Question: Magnates recieved gifts often from who?

Answer: monarchs

<hl> Magnates often received gifts from monarchs , which significantly increased their wealth. <hl> Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

Magnates often received gifts from <hl> monarchs <hl>, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

Magnates often received gifts from <hl> monarchs <hl> , which significantly increased their wealth.

question: Magnates recieved gifts often from who?, context: Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).


Question: What significantly increased the magnates wealth?

Answer: Magnates

<hl> Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. <hl> Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

<hl> Magnates <hl> often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

question: What significantly increased the magnates wealth?, context: Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).


Question: What terms were these gifts given?

Answer: temporary leases

Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. <hl> Often, those gifts were only temporary leases , which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king). <hl>

Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only <hl> temporary leases <hl>, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

Often, those gifts were only <hl> temporary leases <hl> , which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

question: What terms were these gifts given?, context: Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).


Question: What did the magnates do eventually with the gifts?

Answer: never returned

Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. <hl> Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king). <hl>

Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates <hl> never returned <hl> (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).

question: What did the magnates do eventually with the gifts?, context: Magnates often received gifts from monarchs, which significantly increased their wealth. Often, those gifts were only temporary leases, which the magnates never returned (in the 16th century, the anti-magnate opposition among szlachta was known as the ruch egzekucji praw—movement for execution of the laws—which demanded that all such possessions are returned to their proper owner, the king).


Question: The right to create ordynacja's was important to what group?

Answer: magnates

<hl> One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. <hl> Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

One of the most important victories of the <hl> magnates <hl> was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

question: The right to create ordynacja's was important to what group?, context: One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.


Question: When did the right to create ordynacja's happen?

Answer: late 16th century

<hl> One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. <hl> Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the <hl> late 16th century <hl> right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

question: When did the right to create ordynacja's happen?, context: One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.


Question: What did the right to create ordynacja's entail?

Answer: ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this

<hl> One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this . <hl> Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which <hl> ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this <hl>. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which <hl> ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this <hl> .

question: What did the right to create ordynacja's entail?, context: One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.


Question: What did the powerful families do with the kings estates?

Answer: often rivalled

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. <hl> Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates. <hl>

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski <hl> often rivalled <hl> the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.

question: What did the powerful families do with the kings estates?, context: One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.


Question: What was an important power basis for the magnates?

Answer: estates of the king

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. <hl> Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates. <hl>

One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the <hl> estates of the king <hl> and were important power bases for the magnates.

question: What was an important power basis for the magnates?, context: One of the most important victories of the magnates was the late 16th century right to create ordynacja's (similar to majorats), which ensured that a family which gained wealth and power could more easily preserve this. Ordynacje's of families of Radziwiłł, Zamoyski, Potocki or Lubomirski often rivalled the estates of the king and were important power bases for the magnates.


Question: When did the sovereignty of szlachta end?

Answer: 1795

<hl> The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy. <hl>

The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in <hl> 1795 <hl> by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.

question: When did the sovereignty of szlachta end?, context: The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.


Question: Who ended the sovereignty of szlachta?

Answer: Partitions of Poland

<hl> The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland , and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy. <hl>

The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by <hl> Partitions of Poland <hl>, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.

The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by <hl> Partitions of Poland <hl> , and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.

question: Who ended the sovereignty of szlachta?, context: The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.


Question: UNtil 1918 whos legal status was dependent on the russian empiresovereignty of szlachta?

Answer: szlachta

<hl> The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy. <hl>

The sovereignty of <hl> szlachta <hl> was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.

question: UNtil 1918 whos legal status was dependent on the russian empiresovereignty of szlachta?, context: The sovereignty of szlachta was ended in 1795 by Partitions of Poland, and until 1918 their legal status was dependent on policies of the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia or the Habsburg Monarchy.


Question: Who redused 64,000 szlachta to commoner status?

Answer: Nicholas I

<hl> In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. <hl> Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

In the 1840s <hl> Nicholas I <hl> reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

question: Who redused 64,000 szlachta to commoner status?, context: In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.


Question: IN 1858 who was szlachta out of all the russian nobles?

Answer: 62.8%

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. <hl> Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. <hl> Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, <hl> 62.8% <hl> of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

question: IN 1858 who was szlachta out of all the russian nobles?, context: In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.


Question: When and who abolished the serfdom?

Answer: Russian Poland on February 19, 1864

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. <hl> Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864 . <hl> It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in <hl> Russian Poland on February 19, 1864 <hl>. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

Serfdom was abolished in <hl> Russian Poland on February 19, 1864 <hl> .

question: When and who abolished the serfdom?, context: In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.


Question: Who could the ex serfs sell their land to?

Answer: only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. <hl> The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta . <hl> 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could <hl> only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta <hl>. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

The ex serfs could <hl> only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta <hl> .

question: Who could the ex serfs sell their land to?, context: In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.


Question: How much land was held by the peasants?

Answer: 48.9%

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. <hl> By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. <hl> In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, <hl> 48.9% <hl> of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.

question: How much land was held by the peasants?, context: In the 1840s Nicholas I reduced 64,000 szlachta to commoner status. Despite this, 62.8% of Russia's nobles were szlachta in 1858 and still 46.1% in 1897. Serfdom was abolished in Russian Poland on February 19, 1864. It was deliberately enacted in a way that would ruin the szlachta. It was the only area where peasants paid the market price in redemption for the land (the average for the empire was 34% above the market price). All land taken from Polish peasants since 1846 was to be returned without redemption payments. The ex serfs could only sell land to other peasants, not szlachta. 90% of the ex serfs in the empire who actually gained land after 1861 were in the 8 western provinces. Along with Romania, Polish landless or domestic serfs were the only ones to be given land after serfdom was abolished. All this was to punish the szlachta's role in the uprisings of 1830 and 1863. By 1864 80% of szlachta were déclassé, 1/4 petty nobles were worse off than the average serf, 48.9% of land in Russian Poland was in peasant hands, nobles still held 46%. In Second Polish Republic the privileges of the nobility were lawfully abolished by the March Constitution in 1921 and as such not granted by any future Polish law.


Question: What was different between the polish nobility and others?

Answer: European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. <hl> The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy , in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy. <hl>

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most <hl> European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy <hl>, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.

The most important difference was that, while in most <hl> European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy <hl> , in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.

question: What was different between the polish nobility and others?, context: The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.


Question: What happened to nobility at expense of the king?

Answer: actually gained power

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. <hl> The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy. <hl>

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility <hl> actually gained power <hl> at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.

question: What happened to nobility at expense of the king?, context: The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.


Question: What did the political system eventually evolve into?

Answer: oligarchy

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. <hl> The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy . <hl>

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an <hl> oligarchy <hl>.

The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an <hl> oligarchy <hl> .

question: What did the political system eventually evolve into?, context: The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.


Question: What did the ruler strive for?

Answer: absolute monarchy

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. <hl> The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy , in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy. <hl>

The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for <hl> absolute monarchy <hl>, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.

The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for <hl> absolute monarchy <hl> , in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.

question: What did the ruler strive for?, context: The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved into an oligarchy.


Question: How much of the total population was polish common wealth?

Answer: 10–12%

<hl> Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. <hl> However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some <hl> 10–12% <hl> of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

question: How much of the total population was polish common wealth?, context: Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.


Question: IN 1791 how much did the szalchta comprimise the total population?

Answer: 8%

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. <hl> However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. <hl> It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around <hl> 8% <hl> of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

question: IN 1791 how much did the szalchta comprimise the total population?, context: Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.


Question: Polish szlachta usually incorporated who?

Answer: most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. <hl> It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) <hl> By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated <hl> most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania <hl> (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

question: Polish szlachta usually incorporated who?, context: Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.


Question: How many nobilities made up other European countries besides poland lithuania?

Answer: 1–3%

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) <hl> By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3% , however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. <hl> Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere <hl> 1–3% <hl>, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.

By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere <hl> 1–3% <hl> , however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy.

question: How many nobilities made up other European countries besides poland lithuania?, context: Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.


Question: What dissolved the priveleges of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy?

Answer: March Constitution of Poland

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. <hl> Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921. <hl>

Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by <hl> March Constitution of Poland <hl> in 1921.

question: What dissolved the priveleges of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy?, context: Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, constituting some 10–12% of the total population of historic Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth also some 10–12% among ethnic Poles on ethnic Polish lands (part of Commonwealth), but up to 25% of all Poles worldwide (szlachta could dispose more of resources to travels and/or conquering), while in some poorer regions (e.g., Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. However, according to szlachta comprised around 8% of the total population in 1791 (up from 6.6% in the 16th century), and no more than 16% of the Roman Catholic (mostly ethnically Polish) population. It should be noted, though, that Polish szlachta usually incorporated most local nobility from the areas that were absorbed by Poland–Lithuania (Ruthenian boyars, Livonian nobles, etc.) By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1–3%, however the era of sovereign rules of Polish nobility ended earlier than in other countries (excluding France) yet in 1795 (see: Partitions of Poland), since then their legitimation and future fate depended on legislature and procedures of Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia or Habsburg Monarchy. Gradually their privileges were under further limitations to be completely dissolved by March Constitution of Poland in 1921.


Question: What class was polands nobility?

Answer: closed class

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. <hl> Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class . <hl> Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, <hl> closed class <hl>. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, <hl> closed class <hl> .

question: What class was polands nobility?, context: There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.


Question: Who could rise into polish ennoblement?

Answer: Many low-born individuals

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. <hl> Many low-born individuals , including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. <hl> Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. <hl> Many low-born individuals <hl>, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

<hl> Many low-born individuals <hl> , including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society.

question: Who could rise into polish ennoblement?, context: There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.


Question: How much influence did each szlachcic have over politics?

Answer: enormous influence

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. <hl> Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. <hl> Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had <hl> enormous influence <hl> over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

question: How much influence did each szlachcic have over politics?, context: There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.


Question: WHo could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm?

Answer: any nobleman

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. <hl> Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik. <hl>

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, <hl> any nobleman <hl> could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

question: WHo could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm?, context: There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.


Question: What is is called to nullify proceedings?

Answer: liberum veto

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. <hl> Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik. <hl>

There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of <hl> liberum veto <hl> (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.

question: What is is called to nullify proceedings?, context: There were a number of avenues to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise to official ennoblement in Polish society. Each szlachcic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some ways even greater than that enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791, any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin for "I do not allow"), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.


Question: Children inherited polish nobility from whom?

Answer: noble mother and father

<hl> All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father . <hl> Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a <hl> noble mother and father <hl>. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a <hl> noble mother and father <hl> .

question: Children inherited polish nobility from whom?, context: All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).


Question: What does an individual do to attain ennoblement?

Answer: special services to the state

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. <hl> Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state . <hl> A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for <hl> special services to the state <hl>. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for <hl> special services to the state <hl> .

question: What does an individual do to attain ennoblement?, context: All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).


Question: WHo could naturalize a polish noble?

Answer: Polish king

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. <hl> A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm). <hl>

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the <hl> Polish king <hl> (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

question: WHo could naturalize a polish noble?, context: All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).


Question: What is another name for ennoblement?

Answer: nobilitacja

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. <hl> Any individual could attain ennoblement ( nobilitacja ) for special services to the state. <hl> A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (<hl> nobilitacja <hl>) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

Any individual could attain ennoblement ( <hl> nobilitacja <hl> ) for special services to the state.

question: What is another name for ennoblement?, context: All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).


Question: WHat is another name for polish noble?

Answer: indygenat

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. <hl> A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: " indygenat ") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm). <hl>

All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "<hl> indygenat <hl>") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: " <hl> indygenat <hl> ") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).

question: WHat is another name for polish noble?, context: All children of the Polish nobility inherited their noble status from a noble mother and father. Any individual could attain ennoblement (nobilitacja) for special services to the state. A foreign noble might be naturalised as a Polish noble (Polish: "indygenat") by the Polish king (later, from 1641, only by a general sejm).


Question: In theory how were all polish noblemen viewed?

Answer: equals

<hl> In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals . <hl> Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social <hl> equals <hl>. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social <hl> equals <hl> .

question: In theory how were all polish noblemen viewed?, context: In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".


Question: Was was unique about the dignities?

Answer: not hereditary

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. <hl> Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary . <hl> Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were <hl> not hereditary <hl>. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were <hl> not hereditary <hl> .

question: Was was unique about the dignities?, context: In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".


Question: If one is high in dignities they are also high in what other form?

Answer: ritual

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. <hl> Those who held honorary dignities were higher in ' ritual ' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. <hl> Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in '<hl> ritual <hl>' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".

Those who held honorary dignities were higher in ' <hl> ritual <hl> ' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime.

question: If one is high in dignities they are also high in what other form?, context: In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".


Question: Nobles held land form whom?

Answer: other lords were only peers "de iure"

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. <hl> Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure" . <hl>

In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from <hl> other lords were only peers "de iure" <hl>.

Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from <hl> other lords were only peers "de iure" <hl> .

question: Nobles held land form whom?, context: In theory at least, all Polish noblemen were social equals. Also in theory, they were legal peers. Those who held 'real power' dignities were more privileged but these dignities were not hereditary. Those who held honorary dignities were higher in 'ritual' hierarchy but these dignities were also granted for a lifetime. Some tenancies became hereditary and went with both privilege and titles. Nobles who were not direct barons of the Crown but held land from other lords were only peers "de iure".


Question: Who could compose the polish landed gentry?

Answer: any nobility that owned lands

<hl> Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any nobility that owned lands : thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. <hl> As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of <hl> any nobility that owned lands <hl>: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of <hl> any nobility that owned lands <hl> : thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village.

question: Who could compose the polish landed gentry?, context: Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.


Question: whats is another name for polish landed gentry?

Answer: (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo

<hl> Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo ) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. <hl> As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry <hl> (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo <hl>) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry <hl> (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo <hl> ) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village.

question: whats is another name for polish landed gentry?, context: Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.


Question: Did all hold title of nobility?

Answer: no

<hl> Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any no bility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. <hl> As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any <hl> no <hl>bility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.

Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any <hl> no <hl> bility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village.

question: Did all hold title of nobility?, context: Note that the Polish landed gentry (ziemianie or ziemiaństwo) was composed of any nobility that owned lands: thus of course the magnates, the middle nobility and that lesser nobility that had at least part of the village. As manorial lordships were also opened to burgesses of certain privileged royal cities, not all landed gentry had a hereditary title of nobility.


Question: What was very important to the polish nobility?

Answer: Coats of arms

<hl> Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. <hl> Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

<hl> Coats of arms <hl> were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

question: What was very important to the polish nobility?, context: Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).


Question: What kind of system was the coats of arms?

Answer: heraldic system

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. <hl> Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. <hl> Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its <hl> heraldic system <hl> evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

question: What kind of system was the coats of arms?, context: Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).


Question: how did the polish nobility system compare to other heraldy countries?

Answer: differing in many ways

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. <hl> Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. <hl> Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while <hl> differing in many ways <hl> from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).

question: how did the polish nobility system compare to other heraldy countries?, context: Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).


Question: Where did polish knightshood originate?

Answer: Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. <hl> Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza). <hl>

Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in <hl> Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany <hl> (i.e. Junosza).

question: Where did polish knightshood originate?, context: Coats of arms were very important to the Polish nobility. Its heraldic system evolved together with its neighbours in Central Europe, while differing in many ways from the heraldry of other European countries. Polish knighthood families had its counterparts, links or roots in Moravia (i.e. Poraj) and Germany (i.e. Junosza).