Question: What were stronghold called?

Answer: grόd

The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. <hl> Strongholds called grόd were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. <hl> The opole was the territory occupied by a single tribe. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)

The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. Strongholds called <hl> grόd <hl> were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. The opole was the territory occupied by a single tribe. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)

question: What were stronghold called?, context: The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. Strongholds called grόd were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. The opole was the territory occupied by a single tribe. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)


Question: What was the territory occupied by a single tribe?

Answer: opole

The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. Strongholds called grόd were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. <hl> The opole was the territory occupied by a single tribe. <hl> (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)

The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. Strongholds called grόd were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. The <hl> opole <hl> was the territory occupied by a single tribe. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)

question: What was the territory occupied by a single tribe?, context: The tribes were ruled by clans (ród) consisting of people related by blood or marriage and theoretically descending from a common ancestor, giving the ród/clan a highly developed sense of solidarity. (See gens.) The starosta (or starszyna) had judicial and military power over the ród/clan, although this power was often exercised with an assembly of elders. Strongholds called grόd were built where the religious cult was powerful, where trials were conducted, and where clans gathered in the face of danger. The opole was the territory occupied by a single tribe. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 44)


Question: WHo established an elite knightly retinue?

Answer: Mieszko I of Poland

<hl> Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. <hl> Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

<hl> Mieszko I of Poland <hl> (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

question: WHo established an elite knightly retinue?, context: Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.


Question: How long was Miesko I of Poland reigning?

Answer: (c. 935 – 25 May 992)

<hl> Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. <hl> Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

Mieszko I of Poland <hl> (c. 935 – 25 May 992) <hl> established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

question: How long was Miesko I of Poland reigning?, context: Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.


Question: Along with uniting the lekhitic tribes what did poland succeed in?

Answer: preserving the unity of his state

<hl> Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state . <hl> Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and <hl> preserving the unity of his state <hl>. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.

Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and <hl> preserving the unity of his state <hl> .

question: Along with uniting the lekhitic tribes what did poland succeed in?, context: Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.


Question: Who also established this retinue as well?

Answer: Mieszko I's successors

Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. <hl> Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well. <hl>

Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of <hl> Mieszko I's successors <hl> utilizing such a retinue, as well.

question: Who also established this retinue as well?, context: Mieszko I of Poland (c. 935 – 25 May 992) established an elite knightly retinue from within his army, which he depended upon for success in uniting the Lekhitic tribes and preserving the unity of his state. Documented proof exists of Mieszko I's successors utilizing such a retinue, as well.


Question: WHat was a polish nobleman referred to as before the 15th century?

Answer: rycerz

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. <hl> A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a " rycerz ", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". <hl> Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "<hl> rycerz <hl>", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a " <hl> rycerz <hl> ", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo".

question: WHat was a polish nobleman referred to as before the 15th century?, context: Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.


Question: What is roughly the same to the english version of rycerz?

Answer: knight

<hl> Another class of knight s were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. <hl> A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of <hl> knight <hl>s were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of <hl> knight <hl> s were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily.

question: What is roughly the same to the english version of rycerz?, context: Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.


Question: What people did the rycerstwo class represent?

Answer: wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". <hl> Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes , this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. <hl> This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the <hl> wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes <hl>, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Representing the <hl> wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes <hl> , this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues.

question: What people did the rycerstwo class represent?, context: Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.


Question: What positive did the szlachta class receive?

Answer: gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues.

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". <hl> Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. <hl> They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), <hl> gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. <hl> This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.

question: What positive did the szlachta class receive?, context: Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.


Question: What did ducal law implement for the rycerstwo/nobility?

Answer: could serve as officials in state administration.

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. <hl> They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration. <hl>

Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) <hl> could serve as officials in state administration. <hl>

question: What did ducal law implement for the rycerstwo/nobility?, context: Another class of knights were granted land by the prince, allowing them the economic ability to serve the prince militarily. A Polish nobleman living at the time prior to the 15th century was referred to as a "rycerz", very roughly equivalent to the English "knight," the critical difference being the status of "rycerz" was almost strictly hereditary; the class of all such individuals was known as the "rycerstwo". Representing the wealthier families of Poland and itinerant knights from abroad seeking their fortunes, this other class of rycerstwo, which became the szlachta/nobility ("szlachta" becomes the proper term for Polish nobility beginning about the 15th century), gradually formed apart from Mieszko I's and his successors' elite retinues. This rycerstwo/nobility obtained more privileges granting them favored status. They were absolved from particular burdens and obligations under ducal law, resulting in the belief only rycerstwo (those combining military prowess with high/noble birth) could serve as officials in state administration.


Question: WHen was the period of Division?

Answer: A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314

<hl> The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314 , which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. <hl> The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

The Period of Division from, <hl> A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314 <hl>, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

The Period of Division from, <hl> A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314 <hl> , which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from.

question: WHen was the period of Division?, context: The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.


Question: What stemmed the period of division?

Answer: Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons

<hl> The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons , was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. <hl> The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from <hl> Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons <hl>, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from <hl> Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons <hl> , was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from.

question: What stemmed the period of division?, context: The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.


Question: What tribe was the prior social structure from?

Answer: Polish

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. <hl> The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D. <hl>

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of <hl> Polish <hl> tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

question: What tribe was the prior social structure from?, context: The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.


Question: WHen did the Piast dynasty appear?

Answer: 850 A.D.

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. <hl> The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D. <hl>

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa <hl> 850 A.D. <hl>

question: WHen did the Piast dynasty appear?, context: The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.


Question: Polish nation ruled by what dynasty?

Answer: Piast dynasty,

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. <hl> The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D. <hl>

The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the <hl> Piast dynasty, <hl> this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.

question: Polish nation ruled by what dynasty?, context: The Period of Division from, A.D., 1138 – A.D., 1314, which included nearly 200 years of feudal fragmentation and which stemmed from Bolesław III's division of Poland among his sons, was the genesis of the social structure which saw the economic elevation of the great landowning feudal nobles (możni/Magnates, both ecclesiastical and lay) from the rycerstwo they originated from. The prior social structure was one of Polish tribes united into the historic Polish nation under a state ruled by the Piast dynasty, this dynasty appearing circa 850 A.D.


Question: What did some Mozni regard themselves with?

Answer: co-proprietors of Piast realms

<hl> Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms , even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. <hl> These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as <hl> co-proprietors of Piast realms <hl>, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as <hl> co-proprietors of Piast realms <hl> , even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence.

question: What did some Mozni regard themselves with?, context: Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)


Question: What did the magnates do to the Piasts realms?

Answer: attempted to deprive them of their independence

<hl> Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence . <hl> These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts <hl> attempted to deprive them of their independence <hl>. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts <hl> attempted to deprive them of their independence <hl> .

question: What did the magnates do to the Piasts realms?, context: Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)


Question: Who constantly sought to undermine princely authority?

Answer: możni

<hl> Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. <hl> These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

Some <hl> możni <hl> (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)

question: Who constantly sought to undermine princely authority?, context: Some możni (Magnates) descending from past tribal dynasties regarded themselves as co-proprietors of Piast realms, even though the Piasts attempted to deprive them of their independence. These możni (Magnates) constantly sought to undermine princely authority.:75, 76 In Gall Anonym's chronicle, there is noted the nobility's alarm when the Palatine Sieciech "elevated those of a lower class over those who were noble born" entrusting them with state offices. (Manteuffel 1982, p. 149)


Question: WHat were nobles named in german language?

Answer: die beste leuten

<hl> In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. <hl> In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named <hl> die beste leuten <hl> in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

question: WHat were nobles named in german language?, context: In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.


Question: What were the nobles named in lithuanian?

Answer: ponai

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. <hl> In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai . <hl> The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named <hl> ponai <hl>. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In the Lithuanian language nobles were named <hl> ponai <hl> .

question: What were the nobles named in lithuanian?, context: In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.


Question: What were the higher nobility named?

Answer: kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai'

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. <hl> The higher nobility were named ' kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. <hl> They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named '<hl> kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' <hl> (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

The higher nobility were named ' <hl> kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' <hl> (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung.

question: What were the higher nobility named?, context: In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.


Question: The kunigai were subordinate to who?

Answer: King of Lithuania.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. <hl> During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. <hl> This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the <hl> King of Lithuania. <hl> Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

question: The kunigai were subordinate to who?, context: In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.


Question: What word is used to denominate nobility?

Answer: бояре

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. <hl> Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре . <hl> This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) <hl> бояре <hl>. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.

Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) <hl> бояре <hl> .

question: What word is used to denominate nobility?, context: In Lithuania Propria and in Samogitia prior to the creation of the Kingdom of Lithuania by Mindaugas, nobles were named die beste leuten in sources that were written in German language. In the Lithuanian language nobles were named ponai. The higher nobility were named 'kunigai' or 'kunigaikščiai' (dukes)—i.e., loanword from Scandinavic konung. They were the established local leaders and warlords. During the development of the state they gradually became subordinated to higher dukes, and later to the King of Lithuania. Because of expansion of Lithuanian duchy into lands of Ruthenia in the mid of 14th century a new term appeared to denominate nobility bajorai—from Ruthenian (modern Ukrainian and Belarusian languages) бояре. This word to this day is used in Lithuanian language to name nobility, not only for own, but also for nobility of other countries.


Question: What other group had equal status with the lithuanian nobility?

Answer: Polish szlachta

<hl> After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta , and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. <hl> In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the <hl> Polish szlachta <hl>, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the <hl> Polish szlachta <hl> , and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots.

question: What other group had equal status with the lithuanian nobility?, context: After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.


Question: What did the polish szlachta become more of?

Answer: polonized

<hl> After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized , although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. <hl> In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more <hl> polonized <hl>, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more <hl> polonized <hl> , although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots.

question: What did the polish szlachta become more of?, context: After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.


Question: What did some lithuanian nobility claim that caused a paradox?

Answer: they were of Roman extraction

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. <hl> In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction , and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. <hl> This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that <hl> they were of Roman extraction <hl>, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that <hl> they were of Roman extraction <hl> , and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language.

question: What did some lithuanian nobility claim that caused a paradox?, context: After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.


Question: What is the new term used for the lithuanian nobility?

Answer: šlėkta

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. <hl> Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta —a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. <hl> From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared <hl> šlėkta <hl>—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared <hl> šlėkta <hl> —a direct loanword from Polish szlachta.

question: What is the new term used for the lithuanian nobility?, context: After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.


Question: Who forbid the use of the word slekta?

Answer: Lithuanian linguists

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. <hl> From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. <hl> This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but <hl> Lithuanian linguists <hl> forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.

question: Who forbid the use of the word slekta?, context: After the Union of Horodło the Lithuanian nobility acquired equal status with the Polish szlachta, and over time began to become more and more polonized, although they did preserve their national consciousness, and in most cases recognition of their Lithuanian family roots. In the 16th century some of the Lithuanian nobility claimed that they were of Roman extraction, and the Lithuanian language was just a morphed Latin language. This led to paradox: Polish nobility claimed own ancestry from Sarmatian tribes, but Sarmatians were considered enemies to Romans. Thus new Roman-Sarmatian theory was created. Strong cultural ties with Polish nobility led that in the 16th century the new term to name Lithuanian nobility appeared šlėkta—a direct loanword from Polish szlachta. From the view of historical truth Lithuanians also should use this term, šlėkta (szlachta), to name own nobility, but Lithuanian linguists forbade the usage of this Polish loanword. This refusal to use word szlachta (in Lithuanian text šlėkta) complicates all naming.


Question: WHo was first invloved in the polonization?

Answer: the highest members of the nobility

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. <hl> At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. <hl> The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only <hl> the highest members of the nobility <hl> were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

question: WHo was first invloved in the polonization?, context: The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.


Question: Who imposed various sanction on the people?

Answer: Russian Empire

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. <hl> The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. <hl> After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the <hl> Russian Empire <hl> such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

question: Who imposed various sanction on the people?, context: The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.


Question: What was an example of imposing sanctions on lithuanians?

Answer: removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. <hl> The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. <hl> After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as <hl> removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas <hl> few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

question: What was an example of imposing sanctions on lithuanians?, context: The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.


Question: What did the russian officials announce as a sanction?

Answer: "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism"

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. <hl> After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language. <hl>

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that <hl> "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" <hl> and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.

question: What did the russian officials announce as a sanction?, context: The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.


Question: What language was banned from printing on books?

Answer: Lithuanian language.

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. <hl> After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language. <hl>

The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the <hl> Lithuanian language. <hl>

question: What language was banned from printing on books?, context: The process of polonization took place over a lengthy period of time. At first only the highest members of the nobility were involved, although gradually a wider group of the population was affected. The major effects on the lesser Lithuanian nobility took place after various sanctions were imposed by the Russian Empire such as removing Lithuania from the names of the Gubernyas few years after the November Uprising. After the January Uprising the sanctions went further, and Russian officials announced that "Lithuanians are Russians seduced by Poles and Catholicism" and began to intensify russification, and to ban the printing of books in the Lithuanian language.


Question: What group did the Nobility of Ruthenia gravitate its loyalty towards?

Answer: Grand Duchy of Lithuania

<hl> In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. <hl> Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual <hl> Grand Duchy of Lithuania <hl> after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

question: What group did the Nobility of Ruthenia gravitate its loyalty towards?, context: In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.


Question: What type of people were the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?

Answer: multicultural and multilingual

<hl> In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. <hl> Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the <hl> multicultural and multilingual <hl> Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

question: What type of people were the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?, context: In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.


Question: What eventually became a part of the grand duchy of lithuania?

Answer: principalities of Halych and Volhynia

<hl> In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. <hl> Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the <hl> principalities of Halych and Volhynia <hl> became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.

question: What eventually became a part of the grand duchy of lithuania?, context: In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.


Question: What was common for families of ruthenian and lithuanian?

Answer: intermarried

In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. <hl> Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones. <hl>

In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families <hl> intermarried <hl> with Lithuanian ones.

question: What was common for families of ruthenian and lithuanian?, context: In Ruthenia the nobility gradually gravitated its loyalty towards the multicultural and multilingual Grand Duchy of Lithuania after the principalities of Halych and Volhynia became a part of it. Many noble Ruthenian families intermarried with Lithuanian ones.


Question: What other rights were equal to orthodox nobles?

Answer: Polish and Lithuanian nobility

<hl> The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility , but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. <hl> See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by <hl> Polish and Lithuanian nobility <hl>, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by <hl> Polish and Lithuanian nobility <hl> , but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest.

question: What other rights were equal to orthodox nobles?, context: The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.


Question: What social pressure was pressing down the people?

Answer: convert to Catholicism

<hl> The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism , that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. <hl> See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to <hl> convert to Catholicism <hl>, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to <hl> convert to Catholicism <hl> , that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest.

question: What social pressure was pressing down the people?, context: The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.


Question: What greatly eased the cultural pressure towards Catholicism.

Answer: Union of Brest

the Union of Brest .

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by <hl> the Union of Brest . <hl> See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the <hl> Union of Brest <hl>. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

question: What greatly eased the cultural pressure towards Catholicism., context: The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.


Question: What year was the union of brest

Answer: 1596

<hl> The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. <hl> See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in <hl> 1596 <hl> by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.

question: What year was the union of brest, context: The Orthodox nobles' rights were nominally equal to those enjoyed by Polish and Lithuanian nobility, but there was a cultural pressure to convert to Catholicism, that was greatly eased in 1596 by the Union of Brest. See for example careers of Senator Adam Kisiel and Jerzy Franciszek Kulczycki.


Question: Before 1641 the privileged ennoblement was granted by what?

Answer: by monarch

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). <hl> Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch , but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. <hl> Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted <hl> by monarch <hl>, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

Initially, this privilege could be granted <hl> by monarch <hl> , but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm.

question: Before 1641 the privileged ennoblement was granted by what?, context: In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.


Question: What right was reversed by sijm?

Answer: ennoblement

<hl> In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). <hl> Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, <hl> ennoblement <hl> (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

question: What right was reversed by sijm?, context: In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.


Question: What would be given to the enobled one?

Answer: undifferentiated coat of arms

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. <hl> Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan. <hl>

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the <hl> undifferentiated coat of arms <hl> of that clan.

question: What would be given to the enobled one?, context: In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.


Question: After 1641 who was given the privilege of ennoblement?

Answer: sejm

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). <hl> Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm . <hl> Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the <hl> sejm <hl>. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.

Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the <hl> sejm <hl> .

question: After 1641 who was given the privilege of ennoblement?, context: In the Kingdom of Poland and later in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ennoblement (nobilitacja) may be equated with an individual given legal status as a szlachta (member of the Polish nobility). Initially, this privilege could be granted by monarch, but from the 1641 onward, this right was reserved for the sejm. Most often the individual being ennobled would join an existing noble szlachta clan and assume the undifferentiated coat of arms of that clan.