Challenge: Great Power in Central Europe

[Tyg]

No, not Austria. Or Germany, or the Ottomans, or the Russians. Not even the Hungarians. Instead of those well-trod paths to hegemony, how might we see a great power in the modern era arise from the Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Sorbs, Kashubians, etc)? I mean this in a linguistic and cultural sense of course, and didn't single out the Poles or Czechs in particular as with a sufficiently early POD the difference might be one of regional dialect or culture rather than seperate national conciousness.

For particularly early departures from OTL, here's a handy image from wikipedia...


Now, given that the objective is for a modern-era great power, there need not be effective unity among the various constituents that early. However, I do think that a modern nation roughly situated between the Elbe (though maybe not the entire length of its course) and the Niemen or Daugava and north of the Carpathian mountains is the simplest bet, and would be the core of whatever nation built here in any case. It would be a fair combination of natural endowments as well, if commercial and industrial development proceeds similarly to OTL's patterns.

The problem is of course all political. The Holy Roman Empire absorbed and gradually assimilated much of the slavic population west of Poland and Bohemia (that had previously pushed out the germanic inhabitants in the early middle ages) in stages of conquest and conversion that lasted hundreds of years. Bohemia itself was incorporated into the HRE early on, and snared in the quagmire of Medieval-to-modern German politics until the 20th century, and Poland became increasingly eastern-focused, (especially after union with Lithuania) while faced with a troublesome Teutonic thorn in Prussia and the Baltics.

The earliest clear intervention would seem to involve the survival or stronger legacy of Great Moravia, which might keep Bohemia out of the Carolingian/Holy Roman Empires and eventual absorbtion of Poland and Pommerania through conversion and feudal vassalage.

Later PODs would probably have to involve Poland and Bohemia coming under a personal union that sticks, though electoral monarchy is not helpful here.

I'm not sure at what point Polish, Czech and related languages would diverge too far to be combined, but a POD that occurs before or close to the development of printing, and thus results in a single written language, would probably be the easiest way to promote linguistic recombination.

Other than the basic idea, I'm unclear on how it would all work. So now it's up to you! Meet the challenge and you deserve a glass of good pilsner and a plate of pierogi!

[Nietzsche]

The problem has more to do with central/eastern europe's resources. Or, rather, the lack of. Not enough coal and such. That's why the biggest power of central Europe was Germany/Brandenburg/Austria, and that's because they were based further west than east. They just simply expanded into it.

[Tyg]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

The problem has more to do with central/eastern europe's resources. Or, rather, the lack of. Not enough coal and such. That's why the biggest power of central Europe was Germany/Brandenburg/Austria, and that's because they were based further west than east. They just simply expanded into it.

Quite the contrary, Bohemia, Silesia and Galicia all had major deposits of coal and metals of varying qualities. Silesia was a major industrial region for Germany, even if you count it separately from Dresden. Bohemia was a very wealthy part of the Hapsburg empire, and also had a highly developed industrial base, something that continued into independent and later communist Czechoslovakia. Galicia in the 19th century was certainly poorer than those regions for a number of reasons, but not due to endowments of natural resources. Brandenburg and Pomerania, by contrast, are not remarkably well endowed with coal and iron.

A prospective central European great power in the industrial age would hardly be bereft of natural resources.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Tyg

Quite the contrary, Bohemia, Silesia and Galicia all had major deposits of coal and metals of varying qualities. Silesia was a major industrial region for Germany, even if you count it separately from Dresden. Bohemia was a very wealthy part of the Hapsburg empire, and also had a highly developed industrial base, something that continued into independent and later communist Czechoslovakia. Galicia in the 19th century was certainly poorer than those regions for a number of reasons, but not due to endowments of natural resources. Brandenburg and Pomerania, by contrast, are not remarkably well endowed with coal and iron.

A prospective central European great power in the industrial age would hardly be bereft of natural resources.

Bohemia, Silesia and Galicia would all need to be owned by one power (assuming this power is based in Central/Eastern Europe) to be useful. The odds of a Poland or some such nation getting that large is bordering on ASB.The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was massively powerful until Coal started getting more important. Then it fell in, and slowly divided up by Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

[marcinL]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

The problem has more to do with central/eastern europe's resources. Or, rather, the lack of. Not enough coal and such. That's why the biggest power of central Europe was Germany/Brandenburg/Austria, and that's because they were based further west than east. They just simply expanded into it.

Uhm... Country controlling Silesia would have enough coal and copper, I don't know about iron.At least until middle of equivalent of 20th century.
I think the real problems are smaller population ( than HRE), mongol invasion, civilasational backwardness ( in relation to german states).
To save Polabian Slavs POD must be early enough ( maybe early christianization?)

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by marcinL

Uhm... Country controlling Silesia would have enough coal and copper, I don't know about iron.At least until middle of equivalent of 20th century.
I think the real problems are smaller population ( than HRE), mongol invasion, civilasational backwardness ( in relation to german states).
To save Polabian Slavs POD must be early enough ( maybe early christianization?)

Not really. Silesia alone is a good start, but it won't make them a Great Power. A regional power, maybe, depends on the neighbors(obviously they wouldn't be much threat to a German state that holds Bohemia and such).

Really, you're going to need more than just land in this. You'll need to keep western europe un-centralized and generally just weak.

[Tyg]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Bohemia, Silesia and Galicia would all need to be owned by one power (assuming this power is based in Central/Eastern Europe) to be useful. The odds of a Poland or some such nation getting that large is bordering on ASB.

Austria at times controlled or nearly did all three of those areas. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was also much more than "that large" geographically, so I fail to see how the issue of distance would pose a greater problem to another hypothetical power with an even better geographic set up. Krakow or Breslau/Wrocław would be in a much more central position of a state that included those three areas than Vienna was for the Hapsburgs, or either Krakow or Warsaw was for the Poles OTL.

The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was massively powerful until Coal started getting more important.

The power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was only potentially vast, and very difficult to actually bring to bear. There was relatively little centralization compared to Russia or France, and the independent nobility and magnates were quite able to gum up the efforts of state if such things were mildly against their interests. It took strong kings skilled at herding cats to rouse the nobility and raise forces for such efforts as lifting the siege of Vienna. Moreover, the Commonwealth was an elective monarchy that was therefore easily subject to external interference, or plain bribes. Such does not a strong state make, any more than it did in the latter days of the Holy Roman Empire.

In addition to all that, the Commonwealth was frequently subject to fighting on its own territory during that entire period, and usually not by choice. It's a testement to human and political endurance that it survived the Deluge and so on, but far from a display of strength.

...until Coal started getting more important. Then it fell in, and slowly divided up by Prussians, Russians and Austrians.

Coal had absolutely nothing to do with the Commonwealth's partition. None of those three powers were on the forefront of industrial development, for one. The only country for which we could honestly say was "industrial" during the time of the Partitions of Poland would be Great Britian. (Or depending on when you'd like to time things, the UK) Further, the Commonwealth was already fractured and weak from the center out, as I described, and was contracting like a leaky balloon. Its absorbtion by other states at a similar or lower level of development (such as Russia) means very little to the existance of a hypothetical state in a TL that shares only vaguely similar borders.

[Tyg]

Originally Posted by marcinL

Uhm... Country controlling Silesia would have enough coal and copper, I don't know about iron.At least until middle of equivalent of 20th century.
I think the real problems are smaller population ( than HRE), mongol invasion, civilasational backwardness ( in relation to german states).
To save Polabian Slavs POD must be early enough ( maybe early christianization?)

The low population density and the Mongols I agree would pose challenges. Backwardness, perhaps not so much as Poland and Lithuania faced, and hardly so for Russia. Poland's social backwardness OTL (serfdom, for example) were not insurmountable by any means even at the time, and in any event if this hypothetical state has Silesia and Bohemia, it's well enough connected to Western Europe by riverine trade... and of course, inevitable episodes of warfare.

I don't really view "saving" the Polabian or Sorbian slavs as absolutely necessary, provided that generally western slavs are of one state otherwise. Poles and Czechs are however, a bit too numerous to casually have absorbed like that.

[marcinL]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

Really, you're going to need more than just land in this. You'll need to keep western europe un-centralized and generally just weak.

Not whole europe but Germany. Germany divided or busy elswhere means hypothetical slavic state does't have to deal with whole power of HRE

Originally Posted by Tyg

Austria at times controlled or nearly did all three of those areas.

You do't have to control all those areas all the time. But you have to have them united for long enough to create some kind of common identity

Originally Posted by Tyg

The power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was only potentially vast, and very difficult to actually bring to bear. There was relatively little centralization compared to Russia or France, and the independent nobility and magnates were quite able to gum up the efforts of state if such things were mildly against their interests. It took strong kings skilled at herding cats to rouse the nobility and raise forces for such efforts as lifting the siege of Vienna.

Actually last thing was quite easy. IIRC Pope have given money for this. Problem was that you have to kep this size army all the time, and also built fortresses and invest in modernization of country. With nobility's hate for paying taxes and strong central power, royal finances are very limited. That means no fortresses and no modernization. And usually no army. Which indeed means if someonoe invades PLC, poles start to mobilize when enemy is in the middle of country. So even they win the war they got devastated country etc. To become real power PLC needs hereditiary monarchy and financial and govermental reforms in the beginning of XVII century, that gives someone real executive power in PLC. To unite PLC and Bohemia in this period you will need Poland participating in 30years war against Habsburgs, or Habsburgs on polish throne, and later dividing habsburg empire into Austro-Hungary and Czecho-PLC.
I think better chances for succesful unification would be in earlier periods-Bohemian Kings may conquer Poland in late XIII-early XIV century, Poland may support Hussite Bohemia or Jagiellons may be more effective in competition with habsburgs in XV-XVI century

[virgulino]

I think that, without the Liberum Veto, Poland-Lithuania would be strongest nation in eastern Europe. It's just amazing the way that a feudal kingdom managed to develop a similar system that existed in the Italian Republic and in the Netherlands, the vanguards of the capitalism. The ironic is that what destroyed Poland was their "democratic" system.

[Grey Wolf]

Have the Huns smash the HRE ?

Gods, the details of my memory is appalling...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Grey Wolf]

Or maybe stunningly successful First Crusade, armies traipsing to Mecca, Baghdad, and Cairo, and forgetting about Eastern Europe ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[marcinL]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

Or maybe stunningly successful First Crusade, armies traipsing to Mecca, Baghdad, and Cairo, and forgetting about Eastern Europe ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Or stunningly unsuccesful and muslims landing in north italies

[marcinL]

Originally Posted by virgulino

I think that, without the Liberum Veto, Poland-Lithuania would be strongest nation in eastern Europe. It's just amazing the way that a feudal kingdom managed to develop a similar system that existed in the Italian Republic and in the Netherlands, the vanguards of the capitalism. The ironic is that what destroyed Poland was their "democratic" system.

Liberum veto was invented in the middle of XVII century, although it was continuation of polish parliamentary philosophy " don't pass the act, if it have strong opposition".

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Tyg

No, not Austria. Or Germany, or the Ottomans, or the Russians. Not even the Hungarians. Instead of those well-trod paths to hegemony, how might we see a great power in the modern era arise from the Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Sorbs, Kashubians, etc)?

Yes, this is $1 mln question. Why did Russians became Russians and Western Slavs split? One of possible answers is that Western Slavs were Western, i.e. had too powerful and civilized neighbours. Russians were under just enough pressure to create Kievan Rus (with Dermanic or Slavic ruling class, depend on who you ask), but not enough to assimilate them. Western Slavs had populous German neighours, who aquired bits and pieces of Roman civilization, therefore they either assimilated (Polabian Slavs) or became separate nations (Czechs, Poles etc.). Nature also played a role, with Carpathians and Tatra mountains acting as natural border between Slavic tribal unions (again, as opposed to Russians who settled flatland of Eastern European Plain). So, to answer your question, some early consolidation center (which will be able to gobble W. Slavic bits and pieces later) is essential. I know of only one candidate and it is Great Moravia. So, you need to butterfly Magyars off, give Moravians moderately strong ruling dynasty (AH analog of Rurikids in Russia) and keep Karolingians occupied somewhere else every time when Mojmirids are having succession quarrel. Around 1000 AD Moravians will get powerful enough to mop up what became OTL Poles (Polans, Mazurs etc.) and around 1100 AD they will be in position to become overlords of Polabians (I somehow suspect that they will never fully integrate this lawless lot into "Moravian" identity, so separate Wendish identity is very likely)

Originally Posted by Tyg

Meet the challenge and you deserve a glass of good pilsner and a plate of pierogi!

Pierogi with beer? Yikes!!! There's no truly good alcoholic drink to go with pierogi. Well, may be sbiten (hot mead, more or less). You need meat to go with beer.

Originally Posted by Tyg

The low population density and the Mongols I agree would pose challenges.

Why should Mongols be a bigger challenge for "Moravia" of ours than they were for Poland OTL?

Originally Posted by Tyg

Poland's social backwardness OTL (serfdom, for example) were not insurmountable by any means even at the time, and in any event if this hypothetical state has Silesia and Bohemia, it's well enough connected to Western Europe by riverine trade...

I would say that those "connections" ae presenting bigger danger for "Moravia" than any foreign invasion, as Silesia and Bohemia have more important trade relationships with "Germany" than they have with any Slavic territory within Moravia (unlike Kievan Rus, where Kiev rulers had stranglehold on very important Byzantinean trade for 3 centuries). Basically, there's no glue holding parts of Moravia together except nationalism, and nationalism becomes a powerful force in 18th century only.

Originally Posted by marcinL

You do't have to control all those areas all the time. But you have to have them united for long enough to create some kind of common identity

And control should be established early enough to present them from lapsing into "pre-unification" identity. That's why I insist on Moravia.

[Tyg]

Originally Posted by CanadianGoose

Yes, this is $1 mln question. Why did Russians became Russians and Western Slavs split? One of possible answers is that Western Slavs were Western, i.e. had too powerful and civilized neighbours. Russians were under just enough pressure to create Kievan Rus (with Dermanic or Slavic ruling class, depend on who you ask), but not enough to assimilate them. Western Slavs had populous German neighours, who aquired bits and pieces of Roman civilization, therefore they either assimilated (Polabian Slavs) or became separate nations (Czechs, Poles etc.). Nature also played a role, with Carpathians and Tatra mountains acting as natural border between Slavic tribal unions (again, as opposed to Russians who settled flatland of Eastern European Plain).

I think this analysis neglects the initially disruptive influence of the Norse raiding, settling, and ruling in the Rus, and the geographic (and economic) proximity to the Orthodox Greek cultural sphere in the Black Sea, but it's not a bad summary, particularly of the impact of natural borders.

So, to answer your question, some early consolidation center (which will be able to gobble W. Slavic bits and pieces later) is essential. I know of only one candidate and it is Great Moravia. So, you need to butterfly Magyars off, give Moravians moderately strong ruling dynasty (AH analog of Rurikids in Russia) and keep Karolingians occupied somewhere else every time when Mojmirids are having succession quarrel. Around 1000 AD Moravians will get powerful enough to mop up what became OTL Poles (Polans, Mazurs etc.) and around 1100 AD they will be in position to become overlords of Polabians (I somehow suspect that they will never fully integrate this lawless lot into "Moravian" identity, so separate Wendish identity is very likely)

For the Magyars, where might they end up rather than the Pannonian plain? Maybe they end up moving south anyway, but get pulled into Byzantine-Bulgar wars as an ally/federate of Constantinople, which "grants" or otherwise pledges them Wallachia and perhaps some other lands on the Black sea? It would promote the eastern Carpathians or Transylvania as a national/cultural border, but with the Magyars on the other side as OTL. It's a less of an initial change to history, which appeals to me aesthetically, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

The Carolingian Empire is a problem perhaps, but initially they'll do Moravia a favor by keeping those troublesome Saxons, Bavarians, and other German tribes weak. If Greater Moravia's monarch and nobility get struck with inspiration, they might convert not long after the Empire does, in order to secure an alliance to "crush the barbarous heathen and bring them to the wisdom of Christ" or some such. Not that means all that much after too long, but could keep the peace more or less until the Empire has its own succession crisis and/or splits the inheritance in two or more peices. Those successor state(s) would then be well on course to deal with the tide of Vikings and Norse adventuring, which is probably harder on them than Great Moravia, which would be more insulated from the sea, though probably gets at least some unpleasant visitors plundering up their rivers. Control and defense of the Elbe, Oder, and Vistula from raids like that might spur efforts to expand to the coast, or otherwise extend control along them in an effort to prevent future raiding. Heck, the Vikings might do a lot of good work making Polabian chieftans decide that they, for one, welcome their new Moravian overlords.

Why should Mongols be a bigger challenge for "Moravia" of ours than they were for Poland OTL?

No particular reason at all, I was just agreeing with the previous poster that an organized Mongol Khanate invading would not be a pleasant experience. The Pannonian plain and Poland would serve as a typical, or even favorable environment to a Mongol army, unless battle is joined in forested or hilly/mountainous terrain within or around those regions. Then again, it wouldn't be completely objectionable to have OTL's Mongol empire(s) butterflied out of the timeline, given how much later they are compared to a POD that ensures the survival of Moravia. Though I'd expect a Turkic style migration at some point.

I would say that those "connections" ae presenting bigger danger for "Moravia" than any foreign invasion, as Silesia and Bohemia have more important trade relationships with "Germany" than they have with any Slavic territory within Moravia (unlike Kievan Rus, where Kiev rulers had stranglehold on very important Byzantinean trade for 3 centuries). Basically, there's no glue holding parts of Moravia together except nationalism, and nationalism becomes a powerful force in 18th century only.

This isn't entirely untrue of Poland proper either, as it served as a conduit west for trade east that passed into the Black Sea. In addition to this, we've got a Greater Moravian monopoly on the amber routes from the Baltic. Those routes and others might promote economic consolidation, especially along the rivers. Once in "Moravia" presumably they combine in Bohemia/Silesia to flow either up the Elbe or towards points west or south, making for some city trade hubs along the Carpathians, Silesia, and Bohemia. That trade could pay for tolls on river traffic, in addition to income from the ports and cities more directly. Combined with other traditional feudal income sources, the monarchy of "Greater Moravia" could have an independent income if certain revenues and lands are reserved for the crown in a manner similar to France.

Working these effects into feudal territories is complicated, but mixed or conflicting medieval loyalties were immensely thorny issues as it was, regardless. West Slavic cultures can probably assimilate into each other based on the underlying noble loyalties and their courts, the networks of trade, and the regional set up of the Church over time if given the political impetus Greater Moravia would grant.

And control should be established early enough to present them from lapsing into "pre-unification" identity. That's why I insist on Moravia.

That, of course, makes a great deal of sense. I'm not convinced though that later consolidation of West Slavic cultural areas wouldn't be nearly as effective, especially if it occurs before the invention of printing, and standardization of language. Linguistic barriers aren't everything, but keeping Polish and Czech from evolving into seperate written languages would do a lot to facilitate cultural exchnage and mutual assimilation. If you want some stronger cases, French and German cultural and linguistic development always faced strong regional biases. The French were particularly impressive at their historic assimilations of the Normans, Bretons, Occitans, Burgundians, and all the other ones I've missed. Granted, there's still some regionalism left today, and Britanny still keeps celtic origins around, but it remains impressive how France was culturally welded together over the centuries. Perhaps that might be an analogue for our Greater Moravia.

Pierogi with beer? Yikes!!! There's no truly good alcoholic drink to go with pierogi. Well, may be sbiten (hot mead, more or less). You need meat to go with beer.

I was reaching for things easily recognizable as Czech and Polish, maybe too quickly.
Maybe you'd prefer a pilsner with some gołąbki instead? (Literally, "little pigeons", a kind of cabbage roll)

[CanadianGoose]

Originally Posted by Tyg

I think this analysis neglects the initially disruptive influence of the Norse raiding, settling, and ruling in the Rus

Norse settlement had been almost non-existent, even if you ask radical Normanist. Raiding? Bah humbug! Slavic tribes were perfectly capable of much bloodier raids on their Slavic neighbours than any Norse could dream of.

Originally Posted by Tyg

For the Magyars, where might they end up rather than the Pannonian plain? Maybe they end up moving south anyway, but get pulled into Byzantine-Bulgar wars as an ally/federate of Constantinople, which "grants" or otherwise pledges them Wallachia and perhaps some other lands on the Black sea?

Well, I don't care about Magyars' fate a bit. As far as I'm concerned they could join an endless string of Steppe tirbal unions which ended up either assimilated by their sedentiary "subjects" or crushed and assimilated by new wave of invaders or just disappearing in some other way. Huns, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Torks, Cumans, the list goes on and on. Magyars and (to a lesser extent) Bulgars are very rare exceptions from this rule.

Originally Posted by Tyg

The Carolingian Empire is a problem perhaps, but initially they'll do Moravia a favor by keeping those troublesome Saxons, Bavarians, and other German tribes weak. If Greater Moravia's monarch and nobility get struck with inspiration, they might convert not long after the Empire does, in order to secure an alliance to "crush the barbarous heathen and bring them to the wisdom of Christ" or some such.

Moravians did convert IOTL. Fat lot of good it did to them.

Originally Posted by Tyg

Heck, the Vikings might do a lot of good work making Polabian chieftans decide that they, for one, welcome their new Moravian overlords.

IOTL Polabian Wends were much bigger problem for Norse than vice versa.

Originally Posted by Tyg

The Pannonian plain and Poland would serve as a typical, or even favorable environment to a Mongol army, unless battle is joined in forested or hilly/mountainous terrain within or around those regions.

Moravia holding Pannonia would develop some sort of good cavalry to deal with different invaders from the East. If Russian experience is any indication, it will be as good or almost as good soldier-for-soldier as anything nomads are able to field. They wouldn't be less (or more) successfull than OTL Hungarians. Hungary survived Mongols, why shouldn't Moravia?

Originally Posted by Tyg

Then again, it wouldn't be completely objectionable to have OTL's Mongol empire(s) butterflied out of the timeline, given how much later they are compared to a POD that ensures the survival of Moravia. Though I'd expect a Turkic style migration at some point.

I dunno, Moravia is too far from Mongolia and changes to ensure Moravian's survival can be contained well West of Volga river, so Mongols are entirely possible.

Originally Posted by Tyg

This isn't entirely untrue of Poland proper either, as it served as a conduit west for trade east that passed into the Black Sea. In addition to this, we've got a Greater Moravian monopoly on the amber routes from the Baltic. Those routes and others might promote economic consolidation, especially along the rivers. Once in "Moravia" presumably they combine in Bohemia/Silesia to flow either up the Elbe or towards points west or south, making for some city trade hubs along the Carpathians, Silesia, and Bohemia. That trade could pay for tolls on river traffic, in addition to income from the ports and cities more directly. Combined with other traditional feudal income sources, the monarchy of "Greater Moravia" could have an independent income if certain revenues and lands are reserved for the crown in a manner similar to France.

Working these effects into feudal territories is complicated, but mixed or conflicting medieval loyalties were immensely thorny issues as it was, regardless. West Slavic cultures can probably assimilate into each other based on the underlying noble loyalties and their courts, the networks of trade, and the regional set up of the Church over time if given the political impetus Greater Moravia would grant.

Possible, but it will require some very major luck for Moravia. Again, if Russian experience is any indication, trade is very powerful drag. And Russians had no civilized neighbours to trade with but two major outlets (Kiev and Novgorod) controlled by Rurikids very early on. Moravian territories are connected to different neighbours literally "the other side of the river" and it will tear the country apart.

Originally Posted by Tyg

I was reaching for things easily recognizable as Czech and Polish, maybe too quickly.
Maybe you'd prefer a pilsner with some gołąbki instead? (Literally, "little pigeons", a kind of cabbage roll)

Yeah, that's better However, some kind of Bigos would be even better.