{"title":"Jan Sobieski’s latifundium and the soldiers (1652-1696)","authors":"Magdalena Ujma","doi":"10.1515/openms-2020-0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract An analysis of the relationship between Jan III Sobieski and the people he distinguished shows that there were many mutual benefits. Social promotion was more difficult if the candidate for the office did not come from a senatorial family34. It can be assumed that, especially in the case of Atanazy Walenty Miączyński, the economic activity in the Sobieski family was conducive to career development. However, the function of the plenipotentiary was not a necessary condition for this. Not all the people distinguished by Jan III Sobieski achieved the same. More important offices were entrusted primarily to Marek Matczyński. Stanisław Zygmunt Druszkiewicz’s career was definitely less brilliant. Druszkiewicz joined the group of senators thanks to Jan III, and Matczyński and Szczuka received ministerial offices only during the reign of Sobieski. Jan III certainly counted on the ability to manage a team of people acquired by his comrades-in-arms in the course of his military service. However, their other advantage was also important - good orientation in political matters and exerting an appropriate influence on the nobility. The economic basis of the magnate’s power is an issue that requires more extensive research. This issue was primarily of interest to historians dealing with latifundia in the 18th century. This was mainly due to the source material. Latifundial documentation was kept much more regularly in the 18th century than before and is well-organized. The economic activity of the magnate was related not only to the internal organization of landed estates. It cannot be separated from the military, because the goal of the magnate’s life was politics and, very often, also war. Despite its autonomy, the latifundium wasn’t isolated. Despite the existence of the decentralization process of the state, the magnate families remained in contact with the weakening center of the state and influenced changes in its social structure. The actual strength of the magnate family was determined not only by the area of land goods, but above all by their profitability, which depended on several factors: geographic location and natural conditions, the current situation on the economic market, and the management method adopted by the magnate. In the 17th century, crisis phenomena, visible in demography, agricultural and crafts production, money and trade, intensified. In these realities, attempts by Jan III Sobieski to reconstruct the lands destroyed by the war and to introduce military rigor in the management center did not bring the expected results. Sobieski, however, introduced “new people” to the group of senators, who implemented his policy at the sejmiks and the Parliament, participated in military expeditions and managed his property.","PeriodicalId":222716,"journal":{"name":"Open Military Studies","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/openms-2020-0105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract An analysis of the relationship between Jan III Sobieski and the people he distinguished shows that there were many mutual benefits. Social promotion was more difficult if the candidate for the office did not come from a senatorial family34. It can be assumed that, especially in the case of Atanazy Walenty Miączyński, the economic activity in the Sobieski family was conducive to career development. However, the function of the plenipotentiary was not a necessary condition for this. Not all the people distinguished by Jan III Sobieski achieved the same. More important offices were entrusted primarily to Marek Matczyński. Stanisław Zygmunt Druszkiewicz’s career was definitely less brilliant. Druszkiewicz joined the group of senators thanks to Jan III, and Matczyński and Szczuka received ministerial offices only during the reign of Sobieski. Jan III certainly counted on the ability to manage a team of people acquired by his comrades-in-arms in the course of his military service. However, their other advantage was also important - good orientation in political matters and exerting an appropriate influence on the nobility. The economic basis of the magnate’s power is an issue that requires more extensive research. This issue was primarily of interest to historians dealing with latifundia in the 18th century. This was mainly due to the source material. Latifundial documentation was kept much more regularly in the 18th century than before and is well-organized. The economic activity of the magnate was related not only to the internal organization of landed estates. It cannot be separated from the military, because the goal of the magnate’s life was politics and, very often, also war. Despite its autonomy, the latifundium wasn’t isolated. Despite the existence of the decentralization process of the state, the magnate families remained in contact with the weakening center of the state and influenced changes in its social structure. The actual strength of the magnate family was determined not only by the area of land goods, but above all by their profitability, which depended on several factors: geographic location and natural conditions, the current situation on the economic market, and the management method adopted by the magnate. In the 17th century, crisis phenomena, visible in demography, agricultural and crafts production, money and trade, intensified. In these realities, attempts by Jan III Sobieski to reconstruct the lands destroyed by the war and to introduce military rigor in the management center did not bring the expected results. Sobieski, however, introduced “new people” to the group of senators, who implemented his policy at the sejmiks and the Parliament, participated in military expeditions and managed his property.
对索比耶斯基与他所尊敬的人之间关系的分析表明,他们之间存在着许多互惠互利的关系。如果候选人不是来自参议员家庭,在社会上的晋升就比较困难。可以假设,特别是在Atanazy Walenty Miączyński的情况下,Sobieski家族的经济活动有利于职业发展。但是,全权代表的职能并不是这样做的必要条件。并不是所有以索比耶斯基三世为代表的人都取得了同样的成就。更重要的职位主要委托给了马立克Matczyński。Stanisław Zygmunt Druszkiewicz的职业生涯绝对没有那么辉煌。Druszkiewicz由于Jan III加入了参议员集团,Matczyński和Szczuka只在Sobieski统治期间获得了部长职位。Jan III当然指望他的战友们在他服兵役的过程中获得的管理团队的能力。然而,他们的另一个优势也很重要——在政治事务上有良好的取向,并对贵族施加适当的影响。富豪权力的经济基础是一个需要更广泛研究的问题。这个问题主要是18世纪研究大庄园的历史学家感兴趣的问题。这主要是由于原始材料。18世纪的庄园文献比以前保存得更有规律,而且组织得很好。权贵的经济活动不仅与地产的内部组织有关。它与军事是分不开的,因为这位大亨一生的目标是政治,而且经常是战争。大庄园虽然有自主权,但并不是孤立的。尽管存在着国家权力下放的过程,但豪门仍然与国家日益衰弱的中心保持着联系,并影响着国家社会结构的变化。富豪家族的实际实力不仅取决于土地货物的面积,更重要的是其盈利能力,这取决于几个因素:地理位置和自然条件,经济市场的现状,以及富豪所采取的管理方式。在17世纪,危机现象在人口统计、农业和手工业生产、货币和贸易中明显加剧。在这些现实中,Jan III Sobieski试图重建被战争摧毁的土地并在管理中心引入军事严谨并没有带来预期的结果。然而,索别斯基向参议员们介绍了“新人”,这些人在塞米克和议会中执行他的政策,参加军事远征,管理他的财产。