AHC: Surviving Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

AK47Productions · Oct 6, 2015

First thread in the Pre-1900 subforum so sorry if this has been done before.

With any POD after the Commonwealth's formation, have the country survive into the 21st century while it preferably has it's circa 1619 borders and a regional power in Europe.

Eivind · Oct 6, 2015

You would have to make it stronger and more centralized. As far as I understand, the main reason why the state was so weak, was that the nobility was too strong.

generalurist · Oct 6, 2015

agree with Eivind. More specifically, the problem was the bloody Libertum Veto. Basically, there had to be unanimous agreement about ANYTHING for a law to get passed. All it took was for ONE bribed or disgruntled nobleman to shout "Nie pozwalam!", and things were frozen. Logically, going 150 years with barely a law getting passed is NOT GOOD.

machine3589 · Oct 6, 2015

A surviving P-L Commonwealth was possible, but it would not have those borders. Eventually the Russians, Austrians and Prussians would take some territory.

AK47Productions · Oct 6, 2015

Eivind said:
You would have to make it stronger and more centralized. As far as I understand, the main reason why the state was so weak, was that the nobility was too strong.

generalurist said:
agree with Eivind. More specifically, the problem was the bloody Libertum Veto. Basically, there had to be unanimous agreement about ANYTHING for a law to get passed. All it took was for ONE bribed or disgruntled nobleman to shout "Nie pozwalam!", and things were frozen. Logically, going 150 years with barely a law getting passed is NOT GOOD.

Would a transition to another form of government help such as a Constitutional Monarchy?

machine3589 said:
A surviving P-L Commonwealth was possible, but it would not have those borders. Eventually the Russians, Austrians and Prussians would take some territory.

It doesn't have to have its 1619 borders but I figured that with those borders it would have a chance at being a respected regional power in Eastern Europe.

Valena · Oct 6, 2015

AK47Productions said:
Would a transition to another form of government help such as a Constitutional Monarchy?

It doesn't have to have its 1619 borders but I figured that with those borders it would have a chance at being a respected regional power in Eastern Europe.

Thing is, it WAS a Constitutional Monarchy, just an Olygarchic-driven kind of one. Every single member of nobility/gentry had a right to vote, and that included nobility-in-the-name-only which was barely richer than peasants, yet had the right to vote. That meant that all kinds of bribing schenanigans were made for fun and profit.
Transfer to Absolutism or at least the counterweight to the power of magnates was theoretically going to help... the problem is that the imperial ambitions of such a regime would put it on collision course with its neighbors.

Johnrankins · Oct 6, 2015

One reform that is obvious is to have laws passed with a majority of nobles voting for it or even 2/3. That way it takes more than one person disagreeing with the law to stop it from being passed.

Tibi088 · Oct 6, 2015

Actually if i remember correctly it was even worse than what was said this far. Not only had they all agree on a law - that wasnt enough. A veto on anything was enough to destroy everything that has passed that day/session. So lets say that they somehow agreed on a law, voted and it passed, if later that day on a completly unrelated topic a veto was raised even the law they agreed on became invalid.

Uruk · Oct 6, 2015

Like it has been mentioned the first thing that has to happen is to remove the Liberum Veto

seraphim74 · Oct 6, 2015

Originally posted by machine3589

A surviving P-L Commonwealth was possible, but it would not have those borders. Eventually the Russians, Austrians and Prussians would take some territory.

Not if the PLC gets them first. Stronger, more cetralized and decisive Commonwealth would have easily crushed Prussia before its rose to power and should be able to successfully resist Russia. And for the quite long time PLC and HRE had good relations. Austra, Russia and Prussia partitioned PLC because it was weak and used the opportunity. I doubt very much they would unite against much stronger PLC, which itsel would be a player, not just the object of the game. It may very well end with PLC and HRE partitioning Prussia-Brandenburg.

Originally psted by Tibi088

Actually if i remember correctly it was even worse than what was said this far. Not only had they all agree on a law - that wasnt enough. A veto on anything was enough to destroy everything that has passed that day/session. So lets say that they somehow agreed on a law, voted and it passed, if later that day on a completly unrelated topic a veto was raised even the law they agreed on became invalid.

AFAIK you're right. It is because all laws passed by the Sejm were written in one document. If someone vetoed even a small part of the document, whole of it was invalid.
Generally, the idea behind "liberum veto" was that if the law was passed unanimously, then everybody will obbey it, since they all agreed to it. That meant that the king didn't need big army (taxes!) bureacracy (again, taxes) to enforce the law, which he might use to impose absolute rule.
It was also supposed to protect rights of the minority against dictate of the majority. Originally, when someone (or a group) vetoed a law or threatened to do that, the members of the Sejm tried to find a compromise acceptable to all. Only with time "liberum veto" was terribly abused, mostly by noblemen working for great magnates. Unfortunately it was very easy to do so.
Later, to avoid the problem, many Sejms worked as confederated sejms, where simple majority of votes decided.
There were some attempts to abolish "liberum veto", but until the May Constitution of 1791 they were unsuccessful. But confederated sejms provided a good way to go around it.

Personally, I think PLC needs some really big threat requiring quick and decisive action and that action being stopped by one or two morons in the Sejm. As a consequence the new regulations of the Sejm is being passed, abolishing the LV. It should happen relatively early, before LV becomes a tool in the hands of magnates and foreign powers.

machine3589 · Oct 6, 2015

seraphim74 said:
Originally posted by machine3589
Not if the PLC gets them first. Stronger, more cetralized and decisive Commonwealth would have easily crushed Prussia before its rose to power and should be able to successfully resist Russia.

The PLC would be too busy fighting Sweden, Russia and the Ottomans to "crush Prussia before its rise to power".

As for Russia; yes, the PLC could resist her. But not in the 1619. borders.

And for the quite long time PLC and HRE had good relations. Austra, Russia and Prussia partitioned PLC because it was weak and used the opportunity. I doubt very much they would unite against much stronger PLC, which itsel would be a player, not just the object of the game.

I wasn't talking about a total partition. It may well never happen without a weak PLC, but some losses of territory are bound happen, especially East of the Dnieper. Even if the PLC is made stronger, that doesn't make it's neighbours (especially the eastern one) suddenly weak.

And having a stronger PLC would not dissuade a joined Austro-Prusso-Russian action against it. Quite the opposite actually. French power after the Revolution did not stop European countries from constantly forming coalitions against it.

It may very well end with PLC and HRE partitioning Prussia-Brandenburg.

Considering that Brandenburg was almost completely in the HRE, I suppose you mean that Austria would take out the Brandenbug part and Poland would take out the Prussian part, right?

Well, maybe. Austria certainly did well enough in some of its wars that PLC help could tip the balance for total victory. But that only strengthens Austria and doesn't deal with Russia.

Blackfox5 · Oct 6, 2015

There are several different PODs that could have kept Poland-Lithuania as a dominant European power.

1) The Jagiellonian dynasty continues keeping a firm executive authority in Poland.

2) The Union of Lublin does not introduce elective monarchy so that future kings do not enter office in debt to the magnates.

3) Sigismund III Vasa ends the Sandomierz Rebellion in a way that reinforces royal authority over the szlachta.

4) The Cossack Rebellion of 1648 never happens. Instead, the Ukrainian cossacks are integrated into the P-L Commonwealth ensuring their loyalty. Muscovite Russia is not able to exploit the divisions and expand eastward.

5) The Poles get their act together before 1791 and reforms the state early enough that the Commonwealth is not easy pickings by the other powers.

Poland faced challenges in building an effective centralized state, but so did most European states in the period. The Holy Roman Empire also failed although the rise of Prussia in uniting German lands in the 19th century sometimes obscures this. Often all that was needed was the good luck to have a series of capable monarchs to turn things around, as Prussia did with the leaders from Frederick Wilhelm the Great Elector to Frederick the Great (1640-1786).

PuffyClouds · Oct 6, 2015

I know this is a vague question, but can the PLC flourish if Prussia is the dominant German state?

telynk · Oct 7, 2015

PuffyClouds said:
I know this is a vague question, but can the PLC flourish if Prussia is the dominant German state?

Poland-Lithuania could flourish if Brandenburg was the dominant German state, but the very existence of a "kingdom of prussia" implies that poland-Lithuania was weak enough that the duchy if prussia could break away.

Basically, the kingdom of prussia started as a fairly autonomous duchy of prussia which was a vassal of poland. A strong poland would keep prussia as a vassal, not let it break away and become a kingdom. Them keeping prussia as a vassal implies they would keep Brandenburg weak.

However, if Brandenburg never inherits the duchy of prussia then there's not necessarily anything to bring them into conflict with poland. In that scenario they could both be strong. Maybe they could partition pomeranian between them??

seraphim74 · Oct 7, 2015

Originally posted by machine3589

The PLC would be too busy fighting Sweden, Russia and the Ottomans to "crush Prussia before its rise to power".

Much weaker and decentralized PLC fought Sweden, Russia and Ottomans IOTL (not to mention Cossack uprisings) and survived with most of its territories. And who says PLC would be fighting them alone? PLC can easily find allies against each of them - together with Austria against Prussia-Brandenburg and/or Ottoman Empire; together with Russia agaist the Ottomans. Together with Crimea Tatars against Russia... there are many possibilities.

As for Russia; yes, the PLC could resist her. But not in the 1619. borders.

Why not? In 1634 PLC more or less defeated Russia in Smolensk War.

I wasn't talking about a total partition. It may well never happen without a weak PLC, but some losses of territory are bound happen, especially East of the Dnieper. Even if the PLC is made stronger, that doesn't make it's neighbours (especially the eastern one) suddenly weak.

Possibly, but not necessarily. WI a king, with stronger position and bigger power, assured better treatment of the Cossacks? IIRC at the beginning of Khmelnitsky's Uprising the Cossacks claimed to fight the noblemen, not the king, whom they considered their protector and defender of their rights. WI fairly treated Cossacks remain loyal and ready to fight for PLC against Tatars, Russians and Ottomans? Polish-Lithuanian armies together with Cossacks would be a power to reckon with.

And having a stronger PLC would not dissuade a joined Austro-Prusso-Russian action against it. Quite the opposite actually. French power after the Revolution did not stop European countries from constantly forming coalitions against it.

Joint Prussian-Russian-Austrian action in late XVIIIth century was not unevitable. It depends of the POD and when it happens. If in XVIIth century, the butterflies might be enormous. WI the Swedish kings Charles Gustav does not invade PLC in 1655 ("Are you crazy? Invading such power as PLC? We might as well try to invade the Moon!") or PLC sides with Austria against Prussia in Silesian Wars? ("Yes Your Majesty, empress Elizabeth is dead and Russia is out of the war, but we still have 100 000 Polish and Austrian soldiers currently storming Konigsberg; they will be here in an hour"). I repeat: Austria, Prussia and Russia used PLC internal weakness; if Poland-Lithuania is strong, such an alliance might never happen. Prussia might be destroyed, Peter the Great might be butterflied away, so may Frederick the Great etc.
And the French example is incorrect. Other powers kept forming the coalitions against France, because of its republican ideology perceived by European monarchs as a direct threat to their own power. And later because they considered Napoleon a post-republican usurper with hands stained with sacred royal blood.

Considering that Brandenburg was almost completely in the HRE, I suppose you mean that Austria would take out the Brandenbug part and Poland would take out the Prussian part, right?

Yes, my mistake. I meant that Holy Roman Emperors (Habburgs) might incorporate Prussia directlky into their own lands. Or put their puppet on the Brandenburg throne; in any way, an end for Prussia-Brandenburg.

Originally posted by Blackfox5

There are several different PODs that could have kept Poland-Lithuania as a dominant European power.
1) The Jagiellonian dynasty continues keeping a firm executive authority in Poland.

Actually, the Jagiellons never had as strong position as the Piasts had. They had to pay Polish knights/ noblemen with political privileges for their support and their power was somewhat limited. The "noblemen democracy" wasn't born together with the PLC - the noblemen position kept rising under the Jagiellon rule, often at the cost of king's power. But I agree, that continuation of the Jagiellon line would make king's position stronger.
And wouldn't Sigismund August having a heir require POD slightly before creation of the PLC? He wasn't young in 1569.

2) The Union of Lublin does not introduce elective monarchy so that future kings do not enter office in debt to the magnates.

Probably, but which dynasty would be invited to PLC? And Jagiellons actually were elected too, which is why kings had to be nice to the noblemen so they would accept his son as successor.

3) Sigismund III Vasa ends the Sandomierz Rebellion in a way that reinforces royal authority over the szlachta.

Not a bad idea, although I'm not exactly sure if feasible. Even royal commanders, like Stanisław Żółkiewski and Jan Karol Chodkiewicz weren't enthusiastic about Sigismund III's ideas (IIRC they fought not as much for stronger position of the king, but against anarchy). Perhaps if it lasts longer causing more damage to the PLC wiser noblemen and magnates realize a danger of anarchy and make some compromise with the king: he gets bigger, but not absolute power, but the new laws still need to be passed by the Sejm (although without liberum veto).

4) The Cossack Rebellion of 1648 never happens. Instead, the Ukrainian cossacks are integrated into the P-L Commonwealth ensuring their loyalty. Muscovite Russia is not able to exploit the divisions and expand eastward

Also good idea, but how it happens? Perhaps a combination of points 3 and 4 and my previous note. King Władysław IV (Sigismund III's son) inherits more power and uses it to protect Cossacks' privileges. They repay their "father king" and PLC with unwaivering loyalty.

5) The Poles get their act together before 1791 and reforms the state early enough that the Commonwealth is not easy pickings by the other powers.

That woould be very hard. PLC was a second rate power since the end of the XVIIth century (and honestly, even earlier) and in 1700s it became more or less Russian protectorate.

Originally posted by PuffyCllouds

I know this is a vague question, but can the PLC flourish if Prussia is the dominant German state?

I have my doubts, but theoretically possible. Problem would be with Pomerelia (later the Corridor) separating Prussia from Brandenburg and its next gains (Silesia etc.).

lokaloki · Oct 7, 2015

Maybe if Napoleon in 1812 crashed Russian armies one by one very fast (as he planned)? Then Alexander I may sign a peace, and Napoleon restores PC?
But it will be quite different world, I think.

Or Poland more success in the war against Russia in 1920-21 and got much of these lands?

FellowNerd · Oct 7, 2015

lokaloki said:
Maybe if Napoleon in 1812 crashed Russian armies one by one very fast (as he planned)? Then Alexander I may sign a peace, and Napoleon restores PC?
But it will be quite different world, I think.

Or Poland more success in the war against Russia in 1920-21 and got much of these lands?

Once the PLC is gone, its not coming back. Any subsequent "restoration" will be for Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, seperatly. It just never had a strong enough national identity to be restored

machine3589 · Oct 7, 2015

seraphim74 said:
Much weaker and decentralized PLC fought Sweden, Russia and Ottomans IOTL (not to mention Cossack uprisings) and survived with most of its territories.

It lost huge tracts of land in the East actually. And the Potop happened.

And who says PLC would be fighting them alone? PLC can easily find allies against each of them - together with Austria against Prussia-Brandenburg and/or Ottoman Empire; together with Russia agaist the Ottomans. Together with Crimea Tatars against Russia... there are many possibilities.

Yes, all of which mean the PLC's survival as a relevant power in Europe. They do not however guarantee that it keeps its humongous 1619. form.

Why not? In 1634 PLC more or less defeated Russia in Smolensk War.

And then spent the next 150 years losing ground to Russia before being annexed into it. The latter won't happen with a stronger PLC, but I don't think the centuries-long Russian push westwards can be held back indefinately. Eventually even a stronger PLC will have a weak ruler, or too many crisises happening at once.

Joint Prussian-Russian-Austrian action in late XVIIIth century was not unevitable.

Sorry for nitpicking, but it's inevitable.

I repeat: Austria, Prussia and Russia used PLC internal weakness;

PLC weakness was not the only reason for the Partitions. If it was, they would have happened much earlier during the turbulent 18th century. More important than the PLC's weakness was the fact that Austria, Prussia and Russia managed to reach an agreement on dividing PLC territory. In another TL they could reach an agreement to form a united front against a strong mutual enemy to all of them.

And the French example is incorrect. Other powers kept forming the coalitions against France, because of its republican ideology perceived by European monarchs as a direct threat to their own power. And later because they considered Napoleon a post-republican usurper with hands stained with sacred royal blood.

Then I'll use a slightly more ironic example. Britain, France and Russia all became allies to combat a strong German Empire. If we followed your assumption on the effects of an alternate PLC's strength, then the Tripple Entente never should have happened.

Janprimus · Oct 8, 2015

seraphim74 said:
(...)
Yes, my mistake. I meant that Holy Roman Emperors (Habburgs) might incorporate Prussia directlky into their own lands. Or put their puppet on the Brandenburg throne; in any way, an end for Prussia-Brandenburg.
(...)

Both aren't too likely, but the latter seems a bit more likely. Well Prussia proper would go back to Poland, Cleves-Mark-Ravensberg could go to Palatinate-Neuburg (which inherited Julich-Berg), territories inherited from Orange-Nassau-Dillenburg could go to Orange-Nassau-Dietz, though the Hohenzollern probably will keep a Brandenburg and some other fiefs.

machine3589 said:
(...)
PLC weakness was not the only reason for the Partitions. If it was, they would have happened much earlier during the turbulent 18th century. More important than the PLC's weakness was the fact that Austria, Prussia and Russia managed to reach an agreement on dividing PLC territory. In another TL they could reach an agreement to form a united front against a strong mutual enemy to all of them.
(...)

If Austria would have managed to keep Silesia, then they wouldn't have been too exited to partition Poland (they may have some interests in the Polish enclaves in Hungary). Prussia-Brandenburg will still be interested in western (royal) Prussia and may join Russia and some others to obtain it.
Russia would still want to expand.
Austria's main direct problem were the Ottomans and in the west the house of Bourbon; a friendly and/or allied Poland-Lithuania, also helpful to contain Prussia-Brandenburg, would in fact have been useful for Austria.

seraphim74 · Oct 8, 2015

Originally posted by machine3589

It lost huge tracts of land in the East actually. And the Potop happened.

True, and yet PLC survived almost for almost 150 years. And despite desolation of PLC Swedish army had to retreat.

Yes, all of which mean the PLC's survival as a relevant power in Europe. They do not however guarantee that it keeps its humongous 1619. form.

You may be right, PLC might loose some territory; or it may gain some. Depends of POD.

And then spent the next 150 years losing ground to Russia before being annexed into it. The latter won't happen with a stronger PLC, but I don't think the centuries-long Russian push westwards can be held back indefinately. Eventually even a stronger PLC will have a weak ruler, or too many crisises happening at once.

The same might happen to Russia. Butterflies. Just an example: Peter the Great might never be born, die in infancy, or Russia might be torn appart by a civil war between Peter's and Ivan V's followers (both sides led by powerful lords using tsars mostly as symbol and/or puppets);

Sorry for nitpicking, but it's inevitable.

Yep, my mistake.

PLC weakness was not the only reason for the Partitions. If it was, they would have happened much earlier during the turbulent 18th century. More important than the PLC's weakness was the fact that Austria, Prussia and Russia managed to reach an agreement on dividing PLC territory. In another TL they could reach an agreement to form a united front against a strong mutual enemy to all of them.

PLC was never an enemy to Austria. Austria used an opportunity to take some Polish lands, but IIRC there were no hostility between them (well, not after battle of Byczyna). In fact Austria might consider strong PLC an useful ally against the Ottomans and Prussians. Here I agree with Janprimus.

More important than the PLC's weakness was the fact that Austria, Prussia and Russia managed to reach an agreement on dividing PLC territory. In another TL they could reach an agreement to form a united front against a strong mutual enemy to all of them.

You're right that one of the reasons for the partitions was Austrian-Prussian-Russian agreement, but only after it was possible at all to divide PLC. And a lot can happen between POD and XVIIIth century. And, as I mentioned before, PLC didn't needed to be seen by some of them (Austria) as an enemy, but as a useful friend.

Then I'll use a slightly more ironic example. Britain, France and Russia all became allies to combat a strong German Empire. If we followed your assumption on the effects of an alternate PLC's strength, then the Tripple Entente never should have happened.

The tripple Entente was formed against an AGGRESSIVE German Empire being (or perceived) a common threat to all of them. An every country had their own reasons to fight the Kaiser. Actually, Russia, IMO, had the least problems with Germany - they were mostly interested in fighting Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, which, unfortunately, were allied with Germany. France wanted revenge for 1871. Britain was worried about its colonies and was mostly interested in keeping the status quo. They didn't ally themselves against Germany just to partition it.
Now, strong PLC is not an object of the game, but is a player itself, and that completely changes the political game in Europe, perhaps even in whole world. ATL PLC can easily be considered a worthy partner and valuable ally, make pacts with... well, pretty much everybody and become part of completely different alliances. With Austria, against Prussia and Russia and the Ottomans. With Prussia (or perhaps Saxony becomes leader of northern Germany) against Austria. With Saxony against Prussia. With France against Austria. With Russia against the Ottomans. With Sweden against Russia. With Russia against Sweden. With Britain against Russia. With Ottomans against Austria and Russia. In various political situations various alliances might be considered logical to all parties at the time.