The Prusso-Austro-Russian Alliance of Doom for Poland gets an unlikely enemy

The inspiration of the name for this thread should be obvious.

OTL, during the war of the First Polish Partition (early 1770s), Britain's King George III sympathised with the Polish King and wanted to make war on the Austro-Russo-Prussians to try and preserve Poland's Baltic coastline - apparently because Britain imported a lot of raw materials from Poland, and if Prussia took over, Prussia's own industrialisation would have taken that for its own.

However, King George recognised that the British (and Hanoverian) armies would be of little use when facing those three great powers, and it would be a quixotic move. Therefore, he wanted a grand alliance with France, offering an attempt to curb Austrian and Prussian power. His own government was, naturally, horrified at this idea (France was still considered enemy no. 1 at this point) but George believed that the rise of Louis XVI and his own ministries could break the status quo of Anglo-French enmity.

OTL of course nothing came of it, and soon the crisis of the Boston Tea Party drew British attention away from Europe for most of a decade. But could something be done with this?

(Although I have linked to Wiki, my information for this does not come from there, but from George III's own letters).

Thande said:

The inspiration of the name for this thread should be obvious.

OTL, during the war of the First Polish Partition (early 1770s), Britain's King George III sympathised with the Polish King and wanted to make war on the Austro-Russo-Prussians to try and preserve Poland's Baltic coastline - apparently because Britain imported a lot of raw materials from Poland, and if Prussia took over, Prussia's own industrialisation would have taken that for its own.

However, King George recognised that the British (and Hanoverian) armies would be of little use when facing those three great powers, and it would be a quixotic move. Therefore, he wanted a grand alliance with France, offering an attempt to curb Austrian and Prussian power. His own government was, naturally, horrified at this idea (France was still considered enemy no. 1 at this point) but George believed that the rise of Louis XVI and his own ministries could break the status quo of Anglo-French enmity.

OTL of course nothing came of it, and soon the crisis of the Boston Tea Party drew British attention away from Europe for most of a decade. But could something be done with this?

(Although I have linked to Wiki, my information for this does not come from there, but from George III's own letters).

Click to expand...

Thande

That could have some interesting twists. The western powers would be heavily outmatched on the ground but totally dominant at sea and have considerably more finaincial resources. Would posisbly also bring in Spain as a Bourbon ally of France, although not sure how much they would actually get involved in any fighting. The other prospective allies might be the Ottomans or Sweden, although not sure of their strength at those points in time. Coupled with how much resistance the Poles were able to put up historically and how this could be boosted, both by the knowledge they have allies and those allies can supply funds and weapons it could make thing much harder for the eastern powers. There are a number of interesting complications.

a) It could speed up the American revolution as with a desperate need for funds for an expensive war Britain will be less tolerant of the colonist's desire for a free ride. On the other hand its less likely that the rebels will be getting aid from France or Spain, or possibly even the Netherlands.

b) France will therefore not spend the money in support of the revolution. The war in the east will however cost a lot so it may have the same effect. However the fact the French could be pretty successful in the conflict might have an effect if they gain territory, both in the monarchy gaining prestige and possibly extra tax income. [Thinking especially of their advances in artillery occurring at this time].

c) The big maybe in this might be Austria. I think it was the least eager to see Poland carved up and more a case of since it was going to happen anyway it needed to grab a share. A still independent Poland, with reforms and friendly to Austria might be very tempting to Austria. Also this would mean that Louis XVI didn't have to make war on his wifes family. If Austria was presuaded to play for the other team that would make the Russo-Prussian position very difficult. [Could possibly avoid a war altogether].

One point Thande. A lot of naval stores were imported from the Baltic, which was the main reason Britain had a strong interest in it. [Especially large timbers for ships masts]. However the key area for Britain in Poland would be what is now the Baltic states. This area went to Russian in the partitions rather than Prussia].

Very interesting idea. Could have some quite dramatic changes even if Poland ends up being carved up. If it stays and especially reformed then the situation in eastern Europe would be greatly changed.

Steve

That point about Austria is very true. It only participated because elseiwse Russia and Prussia would have divided Poland in two. In the words of the ever-cynical Frederick II of Prussia: "She (Maria Theresia) cried, but she took [her part]". So its very likely even Austria would have changed sides, and even more likely taht this would have avoided any war.

I think this would have made it very difficult for Russia and Prussia to carve up Poland, even if they won the war. Worst case scenario I think is that Poland loses some more territory, but survives as a nation. Best case is that Prussia is stopped in its tracks. The implications of this are huge. Possibly sets back united Germany, or at least reduces the chance of it being a Prussian-dominated one. Possibly reduces the influence of Russia in European affairs. Possibly gives Sweden a greater role in European affairs. The closer ties of Britain and France would have consequences for the American and French revolutions. Difficult to say what those might be, but perhaps both end up as limited reforms rather than wholesale changes. The knock-on effects of this would be even greater.

stevep said:

Thande

That could have some interesting twists. The western powers would be heavily outmatched on the ground but totally dominant at sea and have considerably more finaincial resources. Would posisbly also bring in Spain as a Bourbon ally of France, although not sure how much they would actually get involved in any fighting. The other prospective allies might be the Ottomans or Sweden, although not sure of their strength at those points in time. Coupled with how much resistance the Poles were able to put up historically and how this could be boosted, both by the knowledge they have allies and those allies can supply funds and weapons it could make thing much harder for the eastern powers. There are a number of interesting complications.

a) It could speed up the American revolution as with a desperate need for funds for an expensive war Britain will be less tolerant of the colonist's desire for a free ride. On the other hand its less likely that the rebels will be getting aid from France or Spain, or possibly even the Netherlands.

b) France will therefore not spend the money in support of the revolution. The war in the east will however cost a lot so it may have the same effect. However the fact the French could be pretty successful in the conflict might have an effect if they gain territory, both in the monarchy gaining prestige and possibly extra tax income. [Thinking especially of their advances in artillery occurring at this time].

c) The big maybe in this might be Austria. I think it was the least eager to see Poland carved up and more a case of since it was going to happen anyway it needed to grab a share. A still independent Poland, with reforms and friendly to Austria might be very tempting to Austria. Also this would mean that Louis XVI didn't have to make war on his wifes family. If Austria was presuaded to play for the other team that would make the Russo-Prussian position very difficult. [Could possibly avoid a war altogether].

One point Thande. A lot of naval stores were imported from the Baltic, which was the main reason Britain had a strong interest in it. [Especially large timbers for ships masts]. However the key area for Britain in Poland would be what is now the Baltic states. This area went to Russian in the partitions rather than Prussia].

Very interesting idea. Could have some quite dramatic changes even if Poland ends up being carved up. If it stays and especially reformed then the situation in eastern Europe would be greatly changed.

Steve

Click to expand...

Good analysis - yeah, you're probably right, I can't remember if the King said Russia or Prussia in his letter.

So if we have some kind of Anglo-French rapproachment due to this - whether there's actually a war or not - what does this do for the ARW with no French support to the rebels?

I don't think the Dutch would leap in on their own. That leaves Spain. Could we perhaps combine this with a WI about the Nootka Sound/Falklands conflicts going hot?

Thande said:

So if we have some kind of Anglo-French rapproachment due to this - whether there's actually a war or not - what does this do for the ARW with no French support to the rebels?

I don't think the Dutch would leap in on their own. That leaves Spain. Could we perhaps combine this with a WI about the Nootka Sound/Falklands conflicts going hot?

Click to expand...

Thande

Difficult question. Not sure if the Spanish would risk mixing it with Britain without French support. It got badly hammered in a relatively short period in the 7 years war and also doesn't really have the economic base for either a long war with Britain or to supply much support for the rebels. Also, if this is occurring at the same time as a war in the east over Poland they are fighting with the allies of France! The latter may avoid getting entangled in a colonial war but it would be a risk for the Spanish going against Britain under those circumstances.

The problem for Britain at the time was not only that it was seeming too powerful and bringing the balance of power into play but also there seems to have been a decline in British diplomatic skills at this period. A bit too much arrogance and overconfidence that made unnecessary enemies. As such you might see surreptitious help for the rebels from both Spanish and Dutch elements.

A lot would depend on how much the eastern war affects Britain. As I said it could speed the rebellion by making London less willing to give way to the colonists. At the same time the fact that Britain is at war at the time, albeit one with no threat to the colonists might make a few waverers more willing to compromise on some deal for maintaining British garrisons.

A long war in Poland would drain away troops, money and determination from the American rebellion. Alternatively, if relatively short but giving some recent combat experience for troops involved it might boost their performance in defeating the rebels. Another option is, with an important war in the east, the government may be less tolerant of rebellion and take a harsher line. This could work either way, crushing open unrest and cowering some waverers or, if too many innocents were caught up in it alienating many.

Steve

The ARW never took that large a share of HM Forces, the British had more troops attacking and occupying French and Spanish islands than committed to British North America (BNA).

See: http://www.geocities.com/littlegreenmen.geo/1781.htm

With a naval war with France avoided, over 20,000 troops are spared for America or Europe. This would be considered the infantry component of two "armies" in the parlance of the time. The logistics of the age, the lack of men for farming (the rise in manpower 30 years is fuelled by an explosive increase in potato agriculture).

Is it possible that with a big war in the East, Britain would be willing to actually comprimise with the colonies, and give in on some issues to keep the colonies quiet. Like give them westward expansion (so reduce Canada to Quebecish area) and let the colonies fight (not physically) over their respective claims. Keeps the colonies disunited and busy.

Just throwing it out there.

stevep said:

Thande

That could have some interesting twists. The western powers would be heavily outmatched on the ground but totally dominant at sea and have considerably more finaincial resources. Would posisbly also bring in Spain as a Bourbon ally of France, although not sure how much they would actually get involved in any fighting. The other prospective allies might be the Ottomans or Sweden, although not sure of their strength at those points in time. Coupled with how much resistance the Poles were able to put up historically and how this could be boosted, both by the knowledge they have allies and those allies can supply funds and weapons it could make thing much harder for the eastern powers. There are a number of interesting complications.

a) It could speed up the American revolution as with a desperate need for funds for an expensive war Britain will be less tolerant of the colonist's desire for a free ride. On the other hand its less likely that the rebels will be getting aid from France or Spain, or possibly even the Netherlands.

Click to expand...

I think that without foreign (that is French) aid, the American Revolution isn't going to be able to win in a struggle against the British. Also, the Americans generally considered themselves British subjects, and if the British are at war, then they may be more willing to pay for taxes that support the Empire, rather than go to funding the East Indian Company.

b) France will therefore not spend the money in support of the revolution. The war in the east will however cost a lot so it may have the same effect. However the fact the French could be pretty successful in the conflict might have an effect if they gain territory, both in the monarchy gaining prestige and possibly extra tax income. [Thinking especially of their advances in artillery occurring at this time].

Click to expand...

France was heading for a crisis and Louis XVI didn't have the political will to put down the domestic pressures, and wasn't enough of a liberal to bend to the more moderate positions.

I would ask what business the French have in this war. If the Prussians and British go to war, then the French have an opportunity to focus its resources against the British with the knowledge that their continental flank is secure.

c) The big maybe in this might be Austria. I think it was the least eager to see Poland carved up and more a case of since it was going to happen anyway it needed to grab a share. A still independent Poland, with reforms and friendly to Austria might be very tempting to Austria. Also this would mean that Louis XVI didn't have to make war on his wifes family. If Austria was presuaded to play for the other team that would make the Russo-Prussian position very difficult. [Could possibly avoid a war altogether].

Click to expand...

Austria was never for the deal, and only went along to keep from being totally boxed out of Poland by Prussia and Russia.

If you have a situation where the British express a willingness to back Polish independence, then there is the possibility that they would be able to brig the Austrians on board. Catherine the Great isn't, I don't believe, all that motivated to take over Poland. It was more a passing idea, backed by the Prussians, that just kind of got going and then started a feedback loop that ended up getting rid of Poland.

This feedback loop was reinforced by the "Diplomatic Revolution" that put France and Austria in an alliance, and thus made the British and Prussians allies. The Prussians wanted the partition, the British didn't much care, and the Austrians couldn't do all that much about it.

Now what you could do is put a situation where the Austrians and French decide that with war they could both get something out of it, Prussian holdings on the Rhine for the French, Silesia for the Austrians, and the suddenly important independence for the Polish for the British. The third leg of that stool falls down, I believe, but thats the POD so whatevs.

So that weak stool goes to war. Russia would enter on Prussia's side, and crush into Austria, Prussia would be defending itself from a German-land hungry France, and probably be able to champion the German princes against both the Hapsburg and French, and the British don't have a land force to speak of, and the Prussian and Russian economies don't relay on the sea that much.

So no win for anyone.

One point Thande. A lot of naval stores were imported from the Baltic, which was the main reason Britain had a strong interest in it. [Especially large timbers for ships masts]. However the key area for Britain in Poland would be what is now the Baltic states. This area went to Russian in the partitions rather than Prussia].

Very interesting idea. Could have some quite dramatic changes even if Poland ends up being carved up. If it stays and especially reformed then the situation in eastern Europe would be greatly changed.

Steve[/quote]

stevep said:

Thande

That could have some interesting twists. The western powers would be heavily outmatched on the ground but totally dominant at sea and have considerably more finaincial resources. Would posisbly also bring in Spain as a Bourbon ally of France, although not sure how much they would actually get involved in any fighting. The other prospective allies might be the Ottomans or Sweden, although not sure of their strength at those points in time. Coupled with how much resistance the Poles were able to put up historically and how this could be boosted, both by the knowledge they have allies and those allies can supply funds and weapons it could make thing much harder for the eastern powers. There are a number of interesting complications.

a) It could speed up the American revolution as with a desperate need for funds for an expensive war Britain will be less tolerant of the colonist's desire for a free ride. On the other hand its less likely that the rebels will be getting aid from France or Spain, or possibly even the Netherlands.

Click to expand...

I think that without foreign (that is French) aid, the American Revolution isn't going to be able to win in a struggle against the British. Also, the Americans generally considered themselves British subjects, and if the British are at war, then they may be more willing to pay for taxes that support the Empire, rather than go to funding the East Indian Company.

b) France will therefore not spend the money in support of the revolution. The war in the east will however cost a lot so it may have the same effect. However the fact the French could be pretty successful in the conflict might have an effect if they gain territory, both in the monarchy gaining prestige and possibly extra tax income. [Thinking especially of their advances in artillery occurring at this time].

Click to expand...

France was heading for a crisis and Louis XVI didn't have the political will to put down the domestic pressures, and wasn't enough of a liberal to bend to the more moderate positions.

I would ask what business the French have in this war. If the Prussians and British go to war, then the French have an opportunity to focus its resources against the British with the knowledge that their continental flank is secure.

c) The big maybe in this might be Austria. I think it was the least eager to see Poland carved up and more a case of since it was going to happen anyway it needed to grab a share. A still independent Poland, with reforms and friendly to Austria might be very tempting to Austria. Also this would mean that Louis XVI didn't have to make war on his wifes family. If Austria was presuaded to play for the other team that would make the Russo-Prussian position very difficult. [Could possibly avoid a war altogether].

Click to expand...

Austria was never for the deal, and only went along to keep from being totally boxed out of Poland by Prussia and Russia.

If you have a situation where the British express a willingness to back Polish independence, then there is the possibility that they would be able to brig the Austrians on board. Catherine the Great isn't, I don't believe, all that motivated to take over Poland. It was more a passing idea, backed by the Prussians, that just kind of got going and then started a feedback loop that ended up getting rid of Poland.

This feedback loop was reinforced by the "Diplomatic Revolution" that put France and Austria in an alliance, and thus made the British and Prussians allies. The Prussians wanted the partition, the British didn't much care, and the Austrians couldn't do all that much about it.

Now what you could do is put a situation where the Austrians and French decide that with war they could both get something out of it, Prussian holdings on the Rhine for the French, Silesia for the Austrians, and the suddenly important independence for the Polish for the British. The third leg of that stool falls down, I believe, but thats the POD so whatevs.

So that weak stool goes to war. Russia would enter on Prussia's side, and crush into Austria, Prussia would be defending itself from a German-land hungry France, and probably be able to champion the German princes against both the Hapsburg and French, and the British don't have a land force to speak of, and the Prussian and Russian economies don't relay on the sea that much.

So no win for anyone.

One point Thande. A lot of naval stores were imported from the Baltic, which was the main reason Britain had a strong interest in it. [Especially large timbers for ships masts]. However the key area for Britain in Poland would be what is now the Baltic states. This area went to Russian in the partitions rather than Prussia].

Click to expand...

Oh, so the British have gone to war with the only powers capable of supplying their naval needs. What a wonderful idea. Why didn't they think of that early, lets go to war with the people who provide us with the raw material of our global dominance, why John Bull, that sounds so smart I'll do it!

Very interesting idea. Could have some quite dramatic changes even if Poland ends up being carved up. If it stays and especially reformed then the situation in eastern Europe would be greatly changed.

Click to expand...

Really? Cause little Poland will be able to do what against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians? Nothing, that is the answer. Even if Poland isn't cut up, it won't be able to do anything. Russia will remain the prohibitive influence in Polish politics (as it has basically been since Peter the Great) and the Poles will stay weak, divided Russian puppets. The fun part would be if Poland has a King during the *French Revolutionary (and hopefully Napoleonic) Wars and is able to play the game well enough during them that he comes out of it with a hereditary monarchy and maybe some territorial gains (at Prussia's expense perhaps- Prussia gives up portions of Polish land in exchange for more German land- Poland's king supports Prussia's bid for German land with the quid pro quo that Prussia will hand over land to the Poles)

If Britain did get involved in a European war over Poland in the early 1770s, it might prevent or at least postpone an attempt by the American colonies to gain independence. There could be a feeling that disagreements with London should be put aside as long as Britain was actually at war with foreign powers.

Paul Spring said:

If Britain did get involved in a European war over Poland in the early 1770s, it might prevent or at least postpone an attempt by the American colonies to gain independence. There could be a feeling that disagreements with London should be put aside as long as Britain was actually at war with foreign powers.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly the case, it would stir up patriotism there. Although the Americans would probably dislike a French alliance, as Britain might adopt an even more Quebec-friendly policy to appease the French, which would then piss off the New Englanders even worse than OTL.

Britain won't necessarily 'win' a later alt-ARW with no foreign aid for the Americans, but it will likely remain an internal affair. OTL a great number of prominent British generals and admirals refused to fight in the ARW until France, Spain and the Netherlands joined in and the Americans could be painted as traitors. Until then, plenty of Britons believed the Americans had been hard done by in the 1760s and the conflict was mainly the fault of policy under Grenville and North. If the colonies still manage to win and become independent, there won't be as much rancour over it, and there might be some sort of reunion on more equal terms by the 1810s. (One thing the Americans considered even in OTL, with more republican ideology at the fore, was inviting George III's second son the Duke of York over to be King of the United States - I could see that happening in such a TL).

Matthais Corvinus said:

Oh, so the British have gone to war with the only powers capable of supplying their naval needs. What a wonderful idea. Why didn't they think of that early, lets go to war with the people who provide us with the raw material of our global dominance, why John Bull, that sounds so smart I'll do it!

Click to expand...

No actually. For one thing the British want to stop those lands falling into Russian hands, in part because Russia already had Finland. The vital stores were available from a sizeable region, including Norway, Sweden, the Baltic states etc. There was a lot of activity during the period, for several centuries with the key naval powers making efforts to prevent any single power gaining a monopoly over the region.

Really? Cause little Poland will be able to do what against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians? Nothing, that is the answer. Even if Poland isn't cut up, it won't be able to do anything. Russia will remain the prohibitive influence in Polish politics (as it has basically been since Peter the Great) and the Poles will stay weak, divided Russian puppets. The fun part would be if Poland has a King during the *French Revolutionary (and hopefully Napoleonic) Wars and is able to play the game well enough during them that he comes out of it with a hereditary monarchy and maybe some territorial gains (at Prussia's expense perhaps- Prussia gives up portions of Polish land in exchange for more German land- Poland's king supports Prussia's bid for German land with the quid pro quo that Prussia will hand over land to the Poles)

Click to expand...

Poland was far from little at the time. It had suffered a major decline but it had been less than two centuries since Poland had, albeit briefly, placed a puppet on the throne in Moscow and less than a century since it had played a sizeable part in defeating the last major Turkish onslaught on Vienna. There had been a lot of decline but this was prompting pressure for reform and a lot could have occurred in this time period. One of the main reasons Russia was so interested in the partitions was to prevent Poland reforming.

I'm not saying it would be a superpower but a reformed Poland could have been a major player again and would have greatly reduced Russia's power especially.

Steve

stevep said:

No actually. For one thing the British want to stop those lands falling into Russian hands, in part because Russia already had Finland. The vital stores were available from a sizeable region, including Norway, Sweden, the Baltic states etc. There was a lot of activity during the period, for several centuries with the key naval powers making efforts to prevent any single power gaining a monopoly over the region.

Click to expand...

Wasn't this actually one of the big attractions of the North American colonies, that could supply a "native" supply of naval stores to the British Navy?

Poland was far from little at the time. It had suffered a major decline but it had been less than two centuries since Poland had, albeit briefly, placed a puppet on the throne in Moscow and less than a century since it had played a sizeable part in defeating the last major Turkish onslaught on Vienna. There had been a lot of decline but this was prompting pressure for reform and a lot could have occurred in this time period. One of the main reasons Russia was so interested in the partitions was to prevent Poland reforming.

Click to expand...

Right, but what role would Poland play among the 'sias? I could see it as an Austrian ally against the Russians, and with the growing trend towards a role within Germany for Prussia that would probably keep it quite on that end. Actually you could even see Poland make a play for Ottoman land, being used as an anti-Russian proxy by the British. What was Poland's population looking like at that time as far as religious/ethnic make-up? I would think that with a nationalist constitution, then they would be pushing "Polish-ness" with language and what-not on those non-Poles in country.

I'm not saying it would be a superpower but a reformed Poland could have been a major player again and would have greatly reduced Russia's power especially.

Steve

Click to expand...

I can see where your coming from. There wasn't a whole heck of a lot of "hard" support for Poland, but there are perfectly logically arguments to made for Poland's (potential) strategic importance.

Matthais Corvinus said:

Wasn't this actually one of the big attractions of the North American colonies, that could supply a "native" supply of naval stores to the British Navy?

Click to expand...

There was a lot of talk of that and some talk of a more southern border keeping what became Maine in British controlled Canada after 1783. Remember reading that someone argued in Parliament that the wood there was actually pretty poor quality so the more northern border was accepted. [However this may well be political arguments to avoid prolonging the war as I think the New England shipyards made a lot of use of the region].

Right, but what role would Poland play among the 'sias? I could see it as an Austrian ally against the Russians, and with the growing trend towards a role within Germany for Prussia that would probably keep it quite on that end. Actually you could even see Poland make a play for Ottoman land, being used as an anti-Russian proxy by the British. What was Poland's population looking like at that time as far as religious/ethnic make-up? I would think that with a nationalist constitution, then they would be pushing "Polish-ness" with language and what-not on those non-Poles in country.

Click to expand...

The big problem a large Poland had was that it was politically and religiously divided. This had initially been rather a strength as the kingdom showed a lot of tolerance of various groups, one of the reasons Jews were found there in such large numbers. Also I think the early Protestants found the Polish state far more tolerant than many of the other Catholic states. However later tolerance decreased. This was not only significant with the Protestants and Jews but the far more significant Orthodox settlements in the east. If you have a state that strongly emphasises a distinct Polish identity, based around language and Catholicism then it will face continual dissatisfaction amongst its considerable minorities. The Russians especially were able to make great play of Polish Catholic exploitation of their Orthodox subjects to prompt unrest. If its able to establish a more broadly based society which gives recognition to and hence wins the support of the bulk of all the communities it can get a lot stronger and more successful. While thinly populated compared to western Europe its still more concentrated than Russian especially and has a lot of potential resources. Also the fact that its surrounded by autocratic states could well generate a strong sense of 'national' identity if done correctly.

This would be difficult, to avoid falling into the trap of a narrower more sectarian nationalism. Too long since I have read up on the various attempts at reform that occurred, especially after the 1st partition. As such don't know how broadly based the ideas were or not. Or if they could have ended up differently. Even a markedly smaller Poland, based on a narrower national identity, could have been a significant factor if given the chance to reform its establishments.

I can see where your coming from. There wasn't a whole heck of a lot of "hard" support for Poland, but there are perfectly logically arguments to made for Poland's (potential) strategic importance.

Click to expand...

I think there was a degree of romantic support for the Polish state, possibly especially since as an aristocratic republic it might have been more liberal than its neighbours. I very much doubt this will be a big factor but might have some influence. More likely to be important would be the political interests of the various powers. As said by other posters Austria was rather reluctant to take part but felt it was the best option under the circumstances. If there was the option of stopping Prussia especially from gaining territory and support from the west I think a war might well have been a possibility.

Steve

Ah the May 3rd of 1791 constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_3_Constitution).
Always been a favourite of mine.
Did so many things, but survived only a year, as it was removed in the War of the Defence of the Constitution.
The May 3rd constitution did:

-remove Liberum veto

-put the peasants under government protection(keeping Serfdom minimised)

-called for a standing army (100 000)

-made public offices and officer ranks open to all free men (towns people and nobles)

-national Education (including elementary schools and scholarships for the poor)This was the first in the world, though it may not have been part of the constitution, it was implemented for a time

-gave the king more power, but also put the Sejm on a better footing

-political equality (ie. voting rights) to townspeople and Schlazta (which was about 10%, which according to Wikipedia, is about the same in the States at the time)

-bicameral Sejm(which was to be extensively reformed), King and council are excecutive

-independant judiciary (a police force was founded to root out corruption)

-recognized both Lithuanians and Polish as equal members of the state

-guarranted all religions and tolerance, though recognized Catholocism as the major one

-Instituted income tax (10% on nobles, 20% on church)

-made the crown an elective hereditary monarchy, which would pass to the house of Wettin of Saxony on the death of Stanislaw August

The Kings council would be made of five ministers, one for: police, internal affairs, foreign affairs, war, and treasury. The ministers were appointed by the King, but held responsible by the Sejm. All acts by the king had to be signed by the minister responsible for whatever it was about. On top of the five ministers and the king, there was the Roman Catholic Primate (bishops were apart of the upper house) who was also president of the ministry of Education. Finally the crown prince and the marshall of the Sejm would also be present, but they would have no voice. Two secretaries would also be present. Since the ministers had to cosign the Kings acts, they, not the king, were held responsible.

Obviously, since it was made in 1791, it happened after the first partition, but the momentum was there, it just needed the proper kick (first partion), and a strong ally (which it didn't so that's why it failed). It was inspired by America and Britain, but also heavily by French philosiphers (Montesquieu separation of powers).

It was the second modern codified national constitution (America came first) and was quite progressive. It was to be followed by an Economic constitution and a moral constitution (bill of rights) but Russia and Prussia put a stop to that.

These were the kind of Reforms that were sleeping under the surface, that could have transformed Poland into a modern and efficient state.Hopefully, even without the first partition, something similiar like this could come to the surface.

If you want us to believe those claims, dreadnought, link to a source other than Wikipedia

Can't back it up with another site, but if you ever find God's Playground, by Norman Davies(who also wrote Europe) its in there. I had to go through alot of trouble to find the books, since its not common in Canada, or at least, in my part. You might find it easier. Its discussed in the first volume, not the second.

He lists the constitution as one of the main causes for the second partition, dealing with the fact that it was too liberal, and the french revolution was happening, making the autocrats surrounding Poland decide to quash it.

Whats so unbelievable about what I said above? Why so much doubt?

dreadnought jenkins said:

Whats so unbelievable about what I said above? Why so much doubt?

Click to expand...

There's a running joke hereabouts that Wiki isn't at all reliable. Of course, it's truer to say that Wiki isn't always reliable. But that'd be true, and so not a joke.

dreadnought jenkins said:

Whats so unbelievable about what I said above? Why so much doubt?

Click to expand...

There is a general belief, not entirely jokey, that Wikipedia is run by a Polish mafia (or at least, has a lot of activist Polish nationalist types on board) who try and present the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as some sort of modern pluralistic democracy vs the evil Russians and Germans. Therefore I am disinclined to trust any Wiki article about how great Poland's 1791 constitution (which they conveniently never had a chance to enact) is.