Plausibility check: No partitions of Poland in 18th Century

I've been trying to search but have had no luck here or on the Wiki. Have there been any TLs focused on the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 1700s?

If not, is it possible with a POD no later than 1750 for Poland-Lithuania to avoid being partitioned by the Austrians, Prussians, and Russians? What about no later than the War of the Polish Succession? Is it plausible for it to avoid the 2nd and 3rd partitions after the 1st?
 
The first partition wasn't inevitable.

Poland hadn't done anything to offend its neighbors. The partition occurred as a result of some cynical realpolitik by Frederick the Great of Prussia. To avoid a war between Austria and Russia resulting from Russian gains against the Turks in the Balkans, he came up with the idea of compensating Austria using Polish territory; the rest of the partition came about to keep everybody (except Poland, of course) happy and a balance of power in central Europe between Austria and Russia about the same as it was before the Russian war with Turkey. The Russo-Turkish War wasn't inevitable, and a Prussian king other than Frederick wouldn't have thought of using Poland that way.

Poland had a big problem with Russia, of course, and escaping satellite status would take a major effort and probably some outside help.
 
The first partition wasn't inevitable.

Poland hadn't done anything to offend its neighbors. The partition occurred as a result of some cynical realpolitik by Frederick the Great of Prussia. To avoid a war between Austria and Russia resulting from Russian gains against the Turks in the Balkans, he came up with the idea of compensating Austria using Polish territory; the rest of the partition came about to keep everybody (except Poland, of course) happy and a balance of power in central Europe between Austria and Russia about the same as it was before the Russian war with Turkey. The Russo-Turkish War wasn't inevitable, and a Prussian king other than Frederick wouldn't have thought of using Poland that way.

Poland had a big problem with Russia, of course, and escaping satellite status would take a major effort and probably some outside help.

Thanks, this helps a lot. I was looking at the Russo-Turkish war.

Had Frederick found an alternative, and barring any outside invasion, how was Poland looking at the time?
 
Had Frederick found an alternative, and barring any outside invasion, how was Poland looking at the time?

Not that great. Poland had two massive constitutional handicaps -- the liberum veto and the elective monarchy.

The former was a rule that any member of the Polish parliament could veto legislation. In fact it could even be retroactively applied up to a point -- any member could annul any measure passed in that sitting of the parliament.

The election of the monarch was an excuse for other countries to interfere in Poland every time a new king was elected, and for the electors themselves to extract concessions. One such constraint was that, while all the European rulers had problems raising enough revenue, Poland's had more difficulties than the rest.

The king at the time of the partitions was Stanislas Poniatowski (I think that's the correct spelling) a former lover of Catherine the Great, who had been imposed by the Russians at the last election. He was well-meaning though not especially talented, but Poland's situation vis-a-vis Russia would have challenged anybody.
 
Not that great. Poland had two massive constitutional handicaps -- the liberum veto and the elective monarchy.

The former was a rule that any member of the Polish parliament could veto legislation. In fact it could even be retroactively applied up to a point -- any member could annul any measure passed in that sitting of the parliament.

The election of the monarch was an excuse for other countries to interfere in Poland every time a new king was elected, and for the electors themselves to extract concessions. One such constraint was that, while all the European rulers had problems raising enough revenue, Poland's had more difficulties than the rest.

The king at the time of the partitions was Stanislas Poniatowski (I think that's the correct spelling) a former lover of Catherine the Great, who had been imposed by the Russians at the last election. He was well-meaning though not especially talented, but Poland's situation vis-a-vis Russia would have challenged anybody.

I didn't think they looked that great, but I had no idea it was from such an issue. Looking into their last king, is it possible for him to resist Prussian, Austrian, and Russian pressure and get reforms passed during his reign, and would that be enough to turn things around for Poland?

Originally I wanted a POD in the 1650s, with the Poles-Lithuanians curbstomping the Crimean Khanate and getting in a better position for the Russo-Polish War, and a significantly earlier/more favorable end to the 2nd Northern War. After that they would once again control Livonia but also have control of the North coast of the Black Sea, and be on friendly terms with both the HRE and Sweden, and in opposition to Russia and Austria.

However, I'm not sure changing circumstances in the Khmelnytsky Uprising would be enough to win the Russo-Polish War, so I was going to rely on authorial fiat making that war go better.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what I would do with the rest of Europe and the world at large from the 1670s on until the late 1700s, so I'm having to aim at a more recent POD. Either that or just nut up and learn more about history, but who has time for all that?

Do you know if it's possible to significantly alter the outcome of the Great Northern War in 1700 without getting into ASB territory and have Sweden and Poland-Lithuania come out on top? What about the War of the Polish Succession?

Thanks

Edit: Also, what do you think about an earlier Enlightenment in Poland leading to massive governmental reforms? Kind of gives me as an author a clean slate to work with, even if it's not as plausible as a battle going the other way or something. I'm considering a Polish Revolution in lieu of the War of the Polish Succession.
 
The major factors as I understood them was a propensity for foreign powers to basically bribe the Sejm into accepting their candidate, a weak central government that allowed disaffected nobles to easily rebel, too much power being in the hands of the nobles, the rise of other powers like Russia, and damage to the mainland due to their wars with Russia and Sweden. In particular, the Deluge, which basically gutted Poland's core provinces. Their failure to suppress the uprisings in the Ukraine also didn't help.

Ultimately, the Silent Sejm of 1717 was likely the death knell for the state surviving on its own merits. Russia imposed a tiny army onto Poland (literally 24,000 or so men while their neighbors have far larger forces) after they got their ass kicked in an earlier war. Then the state decided to underpay what little forces they had left, which made the soldiers prone to loot and not care about the state.

If you can actually make the country not kill itself by getting into constant wars, manage to come up with a more refined government, and avoid the damage it faced due to events like the Deluge, that would help.
 
The major factors as I understood them was a propensity for foreign powers to basically bribe the Sejm into accepting their candidate, a weak central government that allowed disaffected nobles to easily rebel, too much power being in the hands of the nobles, the rise of other powers like Russia, and damage to the mainland due to their wars with Russia and Sweden. In particular, the Deluge, which basically gutted Poland's core provinces. Their failure to suppress the uprisings in the Ukraine also didn't help.

Ultimately, the Silent Sejm of 1717 was likely the death knell for the state surviving on its own merits. Russia imposed a tiny army onto Poland (literally 24,000 or so men while their neighbors have far larger forces) after they got their ass kicked in an earlier war. Then the state decided to underpay what little forces they had left, which made the soldiers prone to loot and not care about the state.

If you can actually make the country not kill itself by getting into constant wars, manage to come up with a more refined government, and avoid the damage it faced due to events like the Deluge, that would help.
Yeah, reading about the 1600s has given me the idea that without undoing the Deluge, Poland will have a difficult time standing up against any foreign forces, military or political, over the next century. I was hoping not to have to find a POD that far back, though, so I might just need to take a lot longer to research before starting my TL and do it anyway.

One of the uprisings in the Ukraine was one possible POD I was looking to use. Thanks for the advice on the Silent Sejm; that actually might help.

Do you think it would be possible to reverse the results of the Great Northern War at any time after the war starts? Could Charlex XII of Sweden's Polish campaign end in repulsion?
 
Honestly, it'd be better to just cut the head off and prevent the war in the first place. It'd help to not have a figure like Augustus II on the throne based on what I read up on about him. He basically neglected the state and dumped all of his focus onto his native Saxony. He also staffed much of the state with Saxons, which is always a brilliant plan to have a stable and effective government. Really goes well with the locals:rolleyes:. He also got preoccupied with expanding his realm and was a major factor in why Poland (and later on Sweden) would get their asses kicked by Russia. Essentially, he (and Charles XII to an extent) were major factors in why Poland got demolished, Sweden got weakened, and Russia picked up the pieces.

The best move really is to prevent his ascension to the throne. His desire to expand his family's power and the size of his realm got him dragged into a losing war after all. Failing that and you really want to keep the Northern War, kill Charles XII by having himself get killed at Riga. His decision to continue the fight as Augustus was begging for peace helped continue this long and nasty war. This also means that the main portion of Poland doesn't have to be besieged, since you know, Charles prosecuted the war. That also loses Sweden a good military commander though, so pick your poison.

You'd still need to get a better king than Augustus, since he basically will neglect Poland regardless. One that can preferably try and revitalize the state.
 
Last edited:
I didn't think they looked that great, but I had no idea it was from such an issue. Looking into their last king, is it possible for him to resist Prussian, Austrian, and Russian pressure and get reforms passed during his reign, and would that be enough to turn things around for Poland?

Very hard. His political camp actually tries doing this immediately after election, but it caused some serious backslash among the nobles and action from Russia. What would be necessary for any major reforms is something that takes the attention of Russia and Prussia for such a long time that Poland can be modernized before they can act - some decade+ European war.

Originally I wanted a POD in the 1650s, with the Poles-Lithuanians curbstomping the Crimean Khanate and getting in a better position for the Russo-Polish War, and a significantly earlier/more favorable end to the 2nd Northern War. After that they would once again control Livonia but also have control of the North coast of the Black Sea, and be on friendly terms with both the HRE and Sweden, and in opposition to Russia and Austria.

Technically through most of 1650s Khanate was ally of PLC (that is after Cossacks turned to Moscow).

However, I'm not sure changing circumstances in the Khmelnytsky Uprising would be enough to win the Russo-Polish War, so I was going to rely on authorial fiat making that war go better.

What could work is somehow the Hadziacz Union being accepted 10- years earlier (though it borders... authors fiat if not ASB). Even if Poland crushes Khmelnytsky Uprising, this does not solve the issue - several earlier Cossacks uprisings were crushed to no avail. Maybe have Vladislav IV actually do something for Cossacks (whom he liked)? He actually had some general idea of seeking their support against powerful nobles (famously, when a cossack delegation reached king with some complains against magnates, he replied "Don't you have your rifles and sabers"?). If somehow Hadziacz Union is accepted in 1648, Uprising is butterflied away and Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Commonwealth stands quite strong.

Maybe it could work in 1650; after the first stage of Khmelnytsky Uprising, Moscow has hugely blundered (right now I do not remember the exact circumstances) almost causing war with Cossack-Tatar alliance. A good PLC politician could use this to Commonwealth advantage, march with Khmelnytsky and Khan against Moscow and then perhaps use the war to accept an early Union of Hadziacz?


Edit: Also, what do you think about an earlier Enlightenment in Poland leading to massive governmental reforms? Kind of gives me as an author a clean slate to work with, even if it's not as plausible as a battle going the other way or something. I'm considering a Polish Revolution in lieu of the War of the Polish Succession.

Hard, hard. It could be based on golden image of XVI century and one of educated, wise, middle-income noblemen, and then have the nobility masses pursue this ideal; maybe some dark necromantic ritual resurrecting the Executive Movement (actually maybe it could work under the leadership of, say, Czarniecki in the late XVII century? or do it the crazy way and under Khmelnytsky in the middle of XVII century :D ? He was a noblemen, after all, maybe due to whatever reasons he decides to resurrect the executive movement due to clashes with magnates like Wisniowiecki or Zaslawski)


A bit OT, but regarding PLC in XVII century - what would you say about Gustavus Adolphus being elected as King of Commonwealth in 1620 (after untimely demise of Sigismund and Vladislav in assasination)?
 
Honestly, it'd be better to just cut the head off and prevent the war in the first place. It'd help to not have a figure like Augustus II on the throne based on what I read up on about him. He basically neglected the state and dumped all of his focus onto his native Saxony. He also staffed much of the state with Saxons, which is always a brilliant plan to have a stable and effective government. Really goes well with the locals:rolleyes:. He also got preoccupied with expanding his realm and was a major factor in why Poland (and later on Sweden) would get their asses kicked by Russia. Essentially, he (and Charles XII to an extent) were major factors in why Poland got demolished, Sweden got weakened, and Russia picked up the pieces.

The best move really is to prevent his ascension to the throne. His desire to expand his family's power and the size of his realm got him dragged into a losing war after all. Failing that and you really want to keep the Northern War, kill Charles XII by having himself get killed at Riga. His decision to continue the fight as Augustus was begging for peace helped continue this long and nasty war. This also means that the main portion of Poland doesn't have to be besieged, since you know, Charles prosecuted the war. That also loses Sweden a good military commander though, so pick your poison.

You'd still need to get a better king than Augustus, since he basically will neglect Poland regardless. One that can preferably try and revitalize the state.
Yeah I was looking at how he declared war on Sweden in his capacity as king of Saxony with Poland-Lithuania neutral.

Is it possible for P-L to side with Sweden and help them win the war?


Very hard. His political camp actually tries doing this immediately after election, but it caused some serious backslash among the nobles and action from Russia. What would be necessary for any major reforms is something that takes the attention of Russia and Prussia for such a long time that Poland can be modernized before they can act - some decade+ European war.

I keep forgetting which century we're talking about when. Yeah, I've got nothing for a decade long war like that.



Technically through most of 1650s Khanate was ally of PLC (that is after Cossacks turned to Moscow).
Got it.


What could work is somehow the Hadziacz Union being accepted 10- years earlier (though it borders... authors fiat if not ASB). Even if Poland crushes Khmelnytsky Uprising, this does not solve the issue - several earlier Cossacks uprisings were crushed to no avail. Maybe have Vladislav IV actually do something for Cossacks (whom he liked)? He actually had some general idea of seeking their support against powerful nobles (famously, when a cossack delegation reached king with some complains against magnates, he replied "Don't you have your rifles and sabers"?). If somehow Hadziacz Union is accepted in 1648, Uprising is butterflied away and Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Commonwealth stands quite strong.

Maybe it could work in 1650; after the first stage of Khmelnytsky Uprising, Moscow has hugely blundered (right now I do not remember the exact circumstances) almost causing war with Cossack-Tatar alliance. A good PLC politician could use this to Commonwealth advantage, march with Khmelnytsky and Khan against Moscow and then perhaps use the war to accept an early Union of Hadziacz?

Hm... I was looking at the end of the 1600s when I was looking at Mr. Magi's post. With this one I'd have to start a lot earlier, and butterflies would probably nix the Great Northern War. So I'll have to think about which direction I want to go. With a P-L-U Commonwealth/Hadziacz Union arising in the 1650s. Think that could allow them to prevent the Deluge?


Hard, hard. It could be based on golden image of XVI century and one of educated, wise, middle-income noblemen, and then have the nobility masses pursue this ideal; maybe some dark necromantic ritual resurrecting the Executive Movement (actually maybe it could work under the leadership of, say, Czarniecki in the late XVII century? or do it the crazy way and under Khmelnytsky in the middle of XVII century :D ? He was a noblemen, after all, maybe due to whatever reasons he decides to resurrect the executive movement due to clashes with magnates like Wisniowiecki or Zaslawski)
Khmelnytsky starting a movement in the greater Commonwealth after the start of the uprising? Now that is a crazy idea. Think it could work? :D

And tell me more about this Executive Movement. I found these links but it'll take me a while to read them.


A bit OT, but regarding PLC in XVII century - what would you say about Gustavus Adolphus being elected as King of Commonwealth in 1620 (after untimely demise of Sigismund and Vladislav in assasination)?
I wouldn't really know what to say about it, to be honest. He seems to have been a great military leader, so that definitely would have been good for the PLC but I don't know what to do with that. Polish-Swedish Empire? :p
 
Hm... I was looking at the end of the 1600s when I was looking at Mr. Magi's post. With this one I'd have to start a lot earlier, and butterflies would probably nix the Great Northern War. So I'll have to think about which direction I want to go. With a P-L-U Commonwealth/Hadziacz Union arising in the 1650s. Think that could allow them to prevent the Deluge?

If PLC isn't loosing war on two other fronts, its likely that the Swedes will decide that another invasion direction is more interesting. In all descriptions of the Deluge perceived military weakness of PLC is mentioned as one of the main reasons for the invasion.

Khmelnytsky starting a movement in the greater Commonwealth after the start of the uprising? Now that is a crazy idea. Think it could work? :D

More like instead of uprising. A large part of Khmelnytsky agenda was against the most powerful nobles, the magnates, rather than nobility (or Poles/Lithuanians) in general. If, say he cannot secure Tatar support, of sees it as too radical, maybe it could be possible to use the middle and lower class nobles to act against the Magnates? Try to encite the common noblemen against those princes, point how how they have unregulated field armies larger than kings guard, how they laugh at laws, opress common noblemen, hell use the kings "don't you have rifles and sabres" line as often as possible... There were, later, some civil wars against too powerful magnates, such as Lithuanian civil war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Civil_War_(1700) perhaps it could be done on nation-wide scale 50 yeras earlier under Khmelnytsky leadership, Unlikely, but extremely interesting possibility. And he was excellent politician, even too good for his own nation, so maybe he could pull it :D

And tell me more about this Executive Movement. I found these links but it'll take me a while to read them.
I mistranslated, it was the Executionist Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executionist_movement It basically died its final death when Jan Zamoyski, great man as he was, became powerful enough in 1590s that it went against his interests. Its the same issue as above - conflict between minor nobles and rising magnate caste

[quote[
I wouldn't really know what to say about it, to be honest. He seems to have been a great military leader, so that definitely would have been good for the PLC but I don't know what to do with that. Polish-Swedish Empire? :p[/QUOTE]

I wrote the first chapter of such a TL, had an idea for several others - but it quickly became almost too wanky and I had some problems with sufficient dewanking with maintaining some sort of union between PLC and Sweden later :D
 
I think Prussia would still have been very interested in the territory they gained by the OTL first partition, Polish Royal Prussia.

Russia's OTL share after the first partition wasn't massive either, but perhaps preventing Austria from annexing Galicia (mainly and some other parts) would be needed.
OTL Austria seemed to have been least interested, they might oppose it if the more pro Austrian Wettin elector of Saxony would have been sitting (or be placed) on the Polish throne.
 
Not that great. Poland had two massive constitutional handicaps -- the liberum veto and the elective monarchy.
When were these two measures introduced? I have a vague memory that it wasn't all that early but I don't know what the actual years were. Thanks.
 
I think Prussia would still have been very interested in the territory they gained by the OTL first partition, Polish Royal Prussia.

Russia's OTL share after the first partition wasn't massive either, but perhaps preventing Austria from annexing Galicia (mainly and some other parts) would be needed.
OTL Austria seemed to have been least interested, they might oppose it if the more pro Austrian Wettin elector of Saxony would have been sitting (or be placed) on the Polish throne.

Thats why incorporation of Prussia in 1618, instead of giving it to brandenburg Hohenzollerns would be a good idea to start
 
When were these two measures introduced? I have a vague memory that it wasn't all that early but I don't know what the actual years were. Thanks.

In both cases its hard to say.

Regarding elective monarchy, all the kings from Jagiellon dynasty were sort of elected - they had to obtain agreement of nobility to ascend the throne. After death of Sigisumnd August in 1572 the final form of popular elections was estabilished; before that it wasn't exactly clear who was supposed to elect the king (all nobles? Senate? Parliament?). However, for quite some time there was a tendency to search for a dynasty - first with Anna Jagiellonka being (sort-of) elected as the last living member of Jagiellons in 1574, then with Sigismund Vasa elected as the son of Anna sister in 1589, then the two sons of Sigismund elected after him. It was just that those family lines somehow were extremely fragile. There was even some initial acceptance of Charles X during early stages of the deluge mererly because he was from the same dynasty as Joannes II Casimirus

Liberum Veto was less a law being really inscribed anywhere, more an interpretation of the way the voting was done. It was first used (sort of) in 1652, and actually for few hours it wasn't acknowledged that voting was null, there was a lot of discussion as to what happens now and how to proceed; consensus was that it was impossible to continue without one of deputies. Technically all you have to do to handwave it away is different consensus as to the procedure. However, foundation for such a verdict was layed years before, especially in 1590s (cannot remember the exact circumstances)
 
Last edited:
The Elective Monarchy: as a practical matter, 1573, when the first free election of a king resulted in Henry of Valois, the younger brother of Charles IX of France, gaining the throne. Henry signed a document called the Henrician Articles, which provided for, inter alia, an elective monarchy. All subsequent kings had to sign it, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrician_Articles

Henry was a bust. He deserted the country after about six months when his elder brother died and he became king of France himself.

I can't add much to what others have written regarding the origins of the liberum veto, except that it seems to have arisen out of a tradition of passing laws by acclamation, and that by the end it was essentially set in stone because Catherine the Great made it known that she was prepared to interfere militarily to protect any encroachment on 'Polish liberties' (of which the liberum veto was one). You can make your own judgment on the sincerity of her credentials as a defender of freedom.
 

Redhand

Banned
Honestly, it'd be better to just cut the head off and prevent the war in the first place. It'd help to not have a figure like Augustus II on the throne based on what I read up on about him. He basically neglected the state and dumped all of his focus onto his native Saxony. He also staffed much of the state with Saxons, which is always a brilliant plan to have a stable and effective government. Really goes well with the locals:rolleyes:. He also got preoccupied with expanding his realm and was a major factor in why Poland (and later on Sweden) would get their asses kicked by Russia. Essentially, he (and Charles XII to an extent) were major factors in why Poland got demolished, Sweden got weakened, and Russia picked up the pieces.

You'd still need to get a better king than Augustus, since he basically will neglect Poland regardless. One that can preferably try and revitalize the state.

This is the guy who had over 350 illegitimate children in his lifetime. That's probably a record (maybe some Arab sultan had more, IDK). I think I know what his priorities were as a ruler.

He was surely terrible, but the absurd system behind the Sejms power and the catastrophic casualties from the Deluge are really what screwed Poland over.
 
This is the guy who had over 350 illegitimate children in his lifetime. That's probably a record (maybe some Arab sultan had more, IDK). I think I know what his priorities were as a ruler.

He was surely terrible, but the absurd system behind the Sejms power and the catastrophic casualties from the Deluge are really what screwed Poland over.

I noted that in the first post I made my good friend. I was just elaborating on the Northern War divergence that OP wanted.
 
Top