AHC: Poland - Third Rome
- Thread starter USJ
- Start date
archaeogeek
Banned
Moscow had
- An orthodox patriarchate
- A church not in communion with Rome
- Ambitions
- The size and power to afford its ambitions
(and yes I know the PLC looks huge on a map but you don't just need land to be a great power, you need people to live there
)To be quite honest the moscovite "third rome" claim was not exactly seen universally to be so.
Ottomans are more sucessful in Hungary, but Poland moves in and gets Alot of Ottoman Territory on the Periphery, Slovakia and the entirty of the Carpathians, Moldovia, Transylvania, ect....
Eventually a reconquista-esque crusade against the Ottomans leads to Poland being at the forefront setting up a string of vassal states in the Balkans. Eventually Poland controls Constantionaple and claims the 3rd Rome.
Eventually a reconquista-esque crusade against the Ottomans leads to Poland being at the forefront setting up a string of vassal states in the Balkans. Eventually Poland controls Constantionaple and claims the 3rd Rome.
Have Poland be Orthodox, for starters.
Their recognition of Rome means that they don't have the hubris to claim they are the Third Rome.
Their recognition of Rome means that they don't have the hubris to claim they are the Third Rome.
What could also happen is that the grand duchy of moscow and Poland and Lithuania could have a Personal Union with Poland being leader of it.
Maybe not but what do you think is it too ASB
Maybe not but what do you think is it too ASB
archaeogeek
Banned
If Poland claims Constantinople and is still roman catholic it will not claim to be third when it holds the real New Rome (grabbed from, if I might note, the Sultan of the Romans), and is subservient to Old Rome.
That's the hard part. Poland went Catholic partly from actual religious conversion, partly from, well, not wanting a German crusade in the 10th century (think of the Teutonic crusades against Lithuania). So, you'd need to come up with a way for Poland to be either closely tied to Constantinople from the start, or for Poland to go along with Constantinople when the Schism really gets going.
Third Romedoesn't mean the place has to be Orthodox-the first Rome wasn't Orthodox and in fact hated the second Rome. The whole numeration of Romes is kinda fallacious, given that 1. Rome (the 1st) still exists and 2. what are you numbering? Seat of the Roman Empire? The Emperor, the Senate, the Roman people? If so, even Byzantium has a pretty weak claim to the title, at least in its latter years.
Poland wouldn't be the '3rd Rome' because the King had too little power to make himself Emperor. Furthermore, much of his holdings weer still technically part of the HRE, and another Emperor was nearby. If a Hoy Roman Emperor is excommunicated by the Pope, and there's a Polish king who's particularly virtuous, then he might be elected Emperor just to annoy the HRE. If he can then beat off all comers, he can enjoy his title in peace. It would probably mean the PLC becomes more centralised around the King and the Hetmen rather than the Aparatchiks.
Poland wouldn't be the '3rd Rome' because the King had too little power to make himself Emperor. Furthermore, much of his holdings weer still technically part of the HRE, and another Emperor was nearby. If a Hoy Roman Emperor is excommunicated by the Pope, and there's a Polish king who's particularly virtuous, then he might be elected Emperor just to annoy the HRE. If he can then beat off all comers, he can enjoy his title in peace. It would probably mean the PLC becomes more centralised around the King and the Hetmen rather than the Aparatchiks.
I think the claim was mainly religious in Russian case as they were the leading orthodox country and so saw themselves as a successor state of Byzantium.
Byzantium then was the Roman Empire or at least what was left of it. The distinction between Byzantine Empire and Roman Empire is actually a quite modern creation.
Yeah, but my point was that if the distinction was religious then the 'Byzantine' Empire wasn't Roman bceause it wasn't Catholic. If it was Imperial, then it would have to answer to the HRE.
archaeogeek
Banned
I think you're missing the point entirely - Russia could get away with the pretense of claiming "third rome" status for Moscow exactly because as an orthodox country it didn't have to answer to the Pope and the HR Emperor. The only alternative "third Rome" option would have to be a strongly centralized protestant Poland (a strongly centralized Muslim Poland would face the same problem with the Ottoman Sultan as they would with the HR Emperor, namely that both are already claiming the Eastern and Western halves of Rome along with the imperial titles and no, there's no "third half of the empire" tyvm).
Last edited:
For Third Rome ideology you need imperial ambitions and probably the fall of the Second Rome. It is possible with fulfilling certain conditions, I think:
1. Surviving Great Moravia (to keep German attention)
2. Orthodox Poland
3. Continuing Piast dynasty expansionism - which needs no break-up of Piast Poland between the sons of the last ruler (or at last - not lasting one).
1. Surviving Great Moravia (to keep German attention)
2. Orthodox Poland
3. Continuing Piast dynasty expansionism - which needs no break-up of Piast Poland between the sons of the last ruler (or at last - not lasting one).
Ah, I see. Well then to set Poland up as a separate Imperial entity away from Papacy and the HRE then yes, a change in religion would be necessary. Otherwise, just have a Polish King elected HRE.
I'm afraid surviving Great Moravia would mean no independent Poland. If Moravians expelled Magyars beyond Carpathian Mountains nothing would prevent their expansion into slavic lands. Piasts would be just regional count or ducal dynasty. Their state in Wielskopolska just begun forming around 920.
No part of PLC was part of HRE. Also, I don't think "aparatchik" is the word you really wanted to use.