is going to feel very Home Teamish, but I feel like this one's objectivity was obscured by its desire to show that Poland is an important part of world history. Which anyone reading a book like this will already appreciate. So, I'm not sure. Decent survey book, but with a sort of annoying tone.

[Allisonperkel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an easy, though highly repetitive, listen. The author presents Poland in the best light, which is expected. I do feel proud of my polish heritage but I also feel saddened by how my Jewish side of the family was treated. The nationalism as antisemitism is still happening today.

[Adam · Rating 4 out of 5]

An easy to read but a somewhat biased history of Poland. The author is clearly an admirer. The book has a patriotic view of Poland s history and it reminded me of material that middle-schoolers in Poland may read to learn their history. It's an informative and enjoyable read nonetheless.

[Sj · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative

[Mark · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't get through the first chapter.

[Mark Howley · Rating 5 out of 5]

great information

I liked the depth of the book as it moves through all the years and years of transition and resiliency of the Polish People and Poland - a greater education!

[Mads Floyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

My second home.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I attempted to read "God's Playground" by Davies but found it inaccessible and dry to the point of desiccation. This history of Poland was much more my speed and gave me both the breadth of scope and the detail I wanted. Would recommend as a great introduction to the history of this country.