So okay... I am a proud Lithuanian and I love the history of my country. As you probably know, Lithuania and Poland made a Commonwealth in 1569. It was a great and powerful state in Europe.
More and more, I see the PLC being referred to as just Poland. It really angers and annoys me, because it almost makes it look like Poland occupied Lithuania. Poland basically gets all the glory too.
Now don't get me wrong. I totally agree that Poland did take a more important role in the Commonwealth than Lithuania, but still, it wasn't like we wanted them to do that and we also had quite a lot of important tasks and moments. The PLC consisted of 2 big states - Poland and Lithuania. We both had some independence from each other and not everything was the same in both states.
SO how incorrect is calling the PLC just Poland? Is it a very big mistake or is it almost correct? Should we keep reminding those, who call it Poland, to call it the PLC?
Thank you in advance.
It's really hard to give an answer to question like that. It's unarguable that PLC was joint Polish- Lithuanian state and Jagiellonian dynasty was from Lithuania. Also- until (almost) very end Poland and Lithuania had separate institutions (mosly relevant during Deluge when Lithuania actually acted separately)- they were abolished as part of 3rd May Constitution. Lithuanian* (and Ruthenian- until XVI century) and Polish were official languages of Commonwealth (laws had to be drafted in both languages). Those are strong arguments for considering Lithuania as equal entity to Poland in Commonwealth.
On the other hand- Jagiellonians quickly abandoned their Lithuanian heritage. When Zygmunt II August wanted to marry Barbara Radziwiłłówna (from Lithuania) it caused some unrest among nobles. I don't have the book with me now, but Norman Davies in "God's Playground" mentions situation where ZIIA was strongly discouraged by Polish archishop (or cardinal) to marry Barbara as she was Lithuanian- he went on talking about Lithuanians as half- barbarians and half- pagans. Considering the fact that he was talking to king from Lithuanian dynasty I think that we can safely assume that king didn't really consider himself Lithuanian- despite being of Lithuanian heritage! This shows that Polish influences were much stronger than Lithuanian. What's more- even Lithuanian noble dynasties (like Radziwills) who actually (conciously) considered themselves to be Lithuanians spoke Polish. PLC's capital was in Kraków (and Warsaw later), while Vilnus lost its status after union of Lublin.
As a summary- it's really not possible to objectively say that PLC was "Poland". PLC was PLC- mix of ALL its constituent cultures. Not just Polish and Lithuanian, but also Ruthenian (and- in some extent- German). In my opinion if PLC would survive until today (or at least would survive until XXth century- without any significant border changes), its culture would be mix of these. Most strongly dominated by Polish factor (spoken language), but unarguably with strong influences. After all it's not like Lithuania was conquered by Poland and forced to take its language and customs. It was slow, evolutionary (most importantly voluntary) process. It's just a theory though- could have gone any way.
*I messed up here. Lithuanian was NOT official language of PLC. Polish and Ruthenian (and Latin) were. Only some documents were written in Lithuanian.
Source: Norman Davies "God's Playground" (Polish version)
It is justified to call PLC Poland. At least it was historically done. It seems that the best name would be Republic of Poland (Polish Republic). Lithuanian part was represented in the King's titles, names of offices, and administration, but not in the name of the state.
1635 Rozejm w Sztumskiej Wsi (Treaty of Stuhmsdorf), in Latin:
^(Dei gratia regis Poloniae, magni ducis Lithuaniae etc.etc.etc. atque inclytae) ^(reipublicae Polonae...)
^(Sacrae regiae maiestati ac reipublicae Polonae Serenissima regina, regnumque Sveciae reddat, eam partem Prussiae, quam hactenus occupatam possidet; ita tamen, ut Pilavia electori Brandeburgico, duci in Prussia, immediate restituatur possidenda, eodem jure, quod ante hoc bellum habuit.)
1723, An Abstract of the Troubles in Poland In the Year 1715 with Political Remarks and Reflections
^(The Manifesto publish'd by Wradislauy Gurzinski, Mareschal of the confedrated) **^(Crown-Army of Poland)**^(, ....)
1773, Treaty between Austria and Poland, in Polish:
Preamble:
^(T R A K T A T)
^(Między Nayiaśniey: Krolem Imcią y) ^(Rzecząpospolitą)
**^(Polską)**^(, y Nayiaśnieyszą Cesarzową Krolową)
^(Węgierską y Czeską.W Imie Troycy Swiętey.)
In the text:
^(Nayiaśnieyszym Krolem Imcią Polskim, Wielkim Xiążęciem Litewskim) (Polish King, Lithuanian Grand Duke)
^(Nayiaśnieyszy Krol Imć Polski y Stany Polskie, y Litewskie) (His Majesty Polish King, Polish and Lithuanian Estates)
1780, Dzieło Komissyi Graniczney mięczy Ukrainą Polską Y Nowo-Rossyą przez Jaśnie Wielmożnych Ichmciów Panów Karola Skarbka Malczewskiego Generała Woysk Koronnych Partyą Ukraińską y Podolską aktualnie kommenderuiącego, y Jozefa de Witte Szefa Regimentu Granadyerskiego, Jego Krolewskiey Mci y Rzeczypospolitey Polskich oraz Jaśnie Wielmożnych Ichmciów Panow Michała Potemkina Generała Maiora Woysk Ros...
1791, New Constitution of the Gorernment of Poland established by the revolution, the third of may 1791, London 1791 (English translation of the 3-rd May Constitution)
1792, Russian delcaration of war:
La Liberte et l'independance de la Serenissime Republique de Pologne ont, dans tous les temps, excite l'attention et l'interet de tous ses voisins.
From: Recueil des traités, conventions et actes diplomatiques concernant la Pologne 1762-1862 (available in Google Books)
1797, (Book): Polens Ende. Historisch, statistisch und geographisch beschrieben von SIRISA.
Polen war! - und ist nicht mehr! - Seine Gesetze, Regierung, und eingebildete Freyheit Einiger, während Millionen Andere die härtesten Sklavensesseln trugen, waren die Ursache zu ller Uneinigkeit, allen Zänkerezen Verwüstungen,...