AH Challange: How to fix some of the Polish-Lithuanian problems, 17th century?

Ok, having abandoned my previous timelime featuring the survival of the Byzantines, I am in the process of cooking up a new TL, which will have a more Medieval plus Renaissance feeling to it (well, at least in its beginning).

This timeline involves an X-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where X stands for a yet undisclosed country (hint: it's not "Polish" and it's not "Muscovite"). Basically Jogaila, instead of marrying Jadwiga of Poland, marries someone else. However, this new appearance on the scene of history will go through mostly the same processes as Poland and Lithuania so it will eventually face the same problems.

So for my purposes let's do a case study of the late 17th century breakdown of the Polish-Lithuanian economy, society and political institutions.

The AHC is thus to fix the problems of OTL's Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the later half of the 17th century. It will be my job afterwards to apply those same processes that cured the PLC in this challange to my timeline's different commonwealth.

My goals are:

1) To avoid the further stratification among nobility. Of course that is kind of tricky, and eventually the magnates will grow in power and wealth but at least I'm wondering what could be done to keep the middle and lesser szlachta in control of the General Sejm and especially of the local sejmiks despite the magnate's increase in power and wealth.

2) If possible to almost entirely avoid the disintegration of towns and urban classes.

3) To keep and further education (especially among middle and lesser szlachta) and avoid the cultural decline.

You can assume the PLC to be much more successful and powerful in relation to Muscovy than it actually were. [That is because my alternate-commonwealth will be much more powrful in relationship to Muscovy due to other factors. However, even in my alternate-commonwealth the Khmelnytsky thing still happens, but in my ATL it will be a nation-engulfing civil war and Khmelnytsky himself will be a Cromwell-type figure, he won't have the goal of an independent Ukraine, mostly due to different demografies from OTL. So while my question relates to OTL's Polish-Lith. C. and not to my ATL, take that into consideration, you can assume there will be no territory lost, but there will be nation-engulfing war, even in the potential absence of the Deluge.]

Ok bonus points if you have the Commonwealth involved in wars and still able to recover and reach the 3 objectives stated above.

Also, notwithstanding the devastating wars, there were apparently other causes to the economic collapse in the Commonwealth, causes affecting the entire continent at that point. So extra bonus points if you can give an economic solution at least as good as other countries'.
 
Last edited:
Not really, though it is helpful. But your thread relates to a period further down the road.

My AHC refers to the economic breakdown and political and cultural decline of the late 17th century (or later half of the 17th century -- 1650-1700), after the Khmelnytsky Uprising and the Deluge.
 
Not really, though it is helpful. But your thread relates to a period further down the road.

My AHC refers to the economic breakdown and political and cultural decline of the late 17th century (or later half of the 17th century -- 1650-1700), after the Khmelnytsky Uprising and the Deluge.
I know what you're referring to, but some of the problems in the organization of the state that the May 1791 constitution was trying to fix stretch back into your period somewhat.
Already two hundred years before the May 3 Constitution, King Sigismund III Vasa's court preacher, the Jesuit Piotr Skarga, had famously condemned the individual and collective weaknesses of the Commonwealth. Likewise, in the same period, writers and philosophers such as Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski and Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki, and Jan Zamoyski's egzekucja praw (Execution-of-the-Laws) reform movement, had advocated reforms.

[SNIP]

Many historians hold that a major cause of the Commonwealth's downfall was the peculiar institution of the liberum veto ("free veto"), which since 1652 had in principle permitted any Sejm deputy to nullify all the legislation that had been adopted by that Sejm.
Thus I felt it was relevant a bit.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Avoiding the Deluge would be a good starting point, it's more or less the starting point of the Polands problem, don't take it wrong Poland was already a backward somewhat dysfunctional country before, but the Deluge was really which threw it into a selfdestructive circle of decentralisation and cultural isolation. The few victories which the Deluge gave, like getting rid of much of the Protestant minority only helped worsening the Polish isolation and removed the Jesuits incitament to deliver superior education to the nobility and population. I would say that even if the Deluge had ended up worse with the loss of large territories, it would have been better because it would have created a incitament for centralisation and reforms.

I think a Commonwealth which lost Dnieper Watersheed to Russia and the rest of Lithuania to Sweden would have been better of, especially if Poland succeed in keeping Royal Prussia*. The crown domains lay mostly along the Vistula, and the greater precent the crown domain made up of the country, the stronger position the crown would have versus the Magnates.

*Keeping Royal Prussia and Danzig was of prime importance for Polish export.
 
I see. Only, I'm not really interested in a more powerful Crown. I am interested in a more powerful middle and lesser szlachta vis-a-vis both the Crown and the Magnates.

Also keep in mind that my end goal is not a Polish-Lithuanian C., but a Something-Lithuanian C., so expasion towards the East might be inevitable. Anyway I'm very interested in the structural causes of the late 17th century problems. Because at that time the PLC still had Royal Prussia. Was it just the Deluge that wrecked the economy and destroyed the cities thus prompting the social changes which would see the lesser and middle szlachta dependant on the magnates?

Again I have no illusions that under any circumstance the magnates won't become "princes", "crimsons", rich and powerful. But if the middle and lower szlachta could somehow maintain their control of sejmiks and the Sejm, that would be a powerful check on the magnates. I presume under that scenario cliques would form that would see szlachta cliques form that go across the weath spectrum, effectively sort of political parties if you will that will include both agents of political power (lower and middle szlachta) and of economic and military power (magnates). Or maybe the lesser and middle szlachta would form a big alliance against the magnates.

Also how much additional resources and what resources specifically could help the Commonwealth's economy recover even after a Deluge-type event? Maybe additional resources in the form of salt, wine, more land, access to Eastern Markets and controll of trading routes further east or south could make a difference at this point. Or would it?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
I see. Only, I'm not really interested in a more powerful Crown. I am interested in a more powerful middle and lesser szlachta vis-a-vis both the Crown and the Magnates.

Also keep in mind that my end goal is not a Polish-Lithuanian C., but a Something-Lithuanian C., so expasion towards the East might be inevitable. Anyway I'm very interested in the structural causes of the late 17th century problems. Because at that time the PLC still had Royal Prussia. Was it just the Deluge that wrecked the economy and destroyed the cities thus prompting the social changes which would see the lesser and middle szlachta dependant on the magnates?

Again I have no illusions that under any circumstance the magnates won't become "princes", "crimsons", rich and powerful. But if the middle and lower szlachta could somehow maintain their control of sejmiks and the Sejm, that would be a powerful check on the magnates. I presume under that scenario cliques would form that would see szlachta cliques form that go across the weath spectrum, effectively sort of political parties if you will that will include both agents of political power (lower and middle szlachta) and of economic and military power (magnates). Or maybe the lesser and middle szlachta would form a big alliance against the magnates.

The problem are that a strong crown are needed to keep the Magnates weak, and weak Magnates are necessary for a more powerful middle and lesser szlachta. A strong crown translate into a stronger state with a stronger rule of law, and that are what the lesser szlachta need. A strong state also have other benefits, its offer job oppotunity for second sons in the adminstration and army.

Also how much additional resources and what resources specifically could help the Commonwealth's economy recover even after a Deluge-type event? Maybe additional resources in the form of salt, wine, more land, access to Eastern Markets and controll of trading routes further east or south could make a difference at this point. Or would it?

They wouldn't help, in fact they would only strengthen the Magnates which succeed in monopolise them. Polands problem was that it was a to big state, with a to weak central power. You need a strong state to invest in secondary product and specialised primary production. Poland was the grain basket of Europe through the late 17th century, and it didn't make Poland stronger, it just strengthen the great land owners and weakened burghers and lesser szlachta.

I know looking big on maps are something we all love for our countries, but less better run territorium are better for most states. Poland lacking Ukraine and Lithuania may look smaller, but it would have much greater oppotunity for growth and reforms, and if it centralised it would be strong medium power.
 
I see. However, my Commonwealth does not include Poland (ok might include part of it, or what it historically was, but doesn't really include Poland). And for reasons of a potential enemy to the East that would need to be contained, say... Muscovy, it will get pretty big pretty fast.

So a stronger Crown is what's needed for better law and order and law and order is basically the medium in which constitutionality can grow. However, if the real PLC say had had a stronger Crown, would the lesser and middle szlachta still be in control of it? How would they keep that control of the Crown? Would the Noble's Republic have endured or would it have turned really fast into an absolute monarchy or something similar. Because to be frank I don't want to go anywhere near an absolute monarchy. Without Golden Liberty it looses all the charm so to say. And I wouldn't really wanna go even near something like Hannoverian Britain, that too seems like too much controll from the King and a bunch of his favourites.

Of course, one might argue that by having more law and order the whole thing would loose its charm, but something's gotta give. I mean I don't think the liberum veto is particularly a problem -- it worked just fine for a period and afterwards confederated Sejms worked just fine as well; and the idea in itself would have interesting consequence in developing republicanism and maybe a unique natural rights theory down the line (of course majority rule would eventually become the... rule). But what I find most counterproductive was the lawlessness which led to strong personal and local ties which led to generally a disregard of the nation and the kind of lack of loyalty to it that permitted foreign powers to bribe the nobles. Because -- I've read -- nobles figured out pretty soon that they could confederate in Sejms in order for majority rule to work; the liberum veto only really disrupted things for 50 years or so, maybe less, afterwards it just become a formal trapping void of any substance. But then it was things like nobles not willing to confederate because of foreign bribing or more often intimidation that disturbed Sejms, or even the presence of foreing troops at the meeting.

And of course the inability of the courts to enforce law and order, the fact that cities became more and more private (thus controlled by magnates), and not Royal (thus independent), and down the line the fact that justice became so private meant that whenever there was a dispute nobles took things in their own hands (and those things were most often szablas...). I think this would be a key point, to have a Rechststaat/Law and Order and a stronger judicial arm.

There is another point that I'd like to touch: the executive is the branch of government that likes most to make wars. Give the Crown too much power and you end with the same end result: endless wars, only this time provoked by the Commonwealth. One of the things that I love about the PLC was that they had a rather peaceful mentality for their time (because the legislature had all the power and the legislature usually love peace, not the least of the reasons being that they don't like taxing themselves to sustain it). And that was one of the ways in which the PLC was very modern. BUt then they took that to such an extreme that they did not have a proper defence so they were seen by other powers as ripe for the taking so the end result -- endless war. Coupled with endless lawlessness - tragedy.
 
Look at England (in general, not the Hanovers if they repulse you so much). A strong crown in a situation where parliament (the Sejm, in this case) gradually increases in authority.

Its not very hard to set up a situation where the crown is strong and in a mutually supporting relationship with the burghers and yeomanry, assuming those exist and are strong enough for the crown to lean on them.

As for the executive making war: This is a matter of the character of the executive and the situation. There's no reason the Commonwealth will have endless wars unless there's a reason for war.

With or without the Sejm checking royal authority.
 
Elfwine, the thing is that the PLC is in the 16th and first half of the 17th century already there. There used to be a powerful Crown but by 1505 the Sejm rules. And it worked fine till the the second half of the 17th century.

It worked primarily because the Sejm was controlled by the middle and lower szlachta (nobility) and there was a movement bent upon enforcing law and order and strengthening the state (but not necessarily centralising it) -- the executionist movement. But in the second half of the 17th century it started not to work for many reasons some of which I and Valdemar detailed above.

The burghers and yeomanry, while they existed, were politically disenfranchised. But there is one thing to consider: the lesser and middle szlachta overlapped somewhat with our ideas of medieval/renaissance burghers & yeomanry. Facts to consider: szlachta was about 12% to 15% of the Commonwealth population. They all could vote and theoretically they were all supposed to be equal. By comparison in Englad the nobility (peerage) was probably 1% or below 1%. Of course in England the gentry, and part of the burghers and afterwards the yeomanry were enfranchised BUT, get a hold of this - the famous Reform Act 1832, again 1832, early 19 century, raised the number of people enfranchised to vote for the British Parliament from about 5% of the population to somewhere aroun 12%.

So in 1505 the PLC was from a democratic/representative point of view already at a level that Britain would reach in 1832 (or even better), in terms of percent of the population that was enfranchised.
 
Elfwine, the thing is that the PLC is in the 16th and first half of the 17th century already there. There used to be a powerful Crown but by 1505 the Sejm rules. And it worked fine till the the second half of the 17th century.

But did it address the fact that powerful nobles are a bad thing by definition for everyone else?

It worked primarily because the Sejm was controlled by the middle and lower szlachta (nobility) and there was a movement bent upon enforcing law and order and strengthening the state (but not necessarily centralising it) -- the executionist movement. But in the second half of the 17th century it started not to work for many reasons some of which I and Valdemar detailed above.

The burghers and yeomanry, while they existed, were politically disenfranchised. But there is one thing to consider: the lesser and middle szlachta overlapped somewhat with our ideas of medieval/renaissance burghers & yeomanry. Facts to consider: szlachta was about 12% to 15% of the Commonwealth population. They all could vote and theoretically they were all supposed to be equal. By comparison in Englad the nobility (peerage) was probably 1% or below 1%. Of course in England the gentry, and part of the burghers and afterwards the yeomanry were enfranchised BUT, get a hold of this - the famous Reform Act 1832, again 1832, early 19 century, raised the number of people enfranchised to vote for the British Parliament from about 5% of the population to somewhere aroun 12%.
Then all we need is the lesser and middle szlachta to be able to fill the role in question.

So in 1505 the PLC was from a democratic/representative point of view already at a level that Britain would reach in 1832 (or even better), in terms of percent of the population that was enfranchised.
But not in terms of having an effective base to build a nation-state, since the magnates are far too dominant and getting worse.

That's what a powerful crown needs. The king has to be able to beat the nobility into submission so that the rising burghers/yeomen (or in this case middle and lower szlachta) can fill the vacuum.

For purposes of this, the point is that you need a functional middle class and lower class with enough power - not necessarily the franchise, but they have to be relevant - that the nation is driven based on their efforts rather than the Great Lords.

Thus pointing to England. Not much good for the lower szlachta to be able to vote if all the real power and wealth is in the hands of the magnates.
 
I think the hard part is the fact that relative to the Sejm, the King wasn't quite strong. Of course, the PLC got its share of pretty decent kings early on, but post-Deluge it was weakened and the most decent king it got back then was Jan Sobieski.

So removing the Vasas from Poland could help, I reckon.
 
I think the hard part is the fact that relative to the Sejm, the King wasn't quite strong. Of course, the PLC got its share of pretty decent kings early on, but post-Deluge it was weakened and the most decent king it got back then was Jan Sobieski.

So removing the Vasas from Poland could help, I reckon.

This is the thing. Decent, individually successful kings are one thing. Royal power meaning something is another.
 
This is the thing. Decent, individually successful kings are one thing. Royal power meaning something is another.

I personally believe that while in hindsight the PLC system of government was a pretty nice arrangement (one of the largest voting franchises of the early modern period), it wasn't suited to the political realities of the time, where a strong monarch could manage a state much more efficiently than a decentralized system of squabbling nobles could.

Granted, of course, this created social problems down the line.
 
The thing is that post-Deluge the economy was so bad that most middle and lower szlachta were driven bankrupt which in turn drove them into the service of Magnates. thus they lost their political power. So the underlying issue is economic. The endless war simply wrecked the country too much -- and, as a "bonus" it destroyed the cities. This is why I'm thinking that maybe more resources might mean that the bankrupted lower and middle szlachta might start anew somewhere else. But that is dependant on the wars never getting to the places where those new lands/resourses are and wrecking hell there as well. Of course some Voivodeships might end up taken over by the Magnates, but some might not and if the economy recovers before the nobility stratifies further, things can be saved.

But of course the wars f**ked up the economy REALLY bad. And I mean really bad.

And of course another issue is the Law and Order thing. To have that would be very important.

Oh and as a sidenote -- not all Magnates were bad. If I remember correctly the top executionist was a Magnate. Further down the line their wealth could provide the needed capital in the next eras.
 
I see. Only, I'm not really interested in a more powerful Crown. I am interested in a more powerful middle and lesser szlachta vis-a-vis both the Crown and the Magnates.

Also keep in mind that my end goal is not a Polish-Lithuanian C., but a Something-Lithuanian C., so expasion towards the East might be inevitable. Anyway I'm very interested in the structural causes of the late 17th century problems. Because at that time the PLC still had Royal Prussia. Was it just the Deluge that wrecked the economy and destroyed the cities thus prompting the social changes which would see the lesser and middle szlachta dependant on the magnates?

Again I have no illusions that under any circumstance the magnates won't become "princes", "crimsons", rich and powerful. But if the middle and lower szlachta could somehow maintain their control of sejmiks and the Sejm, that would be a powerful check on the magnates. I presume under that scenario cliques would form that would see szlachta cliques form that go across the weath spectrum, effectively sort of political parties if you will that will include both agents of political power (lower and middle szlachta) and of economic and military power (magnates). Or maybe the lesser and middle szlachta would form a big alliance against the magnates.

Also how much additional resources and what resources specifically could help the Commonwealth's economy recover even after a Deluge-type event? Maybe additional resources in the form of salt, wine, more land, access to Eastern Markets and controll of trading routes further east or south could make a difference at this point. Or would it?
The problem with this is that you would not get what you assume. What you consider was in Poland, in Lithuania the situation was different. There magnates were dominating in 15-16th centuries and gradually losing power over 17th century, so development was in opposite direction than in Poland.
 
The problem with this is that you would not get what you assume. What you consider was in Poland, in Lithuania the situation was different. There magnates were dominating in 15-16th centuries and gradually losing power over 17th century, so development was in opposite direction than in Poland.

Yeah, I should have remembered that. Well I see no reason why that wouldn't continue. The improvement of the situation in Lithuania is not dependent on things getting crappy in the Polish part. I think that basically Lithuania was "cathing up" with the Polish part in terms of republicanism. It just took them more because they were a bit... peripheric. I don't know if that's the right term. But in the regions that used to be Lith. before Lublin and afterwards were Polish, well, there things went just as in other Polish regions.
 
Top