AP European History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain why the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth became vulnerable in the eighteenth century
- Identify the internal political weaknesses that made partition possible, including the elective monarchy and liberum veto
- Recall the dates and significance of the First, Second, and Third Partitions of Poland
- Understand how Russia, Prussia, and Austria used balance-of-power politics at Poland’s expense
- Assess why the 3 May Constitution failed despite being a major reform effort
- Use Poland as an example of causation, comparison, and state power in AP European History writing

## AP European History Syllabus

For the AP European History, you are expected to understand how Poland disappeared through partition, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Partitions of Poland** took place in **1772**, **1793**, and **1795**
- Identify **Russia, Prussia, and Austria** as the powers that divided the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
- Explain how the **elective monarchy**, the **Sejm**, and the **liberum veto** weakened central authority
- Understand how the **Confederation of Bar**, the **3 May Constitution (1791)**, the **Targowica Confederation**, and the **Kościuszko Uprising (1794)** fit into the story
- Explain how the partitions show the limits of Enlightenment reform when strong neighbors opposed it
- Distinguish between Poland’s internal weaknesses and the external aggression of its neighbors
- Understand how **balance of power** could protect great-power stability while destroying small-state sovereignty

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why was the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth politically weaker than states such as Prussia or Russia?
2. What was the liberum veto, and how did it damage effective government?
3. Why did Russia, Prussia, and Austria partition Poland instead of fighting each other over it?
4. What did the **3 May Constitution** try to change in Poland?
5. Why did Poland disappear completely in **1795**?

## Introduction

Poland’s disappearance in the late eighteenth century is one of the clearest examples of how European diplomacy could fail weaker states. On AP European History, this topic matters because it connects **state-building**, **constitutional weakness**, **Enlightenment reform**, and **balance-of-power politics**. It also sits at the meeting point of Unit 3 and later eighteenth-century developments: Poland’s collapse shows what could happen when a state did not centralize while its neighbors did.

This is not just a story of foreign conquest. Poland vanished because two things happened at the same time. First, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had deep constitutional weaknesses that blocked reform. Second, nearby great powers—especially **Russia** under **Catherine the Great**, but also **Prussia** and **Austria**—used those weaknesses for their own gain.

> **Key Term: balance of power**
> The diplomatic idea that major states should prevent any one power from becoming too strong; in practice, it often meant dividing weaker territories to preserve great-power stability.

### Why the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was vulnerable

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had once been a major state in central and eastern Europe. It was large, important, and tied to western Christianity. But by the eighteenth century, it was badly outmatched by neighboring monarchies that had built stronger armies, more reliable taxation, and more centralized governments.

The core problem was political structure. Unlike France, Prussia, or Russia, Poland did not develop a strong hereditary monarchy. Its nobles preferred a system that preserved their liberties and prevented the crown from becoming too powerful. That sounded attractive to the nobility, but it made the state dangerously weak in an age when neighbors were becoming more centralized and militarized.

> **Key Term: Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth**
> The union of Poland and Lithuania, formally created in **1569**, which remained a major state until its partitions in the late eighteenth century.
>
> **Key Term: elective monarchy**
> A monarchy in which the king was chosen by nobles rather than inheriting the throne automatically, making stable central authority harder to build.

An elective monarchy created repeated opportunities for foreign interference. If nobles chose the king, then foreign rulers could pressure, bribe, or influence them. That meant Poland’s throne could become part of international politics. A weak king was often exactly what neighboring powers wanted.

The problem became even worse in the **Sejm**, the Polish parliament.

> **Key Term: Sejm**
> The parliament of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, dominated by the nobility.

The Sejm was supposed to protect liberty. In practice, it often protected paralysis. The most famous example is the **liberum veto**.

> **Key Term: liberum veto**
> A rule allowing a single deputy in the Sejm to block legislation and end a session, creating political deadlock.

This mattered because a state facing military and diplomatic threats needs to raise taxes, reform institutions, and make decisions quickly. Poland often could do none of these. A single noble could stop action. That made long-term reform extremely hard and made foreign manipulation easier. If a neighboring power wanted to block reform, it only needed to influence enough deputies to wreck proceedings.

This gives you a strong AP cause-and-effect chain:

- elective monarchy weakened the crown
- noble dominance weakened central government
- liberum veto paralyzed the Sejm
- paralysis encouraged foreign interference
- foreign interference made reform harder
- weakness invited partition
  > **Test Tip:** For SAQs and LEQs, avoid saying Poland “simply collapsed.” Examiners want both strands: **internal weakness** and **external aggression**.

### How balance-of-power politics turned weakness into partition

By the mid-eighteenth century, Poland remained independent largely because its neighbors allowed it to remain so. That is a sign of weakness by itself. A strong state does not depend on the goodwill of rivals. Poland especially fell under Russian influence after **Stanisław August Poniatowski** became king in **1764**.

Poniatowski wanted reform. That is a point students often miss. Poland was not passively waiting to die. Reformers knew the system was failing and tried to strengthen it. But reform itself threatened both domestic magnates and foreign neighbors.

Before the first partition, internal division was already visible in the **Confederation of Bar** of **1768–1772**, a revolt by nobles against the king and Russian influence. This showed two things at once: many Poles resisted foreign control, but they were divided about how to save the state. That division gave neighboring powers excuses to intervene.

> **Key Term: Confederation of Bar**
> A revolt by Polish nobles from **1768 to 1772** against the king and Russian influence, which exposed internal weakness and instability.

In **1772**, **Russia, Prussia, and Austria** carried out the **First Partition**. This is the first key date you must know. Rather than fight one another over influence in the region, the three powers shared Polish land. This is where balance-of-power politics becomes brutal. Instead of protecting Poland, the great powers treated it as compensation territory.

Why did they do this together?

- **Russia** wanted influence and land.
- **Prussia** wanted territorial gain and strategic advantage.
- **Austria** did not want Russia and Prussia to benefit alone.

So partition was a way to prevent conflict among the great powers by sacrificing a weaker state. In diplomacy, “balance” did not mean justice.

> **Key Term: First Partition (1772)**
> The first division of Polish territory by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, which removed about 30 percent of the Commonwealth’s territory.

This first partition did not destroy Poland, but it did shrink and humiliate it. At the same time, it shocked some reformers into more serious action.

### Why reform failed: the 3 May Constitution and foreign intervention

The most important reform effort came in **1791** with the **3 May Constitution**. This is one of the biggest exam facts in this topic because it shows that Poland tried constitutional reform in an age still dominated by absolutist neighbors.

> **Key Term: 3 May Constitution (1791)**
> A reform constitution designed to strengthen the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by reducing noble obstruction, strengthening central authority, and changing the political system.

The constitution aimed to solve the very weaknesses that had made Poland vulnerable. It sought to strengthen central government, limit the political abuses of the nobility, and end the kind of paralysis caused by the liberum veto. In broad terms, it tried to move Poland toward a more workable constitutional state.

This is a very useful comparison point on AP essays. While Prussia, Austria, and Russia are often associated with strong monarchic government, Poland’s reformers tried a constitutional answer. That means Poland was not backward because it rejected all change. It was backward politically because its old system had become too weak to defend reform once it began.

But reform created enemies.

Many nobles feared losing their traditional privileges. They saw stronger government not as national rescue, but as a threat to noble liberty. That fear produced the **Targowica Confederation** in **1792**.

> **Key Term: Targowica Confederation**
> A group of conservative Polish nobles who opposed the 1791 constitution and appealed to Russia for help in restoring their old privileges.

This is one of the clearest examples of domestic and foreign causes combining. Conservative nobles invited Russian intervention to defend their own position. Russia did not need to invent a pretext; Polish elites handed one to Catherine the Great.

Russia invaded, and with Prussian cooperation, Poland was subjected to the **Second Partition** in **1793**.

> **Key Term: Second Partition (1793)**
> The second division of Poland by Russia and Prussia, carried out after the defeat of reformers and the collapse of the 3 May Constitution.

Notice the distinction here: **Austria did not participate in the Second Partition**. That is a detail students often forget. The second partition was mainly a Russian-Prussian action, and it reduced Poland to a much smaller rump state.

This sequence is essential:

- reformers create the 3 May Constitution
- conservative nobles oppose it
- Targowica Confederation appeals to Russia
- Russia intervenes
- constitution collapses
- Second Partition follows

That is an excellent causation chain for an SAQ or LEQ.

> **Test Tip:** If a question asks why the 3 May Constitution failed, do not pick only one cause. The best answer links **domestic noble resistance** with **foreign intervention**, especially Russia’s.

### The final collapse: Kościuszko and the Third Partition

After the Second Partition, some Poles still tried to defend independence by force. In **1794**, **Tadeusz Kościuszko**, who had fought in the American Revolution, led a national uprising.

> **Key Term: Kościuszko Uprising (1794)**
> A final Polish revolt against foreign domination led by Tadeusz Kościuszko after the Second Partition.

The uprising matters because it proves that Poland did not disappear without resistance. But resistance was not enough. A weakened state, cut apart territorially and politically, could not defeat stronger neighbors with larger, more centralized military machines.

The revolt failed. King Poniatowski was forced to abdicate. In **1795**, **Russia, Prussia, and Austria** carried out the **Third Partition**, erasing Poland from the map.

> **Key Term: Third Partition (1795)**
> The final division of the remaining Polish territory by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, ending Poland’s independent existence.

This is the endpoint students must know: **after 1795, Poland ceased to exist as an independent state**.

That disappearance had long-term significance beyond the eighteenth century. It became a major symbol for nineteenth-century nationalism and later debates about self-determination. It also mattered at the **Congress of Vienna**, where the great powers again ignored Polish national hopes. Poland would not re-emerge as an independent state until the aftermath of **World War I**.

For AP European History, that makes Poland a strong continuity theme:

- in the late eighteenth century, great powers partitioned it
- in the nineteenth century, nationalists remembered it
- in 1815, its independence was still denied
- after World War I, it reappeared

### How to write about Poland in AP answers

If this topic appears in an SAQ, DBQ, or LEQ, the strongest responses do more than list the three partition dates. They explain how and why partition happened.

A good argument usually has three parts:

1. **Internal weakness**
   - elective monarchy
   - noble dominance
   - liberum veto
   - weak central government

2. **Reform attempt**
   - Poniatowski’s efforts
   - 3 May Constitution
   - effort to centralize and modernize

3. **External destruction**
   - Russia, Prussia, and Austria exploiting weakness
   - Targowica inviting intervention
   - partitions justified through balance-of-power logic

This topic is especially useful for **causation** and **comparison** essays. You can compare Poland’s weak constitutional structure with stronger absolutist states like Prussia and Russia. You can also use Poland as evidence that “balance of power” did not mean fairness or national self-determination.

A model judgement might sound like this: Poland vanished chiefly because internal constitutional weakness made effective resistance difficult, but the decisive cause of disappearance was the aggressive intervention of neighboring great powers, who treated Polish territory as a bargaining tool in balance-of-power politics.

That kind of answer shows complexity. It avoids the trap of blaming only Poland or only its neighbors.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was weakened by an elective monarchy and noble dominance
- The Sejm was often paralyzed by the liberum veto
- Internal weakness made Poland vulnerable to foreign interference
- Russia, Prussia, and Austria used balance-of-power politics to divide Polish territory
- The Confederation of Bar showed both resistance to Russian influence and internal division
- The First Partition took place in **1772**
- The **3 May Constitution of 1791** tried to strengthen and modernize the Polish state
- Conservative nobles formed the **Targowica Confederation** and invited Russian intervention
- The Second Partition took place in **1793** and involved Russia and Prussia, not Austria
- The **Kościuszko Uprising** of **1794** was the last major effort to preserve independence
- The Third Partition in **1795** erased Poland as an independent state
- The partitions show that great-power equilibrium often came at the expense of weaker states

## Key Terms and Concepts

- balance of power
- Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
- elective monarchy
- Sejm
- liberum veto
- Confederation of Bar
- First Partition (1772)
- 3 May Constitution (1791)
- Targowica Confederation
- Second Partition (1793)
- Kościuszko Uprising (1794)
- Third Partition (1795)


Balance of Power - Poland vanished through partition