A Polish revolution

krieger

Banned
Say that forces loyal to Sigismund III are defeated in battle of Guzów. Sigismund is stubborn, keeps fighting even after the rebels are trying to force him to accept their demands (abolishing king's right to nominate government officials and ban foreigners from having any influence at court) in exchange of being kept on a Polish throne. Sigismund still refuses and Warsaw is captured by rebels. Sigismund is tried and beheaded as a first European monarch. His wife and child (only son Władysław, because his brothers aren't born) escape to Vienna, under the custody of Emperor (Władysław can end up as an earlier Eugene of Savoy in imperial service). In Warsaw, new king isn't going to be chosen. Instead rebels are upset with monarchy and make "Council of a Commonwealth" (a body consisting 12 envoys, chosen by a House of Envoys and 12 senators, chosen by Senate) a collective head of state. Sejm is right now only power in the state. Would such situation last long? There is no more king to blame for state's failures. There is no more king to be accused of tyranny. The new government would try to make peace with Charles IX of Sweden because Sigismund (and his supporters) are his common enemy. On the other hand, Polish diet wasn't among the most effective in Europe and without king to unite noblemen the tensions between lesser nobility and magnates would rise to levels never seen before. The rebels wanted also to get rid of Jesuits, which would conflict them with Catholic Church. This would create an unrest from actions of a new government. Possible it'd mean the rise of support for return of Władysław. But the military and a prominent rebels would be against it, fearing Władysław's revenge. An hero of a civil war, Mikołaj Zebrzydowski could try to pull a Cromwell and seize power for himself in military coup creating Protectorate-like military dictatorship. The Polish intervention in Russia would not happen with such a state of internal affairs. It means that Vassili IV is going to sit on the throne longer. @Jan Olbracht
 
Sigismund III had to much authority and was to competent for it to happen. Beheading part is especially unlikely-would the rebels do it, there would be massive rebelion against them in turn.
 

krieger

Banned
Interesting. Could this lead to an upsurge in Protestant numbers in Poland?
Not really. Jesuits will be banned, but protestants already started to perish. And not because of force - Catholicism was more attractive to nobles.
Sigismund III had to much authority and was to competent for it to happen. Beheading part is especially unlikely-would the rebels do it, there would be massive rebelion against them in turn.
So what would you see after Guzów victorious for rebels? Sigismund wouldn't agree to fullfill their demands, so fight would be continued. This would lead to polarization. And beheading could be seen as a final solution to Sigimund's question. If the massive rebellion occured as a result - let it be, Zebrzydowski and his crew were only humans and they could make a mistake like this. They already hated Sigismund, so if they captured him, they would certainly like to get rid of him obce and for all. And he would not give up a crown voluntarily.
 
Leaders of rokosz are excommunicated by Pope if King is executed (that is very bad example for everyone and must be condemned) = Catholics leaving Zebrzydowski's case en masse. Sigismund is now martyr for majority of Catholic nobility, killed by godless monsters. Zebrzydowski was devout Catholic himself, so he would be in trouble-you can't be good Catholic when Pope says you're not.
Władysław is teenager, but nobles, enraged by blasphemous killing of king, heir of Jagiellonian blood, would rather support him than 'Polish Cromwell'.
 

krieger

Banned
Leaders of rokosz are excommunicated by Pope if King is executed (that is very bad example for everyone and must be condemned) = Catholics leaving Zebrzydowski's case en masse. Sigismund is now martyr for majority of Catholic nobility, killed by godless monsters. Zebrzydowski was devout Catholic himself, so he would be in trouble-you can't be good Catholic when Pope says you're not.
Władysław is teenager, but nobles, enraged by blasphemous killing of king, heir of Jagiellonian blood, would rather support him than 'Polish Cromwell'.
Zebrzydowski became more devout after the loss of an rebellion. And at this stage there is no Cromwell. Cromwell option could be a result of Sejm's inefficiency as a sole ruler of country. But at the time of Sigismund's ATL death fighting is to establish Sejm as a sole ruler. Nobles could support Władysław, but after hetmans are killed at Guzów they'd hope to restore Władysław on the next Sejm. And rebels would be supported by Charles IX of Sweden. Majority of szlachta didn't care that much, rebellion would happen but it wouldn't be as strong as you predict.
 
Say that forces loyal to Sigismund III are defeated in battle of Guzów. Sigismund is stubborn, keeps fighting even after the rebels are trying to force him to accept their demands (abolishing king's right to nominate government officials and ban foreigners from having any influence at court) in exchange of being kept on a Polish throne.

His defeat in 1607 at Guzow does not automatically mean that he is completely defeated, just as the OTL defeat of the rebels did not mean the end of resistance which continued until 1609. Taking into an account that Sigismund had 2 most capable PLC commanders on his side (Żółkiewski and Chodkiewicz), a bigger army (at Guzow - more that 12K with 24 cannons vs. less than 11K) and that losses in that battle were negligible (the OTL losses - 200 total), the defeat could be nothing more than annoying offset.

As for the "stubbornness" part, demands of the rebels had been rejected by the Sejm, which means that Sigismund has a ...er... "popular support" and does not have to give up easily.


Sigismund still refuses and Warsaw is captured by rebels.

Which presumably means that Chodkiewicz is taking a prolonged nap ... It does not look like at Guzów the rebels had any artillery so how exactly are they going to take a well-fortified city if its garrison decided to resist?

Sigismund is tried and beheaded as a first European monarch.

1st, this implies that Sigismund is remained in Warsaw and willingly gives himself up instead of moving elsewhere and continue fighting, which would be the most reasonable thing to do because he still has plenty of resources.
2nd, the 1st European monarch in that category was Mary Stuart executed in 1567 (or Conradin who was executed in 1268) so your rebels are few decades (or centuries) late for claiming a priority. :winkytongue:

His wife and child (only son Władysław, because his brothers aren't born) escape to Vienna, under the custody of Emperor (Władysław can end up as an earlier Eugene of Savoy in imperial service).

Based upon what's known about Wladislaw, he was a reasonably competent person but not a military genius like Eugene. There is nothing really to assume that he would be even up to the level of Montecuccoli or Charles of Lorraine. His campaign of 1617 - 18 in Russia (in which he had Chodkiewicz as a subordinate) failed to accomplish its goal, capture of Moscow. Smolensk war of 1632–1634 was unmitigated success but it was won against a very weak opponent.

The Polish intervention in Russia would not happen with such a state of internal affairs. It means that Vassili IV is going to sit on the throne longer.

Polish intervention in Russia started in 1605. It was mostly private initiative until 1609, when Sigismund besieged Smolensk (which triggered Russian-Swedish alliance, etc.). So Vasili Shuiski has a chance to stay longer but still has to deal with False Dmitry II and his Polish supporters who in OTL left Dmitry to join Sigismund at Smolensk. Taking into an account the real framework of the events, the most reasonable course of action for the "Polish Cromwell" would be to start a war with Tsardom, which would keep everybody busy while promising a loot.
 

krieger

Banned
His defeat in 1607 at Guzow does not automatically mean that he is completely defeated, just as the OTL defeat of the rebels did not mean the end of resistance which continued until 1609. Taking into an account that Sigismund had 2 most capable PLC commanders on his side (Żółkiewski and Chodkiewicz), a bigger army (at Guzow - more that 12K with 24 cannons vs. less than 11K) and that losses in that battle were negligible (the OTL losses - 200 total), the defeat could be nothing more than annoying offset.

As for the "stubbornness" part, demands of the rebels had been rejected by the Sejm, which means that Sigismund has a ...er... "popular support" and does not have to give up easily.




Which presumably means that Chodkiewicz is taking a prolonged nap ... It does not look like at Guzów the rebels had any artillery so how exactly are they going to take a well-fortified city if its garrison decided to resist?



1st, this implies that Sigismund is remained in Warsaw and willingly gives himself up instead of moving elsewhere and continue fighting, which would be the most reasonable thing to do because he still has plenty of resources.
2nd, the 1st European monarch in that category was Mary Stuart executed in 1567 (or Conradin who was executed in 1268) so your rebels are few decades (or centuries) late for claiming a priority. :winkytongue:



Based upon what's known about Wladislaw, he was a reasonably competent person but not a military genius like Eugene. There is nothing really to assume that he would be even up to the level of Montecuccoli or Charles of Lorraine. His campaign of 1617 - 18 in Russia (in which he had Chodkiewicz as a subordinate) failed to accomplish its goal, capture of Moscow. Smolensk war of 1632–1634 was unmitigated success but it was won against a very weak opponent.



Polish intervention in Russia started in 1605. It was mostly private initiative until 1609, when Sigismund besieged Smolensk (which triggered Russian-Swedish alliance, etc.). So Vasili Shuiski has a chance to stay longer but still has to deal with False Dmitry II and his Polish supporters who in OTL left Dmitry to join Sigismund at Smolensk. Taking into an account the real framework of the events, the most reasonable course of action for the "Polish Cromwell" would be to start a war with Tsardom, which would keep everybody busy while promising a loot.

It doesn't mean that he is completely defeated, but it can cause his complete defeat. First of all, it is not guaranteed that all these hetmans will survive this battle (and I stated that they didn't) and king having support in PLC didn't mean that this support will last forever. Nobles could switch sides easily. If the commanders are killed (and it would cause a lot psychological damage among royalists) than the rebels could try to siege Warsaw. The garrison could be still shocked after the death of Żółkiewski and Chodkiewicz. And Sigismund will fight in Warsaw. Rebels could try to capture Warsaw by a deception. They could send fake envoys to negotiate peace with King, who could open the gates for rebels. But both Mary Stuart and Conradin were executed by other monarchs, not by his own subjects like in case of ATL Sigismund. You're obviously correct while describing Vladislau's skill, but I simply meant being a duke in imperial military service (which would be his most probable ATL fate). Wouldn't they return from Moscow if they heard that their King was killed by a rebels? These "supporters" could try to achieve a high position in the new, fully republican government. And shortly after defeat of Sigismund there is Sejm and it's representation "Council of the Commonwealth" acting as a collective head of state. "Polish Cromwell" is an option, which might or might not happen - it depends of Sejm's capability of ruling without a king.
 
Top