Polish-Lithuanian War of Unification

This is both a WI and a proposal for anyone who wants to spice up their 16th century TL with events in Eastern Europe.

It might not be all that well known, but the Union of Lublin, more commonly known as the event during which Poland and Lithuania were "united" into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was not only a very close call and only achieved after years of intense negotiations, but also was on a knife's edge away from turning into a full-scale war between the Poles and the Lithuanians, even though the latter was also involved in the Livonian War at the time.

This was because, in classic Polish-Lithuanian relationship action, both the Poles and the Lithuanians stubbornly refused to compromise for years - the Polish delegation wanted for nothing less than a full annexation of Lithuania, while the Lithuanians refused anything that wasn't just the status quo with the Poles helping Lithuania in the war. The negotiations had grown so tense that both sides started to prepare for an outright war and the Lithuanian delegation, led by Mikalojus Radvila, left negotiations entirely. In response, Sigismund Augustus simply cut off half of Lithuanian territory and gave it to Poland, which, depending on whether you listen to Polish or Lithuanian historians, was either a peaceful integration of territory or an occupation during which the estates of anyone resisting the Poles were seized. Though it's generally agreed that taking away half of the territory of the state you are trying to coerce into a union is generally considered to be bad negotiation manners, it managed to work out for the Poles - the Lithuanians sent a delegation led by Jonas Chodkevičius, a man more amiable to compromise who almost singlehandedly managed to salvage the relations between the two countries and lead to the confederation we know today.

So obviously, you can already see a number of ways this could go horribly wrong.

The Polish nobility, knowing that Lithuania is deep in an unwinnable war, resolve that just taking half of Lithuania isn't enough and push Sigismund Augustus to allow them to annex Lithuania completely, leading to a war;
The Lithuanians overreact to the news of Polish occupation of the Ukraine and break all ties with the "traitor Sigismund", again, leading to a war;
Or Jonas Chodkevičius is simply not present to salvage the situation. He was a military commander during the Livonian War and a member of Charles V's entourage in his wars earlier, and in either of those situations, he could have died in battle or gotten into an accident before the Lublin Sejm (he actually died during the Livonian War in OTL, albeit later, so there is precedent for his death in war). No Chodkevičius in Lublin - it's likely that the radical pro-independence faction led by the Radziwill family remains in control of the negotiations and likely drags Lithuania to ruin in the form of a two-front war.

So what would happen then?

Well, Lithuania will be no more. The Livonian War already cost Lithuania all of is resources and yet they were still constantly on the defensive. With a fresh, unbattered Poland intervening with plans to annex all of Lithuania, it would get partitioned between Poland and Russia without question.

And second thing is no Commonwealth. Yeah. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as we know it was a compromise between the Poles and the Lithuanians - Polish nobility had plans to directly integrate Lithuania into Poland and, if one were to believe the most radical of the Polish delegates in Lublin, rename it to "New Poland" and begin colonizing it. Well, "colonize" it - more start exploiting the vast territory of Lithuania for their agricultural magnate purposes.

Whether this Poland would be more or less stable than its federated counterpart is the big question. On one hand, Lithuanian particularism was a very heavy setback for the Commonwealth and, in my opinion, was one of the main reasons for the following slow collapse of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the territory now integrated into a unitary kingdom of Poland would be very hostile and would take a very long time to successfully integrate.

So what do you think?
 
Russian-wank. Poles would not be able to conquer Livonia, Russia would keep Baltic Coast and better access to Western trade and no way Poles would get to Moscow even during Time of Troubles . OTOH Poland ITTL would not become dominated by magnates to the same degree as IOTL (most powerful magnate families of PLC were of Lithuanian ancestry) and... without Livonia in Polish hands there is stronger Swedish-Russian animosity, weaker Swedish-Polish animosity.
 
There would at least be 50 years of constant Lithuanian revolts and rebellion, they would be a thorn in Poland’s side for a long time. Eventually this will probably phase out and they will accept Polish rule, almost as Scotland did after the failure of the 1745 Jacobite rebellion. They would most likely also be greatly oppressed by the Poles for a long time afterward as the Higlanders were. At least that’s what I think would happen. However, then again, I’m not wholly knowledgeable on 16th century Poland and Lithuania.
 
This could well lead to an early rise of Russia which when paired with a rebellious Lithuania could spell alot of trouble for Poland.
 
This is both a WI and a proposal for anyone who wants to spice up their 16th century TL with events in Eastern Europe.

It might not be all that well known, but the Union of Lublin, more commonly known as the event during which Poland and Lithuania were "united" into the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, was not only a very close call and only achieved after years of intense negotiations, but also was on a knife's edge away from turning into a full-scale war between the Poles and the Lithuanians, even though the latter was also involved in the Livonian War at the time.

This was because, in classic Polish-Lithuanian relationship action, both the Poles and the Lithuanians stubbornly refused to compromise for years - the Polish delegation wanted for nothing less than a full annexation of Lithuania, while the Lithuanians refused anything that wasn't just the status quo with the Poles helping Lithuania in the war. The negotiations had grown so tense that both sides started to prepare for an outright war and the Lithuanian delegation, led by Mikalojus Radvila, left negotiations entirely. In response, Sigismund Augustus simply cut off half of Lithuanian territory and gave it to Poland, which, depending on whether you listen to Polish or Lithuanian historians, was either a peaceful integration of territory or an occupation during which the estates of anyone resisting the Poles were seized. Though it's generally agreed that taking away half of the territory of the state you are trying to coerce into a union is generally considered to be bad negotiation manners, it managed to work out for the Poles - the Lithuanians sent a delegation led by Jonas Chodkevičius, a man more amiable to compromise who almost singlehandedly managed to salvage the relations between the two countries and lead to the confederation we know today.

So obviously, you can already see a number of ways this could go horribly wrong.

The Polish nobility, knowing that Lithuania is deep in an unwinnable war, resolve that just taking half of Lithuania isn't enough and push Sigismund Augustus to allow them to annex Lithuania completely, leading to a war;
The Lithuanians overreact to the news of Polish occupation of the Ukraine and break all ties with the "traitor Sigismund", again, leading to a war;

Of course, if they could see the future, there would be a sight of relief and sincere gratitude to Sigismund who saved them from all the related troubles. ;)

I read in one of the modern histories that this transfer had been greeted in the transferred areas because the local Orthodox nobility got all privileges of the Polish Szlachta while within the GD they were not equal to the Catholics. Is this correct?

Or Jonas Chodkevičius is simply not present to salvage the situation. He was a military commander during the Livonian War and a member of Charles V's entourage in his wars earlier, and in either of those situations, he could have died in battle or gotten into an accident before the Lublin Sejm (he actually died during the Livonian War in OTL, albeit later, so there is precedent for his death in war). No Chodkevičius in Lublin - it's likely that the radical pro-independence faction led by the Radziwill family remains in control of the negotiations and likely drags Lithuania to ruin in the form of a two-front war.

So what would happen then?

Well, Lithuania will be no more. The Livonian War already cost Lithuania all of is resources and yet they were still constantly on the defensive. With a fresh, unbattered Poland intervening with plans to annex all of Lithuania, it would get partitioned between Poland and Russia without question.

Logically, yes. But don't forget that Tsardom of Moscow (no "Russia", yet) is ruled by Ivan IV and predicting his moves based on logic is a dangerous thing: you are talking about a bloody (literally) maniac. So, it is quite possible that "partition" speedily evolved into a war with the results not quite predictable. Most probably, Ivan would be defeated but what this is going to mean in the terms of a final settlement?

As a byproduct, if the Swedes will interfere into the ongoing mess, there could be a much earlier Swedish Livonia. Or, if they keep away, most of Livonia ends in the Polish hands with the wars for it possession to be fought in not so remote future. The difference could be in the fact that defense of Livonia is not considered to be a strictly Lithuanian business but, OTOH, would this make Polish (as in "Kingdom of Poland") nobility more enthusiastic? Their estates and immediate interests are not directly impacted at least until Swedes are getting close to Danzig.

And second thing is no Commonwealth. Yeah. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as we know it was a compromise between the Poles and the Lithuanians - Polish nobility had plans to directly integrate Lithuania into Poland and, if one were to believe the most radical of the Polish delegates in Lublin, rename it to "New Poland" and begin colonizing it. Well, "colonize" it - more start exploiting the vast territory of Lithuania for their agricultural magnate purposes.

But is there too much land to colonize if Ukraine is excluded? After all, they would not just exterminate all the local magnates and amount of the free agricultural land in Lithuania proper is limited. Basically you are talking mostly about colonization of the Ukrainian lands along the lines close to those of the OTL.

Whether this Poland would be more or less stable than its federated counterpart is the big question. On one hand, Lithuanian particularism was a very heavy setback for the Commonwealth and, in my opinion, was one of the main reasons for the following slow collapse of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the territory now integrated into a unitary kingdom of Poland would be very hostile and would take a very long time to successfully integrate.

And Polish own attachment to the "liberties" can't be discounted either.
 
Russian-wank. Poles would not be able to conquer Livonia, Russia would keep Baltic Coast and better access to Western trade and no way Poles would get to Moscow even during Time of Troubles . OTOH Poland ITTL would not become dominated by magnates to the same degree as IOTL (most powerful magnate families of PLC were of Lithuanian ancestry) and... without Livonia in Polish hands there is stronger Swedish-Russian animosity, weaker Swedish-Polish animosity.
It's certainly going to be stacked in favor of Russia in this scenario here, but I personally would still think that a TTL version of the Time of Troubles, if they still happen, would allow the Poles to get a moment of respite.

Would it be possible for the Polish strategy in the Time of Troubles to change under these differently stacked odds, maybe less focus on trying to put a Pole on the throne and more focus on taking Livonia and other territory?

I read in one of the modern histories that this transfer had been greeted in the transferred areas because the local Orthodox nobility got all privileges of the Polish Szlachta while within the GD they were not equal to the Catholics. Is this correct?
It's certainly true that the minor Orthodox nobility in Ukraine welcomed Polish rule, but in my opinion, it has less to do with religious discrimination and more to go with the fact that Polish nobility simply had more freedoms than Lithuanian nobility. Lithuania was effectively an oligarchy ruled by a select group of magnate families like the Radziwill and Chodkiewicz, who stiffled competition from minor nobles and controlled the country's government. Many minor nobles in ethnic Lithuania hailed the Union, too, for this reason.
 
For obvious reasons, idea, that owner of one village could be equall in law to descendants of Gediminas was more appealing to lesser nobles than for big magnates, thus bigger support for union among lesser nobility. Nobility of Podlasie, which was settled by lesser nobles from Masovia, wanted to join Kingdom of Poland even before Union.
 
Last edited:
It's certainly going to be stacked in favor of Russia in this scenario here, but I personally would still think that a TTL version of the Time of Troubles, if they still happen, would allow the Poles to get a moment of respite.

I'm not sure that it would be "stacked in favor of Russia" (Tsardom of Moscow, there was no "Russia" !!!!!!!!!! :)). As was demonstrated quite soon, Russian military system under Ivan IV was noticeably lagging behind the western counterparts.

The only wild card in that equation is Sweden with its potential involvement into partition of Livonia. Swedish army at that time is not, yet strong enough to kick PLC out so they may end up with a Northern part of the territory.

It's certainly true that the minor Orthodox nobility in Ukraine welcomed Polish rule, but in my opinion, it has less to do with religious discrimination and more to go with the fact that Polish nobility simply had more freedoms than Lithuanian nobility. Lithuania was effectively an oligarchy ruled by a select group of magnate families like the Radziwill and Chodkiewicz, who stiffled competition from minor nobles and controlled the country's government. Many minor nobles in ethnic Lithuania hailed the Union, too, for this reason.

Thanks, this makes sense.
 
Destroying the Lithuanian aristocracy might actually be a way to finally create a stronger monarchy in Poland. As the Protestant monarchs made themselves and their supporters wealthy with Church lands, so the domains of Radziwill might enhance Sigismund’s position.

Unlike Henry VIII, though, Zygmunt is old and childless—he might even die part-way through any attempt to conquer Lithuania. That could put Poland into a disastrous interregnum in the midst of the war.

If Poland is formally allied to Moscow against Lithuania, well, Ivan IV was a candidate for the throne in 1573. Maybe we’d instead see a Polish-Muscovite Commonwealth—a Rurikid domain from the Urals to Silesia, the Lithuanians crushed under the weight of both.
 
Destroying the Lithuanian aristocracy might actually be a way to finally create a stronger monarchy in Poland. As the Protestant monarchs made themselves and their supporters wealthy with Church lands, so the domains of Radziwill might enhance Sigismund’s position.

Unlike Henry VIII, though, Zygmunt is old and childless—he might even die part-way through any attempt to conquer Lithuania. That could put Poland into a disastrous interregnum in the midst of the war.

If Poland is formally allied to Moscow against Lithuania, well, Ivan IV was a candidate for the throne in 1573. Maybe we’d instead see a Polish-Muscovite Commonwealth—a Rurikid domain from the Urals to Silesia, the Lithuanians crushed under the weight of both.
Sigismund Augustus would not formally ally with Moscow against his own Duchy, and Ivan IV was already known as bloody tyrant at this point, no one sane would want him as King of Poland.
 
I think, another king may be elected in 1573, if the war with Lithuania started.
And candidates were:
Henry III of France (elected in OTL, but probably not so interesting candidate during the war with Lithuania and Moscow);
Ernest of Austria (can the emperor, his father, help against Lithuania and Moscow?);
John III of Sweden, his son was elected as a king in 1587. In OTL, John III took part in Livonian war; in TTL he can support Poland against Lithuania and Moscow;
Ivan IV - his is orthodox and cannot be elected without changing his religion.
 
Sigismund Augustus would not formally ally with Moscow against his own Duchy, and Ivan IV was already known as bloody tyrant at this point, no one sane would want him as King of Poland.

Somewhat surprisingly, or perhaps not too surprisingly, at some earlier point he got some traction with his candidacy in Lithuania (IIRC, prior to the Livonian War). But, IIRC, this was mostly among the schliahta for whom his reputation of a tyrant against the aristocrats was perhaps an argument rather "pro" than "contra". Look at Tsardom: when many of the old aristocratic families (mostly descendants of the independent princes with the big hereditary estates) had been relocated to the newly conquered territories on Volga, their lands went to the lower nobility. Ditto for the ill-famous "oprichnina": most of its members had been the same low level nobles who benefited from the land distributions, high salaries, etc. Perhaps quite a few members of Lithuanian schliahta would not mind to get a piece of, say, Radziwill's land. :cool:

Of course, his record in Livonia was rather scary even by the contemporary standards but not completely outside of these standards (it seems that even in the PLC of the XVIII an impaling was something like "the 1st serious warning" ;)).

Of course, combination of his religion and autocratic habits had been very strong arguments against him.
 
I think, another king may be elected in 1573, if the war with Lithuania started.
And candidates were:
Henry III of France (elected in OTL, but probably not so interesting candidate during the war with Lithuania and Moscow);

Not too interesting at all, keeping in mind that he was looking for a much more attractive vacancy. Of course, in OTL this vacancy proved to be not too attractive and Henry was clearly incapable of handling the affair of France but this is rather irrelevant.

Ernest of Austria (can the emperor, his father, help against Lithuania and Moscow?);
John III of Sweden, his son was elected as a king in 1587. In OTL, John III took part in Livonian war; in TTL he can support Poland against Lithuania and Moscow;

But Polish annexation of Lithuania means that Poland is trying to get at least a part of Livonia. Which means that the Swedish and Polish interests are at odds. I don't quite understand how exactly Lithuania and Moscow ended up in the same camp: Ivan IV was making his conquests at Lithuanian expense (and initially was at war exclusively with Lithuania) so, if Lithuania and Poland are at war, Poland is his natural ally. Sweden wanted at least a Northern part of Livonia (Estonia) but would not mind getting more so it would be at war with Moscow and the rest depends on how fast Poland and Moscow are managing to crush Lithuania and what are their arrangements regarding Livonia. It looks like the stillborn (in OTL) Kingdom of Livonia may end up as a compromise which suits everybody.
 
Somewhat surprisingly, or perhaps not too surprisingly, at some earlier point he got some traction with his candidacy in Lithuania (IIRC, prior to the Livonian War). But, IIRC, this was mostly among the schliahta for whom his reputation of a tyrant against the aristocrats was perhaps an argument rather "pro" than "contra". Look at Tsardom: when many of the old aristocratic families (mostly descendants of the independent princes with the big hereditary estates) had been relocated to the newly conquered territories on Volga, their lands went to the lower nobility. Ditto for the ill-famous "oprichnina": most of its members had been the same low level nobles who benefited from the land distributions, high salaries, etc. Perhaps quite a few members of Lithuanian schliahta would not mind to get a piece of, say, Radziwill's land. :cool:

Of course, his record in Livonia was rather scary even by the contemporary standards but not completely outside of these standards (it seems that even in the PLC of the XVIII an impaling was something like "the 1st serious warning" ;)).

Of course, combination of his religion and autocratic habits had been very strong arguments against him.

Interesting point, and I think it meshes well with my analogy to Protestant monarchs confiscating Church lands. King-Tsar-Grand-Duke Ivan would be in a position to drastically weaken the magnates in all three kingdoms, distributing estates to his poorer supporters or, in Lithuania, adding them directly to his own holdings. Ironically, the unified Polish Kingdom ITTL May more closely resemble the West when all is done—fewer magnates, and a stronger crown wealthy enough for a proper standing army.

Of course, the religious and cultural issues would have to be somehow resolved. He’s be like an inverse False Dmitri—as Dmitri lost popularity for filling his court with Poles (and later Tsars faced hostility for filling their courts with Germans), so Ivan’s Muscovite entourage would alienate the Polish aristocracy. If he’s hamfisted as to attempt to mandate some of Muscovy’s more backward customs (like the Terem) or mandate Orthodoxy, he might trigger a general insurrection. He doesn’t strike me as the type to agree to the Henrician articles.
 
Interesting point, and I think it meshes well with my analogy to Protestant monarchs confiscating Church lands. King-Tsar-Grand-Duke Ivan would be in a position to drastically weaken the magnates in all three kingdoms, distributing estates to his poorer supporters or, in Lithuania, adding them directly to his own holdings. Ironically, the unified Polish Kingdom ITTL May more closely resemble the West when all is done—fewer magnates, and a stronger crown wealthy enough for a proper standing army.

Of course, the religious and cultural issues would have to be somehow resolved. He’s be like an inverse False Dmitri—as Dmitri lost popularity for filling his court with Poles (and later Tsars faced hostility for filling their courts with Germans), so Ivan’s Muscovite entourage would alienate the Polish aristocracy. If he’s hamfisted as to attempt to mandate some of Muscovy’s more backward customs (like the Terem) or mandate Orthodoxy, he might trigger a general insurrection. He doesn’t strike me as the type to agree to the Henrician articles.

Of course, Ivan was not going to agree to any conditions curbing his power. Funny (but perhaps telling enough), in his communication with a prominent subject who managed to escape abroad he was using exactly the same argument as Henry VIII of England with _his_ equivalent: as a subject, you must come and to submit yourself to monarch's judgement. And if this judgement is unjust, you don't have to worry because a death as an innocent martyr is qualifying you to the Heaven.
 
Top