[vkazanov]

This has a lot to do with a simplistic (and wrong) projection of the modern concept of patriotism/nationalism to medieval history.

Jogaila did what was good for his dynasty and himself personally, that's it. As an aristocrate he couldn't get a better deal.

Back then there was no concept of nations and nation-states, which only evolved a couple of centuries later. An aristrocrate inherited lands and a relatively week tie to his patron. No "nation" in the power equation. They could and did switch sides a lot, especially if that meant extra subordinates and a higher aristocracy rank.

Sadly, state-sponsored school textbooks always kind of skip this simple fact.

[yywwbbn]

That’s kind of true (too some degree at least) if you’re talking about Western Europe. However Lithuania (and Jogaila himself) was still Pagan back then and had much closer ties to the Orthodox world. There was a very clear dividing line between the two nations and chances are Lithuania would have become Orthdox had he not been offered the throne of Poland.

> An aristrocrate inherited lands and a relatively week tie to his patron. An aristrocrate inherited lands and a relatively week tie to his patron. No "nation" in the power equation. They could and did switch sides a lot, especially if that meant extra subordinates and a higher aristocracy rank.

Polish nobles were not legally allowed to own land in Lithuania (and vice versa) many years after the initial union. Legally in many ways it was much harder to move to a different country without losing you social position and most or your property than nowadays.

> there was no concept of nations and nation-states

That just a misconception. Their understanding of what a nation was might have been quite a bit different but it did definitely exist.

[vkazanov]

> That’s kind of true (too some degree at least) if you’re talking about Western Europe.

Why do you think it was unique for Western Europe?

The East was slightly behind in the feudal disunity phase but it had the same kind of picture: numerous duchies changing sides, one form of serfdom or another and no state representation on the ground. Local population did care about religion and language to a certain extent but didn't care about whatever problems aristocracy had.

Dukes jumped sides at will, e.g. between Lithuania, Poland and other power centers in what was left of Kievan Rus. Even more so in pre-Mongol period.

> That just a misconception. Their understanding of what a nation was might have been quite a bit different but it did definitely exist.

It was fundamentally different. For a commoner the state was not represented locally in any way. They could say something like "in the land of Rus" or even a smaller Zemaitija (aka Samogitia), which was more of a region than a political structure. What mattered was your local priest as well your local duke (or a lesser nobleman).

The region of modern Lithuania had a similar disunited structure in late 14th century, maybe a bit more on the archaic pagan kind of phase.

I am pretty sure the situation was similar in what became Poland, with szlachta and priests being more important than the state.

> That just a misconception. Their understanding of what a nation was might have been quite a bit different but it did definitely exist.

What I was pointing out in that comment about Jogaila is exactly that nation-states were basically not known in Europe back then. There were regions, where people understood each other, practised a similar religion and probably had a similar way of life but this was not reflected in power structures the same way modern nation-states represent these things.

In fact, the state was not represented in people's daily life until much later. Even more so in Eastern Europe where population density and general economical ties were always much lower.

So for Jogaila and his colleagues it was meaningless to think in terms of modern nationalism and patriotism.

[AinderS]

> Back then there was no concept of nations and nation-states, which only evolved a couple of centuries later.

Just because the power structures didn't perfectly reflect nations, doesn't mean nations didn't exist. Look at, for example, Catalonia, that still has a concept of its own nationhood despite being ruled by Spain.

Or look at the British Raj, for that matter. Britain and India were both ruled by the same royal family, yet no-one pretends their people's identities weren't distinct.

[vkazanov]

Or Ancient Egypt, which had all the necessary attributes in place over 4 thousand years ago... not quite the case with feudal societies in medieval Europe.

I am only speaking about medieval Europe, btw. And British colonial rule over India is clearly out of scope here. Besides, monarchy by then was a VERY different construct.

[AinderS]

> British colonial rule

Keep going. What makes "colonial rule" different from rule by an aristocrat that inherited lands, if people have no concept of nationhood, and one aristocrat is as good as another?