AHC - Baltics dominated between Lithuania and Estonia

Not sure of the PODs involved though the challenge is to have the Baltics divided between Lithuania and Estonia.

Bonus point if the Daugava serves as the ATL border between Lithuania and Estonia.
 
Lithuania have way to small a coastline (and way to many reasons to be interested/concerned to the East or South) ...

Estonia on the other hand could probably be done by making the Livonian Brothers of the Sword much more successful and then 'piggybacking' off Riga's (butterflies allowing) membership of the Hansa to evolve.
 
If you want Estonia, and not the Baltic Germans to split the Baltics with Lithuania, then you need a PoD in the Baltic Crusades. You'd either need Estonia to Christianize and unite by itself before the crusaders come, which I find unlikely, or for Estonia to repel the crusaders and at least officially convert to Christianity. The latter of which is what Lithuania did to prevent its conquest, and if Estonia does it, it is possible and maybe even likely the two will ally against their common enemy of the crusaders. If that occurs, you could get what is now Latvia split between an Estonian east and Lithuanian west.
 
Dividing Baltics between Lithuania and Estonia is not hard.

Having Daugava be the border is a lot more difficult, though. Historically, owning both sides of a river is a lot more beneficial then just one of the two, because cultures usually form on both sides of a river rather than just one (and also because you can then tax any shipping that goes through).

Same here - there were Baltic tribes on both sides of Daugava and there were Finnic tribes on both sides of Daugava. Plus, the Daugava Estuary (i.e. "Riga") is very important for trade, both to Lithuania and Estonia, and thus nether side would want to just split it in half.

Even if the border somehow starts at Daugava, there will be plenty of wars between Lithuania and Estonia over who gets the whole valley (and, imo, I would give Lithuania the higher chance to win, simply because of the population advantage)
 
If you want Estonia, and not the Baltic Germans to split the Baltics with Lithuania, then you need a PoD in the Baltic Crusades. You'd either need Estonia to Christianize and unite by itself before the crusaders come, which I find unlikely, or for Estonia to repel the crusaders and at least officially convert to Christianity. The latter of which is what Lithuania did to prevent its conquest, and if Estonia does it, it is possible and maybe even likely the two will ally against their common enemy of the crusaders. If that occurs, you could get what is now Latvia split between an Estonian east and Lithuanian west.
There's was actually a bishop that attempted to Christianize the Esthonians, just have his influence come to more of a head.
 
So the point is basically to eliminate Latvia as an independent factor?

IIRC, the Estonian army played a significant role in the liberation of Latvia from the Germans in 1919. If there was ever a point where Estonia could have simply decided to puppetize Latvia (or to force Latvia into an unequal pan-Baltic state under Estonian hegemony) - this was it.

Of course, this state of affairs wouldn't last forever. And it's hard to imagine why Estonia would even want to do such a thing.
 
Not sure of the PODs involved though the challenge is to have the Baltics divided between Lithuania and Estonia.

Bonus point if the Daugava serves as the ATL border between Lithuania and Estonia.

Daugava was also the border between Curonia and Livonia.

Neither Estonia nor Latvia was an administrative unit pre-1917. Estonia consisted of 2 parts - Estland and a part of Livonia. Latvia of 3 parts - Curonia, a part of Livonia and Latgale which was part of Vitebsk.
Curonia was a vassal of Rzeczpospolita, I think formally all the way to 1795. De facto both were Russian puppets long before, but was the formal vassalhood ever replaced?
 
So the point is basically to eliminate Latvia as an independent factor?

IIRC, the Estonian army played a significant role in the liberation of Latvia from the Germans in 1919. If there was ever a point where Estonia could have simply decided to puppetize Latvia (or to force Latvia into an unequal pan-Baltic state under Estonian hegemony) - this was it.

Of course, this state of affairs wouldn't last forever. And it's hard to imagine why Estonia would even want to do such a thing.

Basically though we are talking about an earlier POD. In OTL the Livonians of Livonia were eventually completely assimilated by the Latvians, in ATL though the Livonians either somehow survive assimilation albeit by Livonia being part of Estonia or instead end up completely assimilated by the Estonians (potentially forming a merged "Livstonian people").

In turn the ATL Latvians would either somehow survive as part of an ATL Lithuania or end up completely assimilated.
 
Last edited:
Not sure of the PODs involved though the challenge is to have the Baltics divided between Lithuania and Estonia.

Bonus point if the Daugava serves as the ATL border between Lithuania and Estonia.
That river was the border between Sweden and Poland-Lithuania, and after 1721 between Russia and Poland-Lithuania, so if the partitions of Poland are avoided, there could be a situation where Estonia and Lithuania break off from their respective overlords and keep the same border. Somehow the Latvians are downtrodden by both other parties, so perhaps they have been assimilated or neglected to some extent while a standard language was introduced.

The independence could have been decided by the great powers after some alternative ww1, looking on the map without considering the ethnicities in detail.
 
Because Latvian isn't just a modern translation of Latgalian.

OK, but expand on it a bit...
Pre-1914, there were 4 groups of Balts in terms of government, religion and official language:
  1. The region of Kaunas and Vilnius. Never had been under German power - Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then Rzeczpospolita till 3rd partition in 1795, thereafter Russia of Kaunas and Vilnius Governorates. Nobles originally native, later largely polonized. Religion heathen till end-14th century, then Catholic - after limited Reformation in 16th century, Counterreformation prevailed.
  2. The region of lower Nemunas. Under continuous German power since 13th century. Nobles German. Religion Lutheran since 1525.
  3. Latgale. Under German power since 13th century. Annexed to Rzeczpospolita till 1st partition in 1772, thereafter Russia of Vitebsk Governorate. Nobles originally German, apparently some German nobles still there by 1772, some immigrant Polish nobles. Reformation in 16th century, but Counterreformation largely successful by 1772, so overwhelmingly Catholic.
  4. Vidzeme and Curonia. Under German power since 13th century. Rzeczpospolita administered Vidzeme from 1562 till Swedish conquest by 1625. By 1795, all Russia of Livonian and Curonian Governorates. Nobles firmly German, their self-governing corporations opposed immigrant nobles. Reformation in 16th century. Counterreformation in Vidzeme under Rzeczpospolita 1562-1625 was unsuccessful and reversed by Swedish conquerors - to be a Catholic in Livonia was illegal, full stop. Curonia as an autonomous Rzeczpospolita vassal gave some toleration to Catholics but the official Established Church was also Lutheran.
So... considering how 1) and 2) identified as same people despite different state and religion, why did 3) end up identifying with 4) rather than 2)? Or were there any dissensions back in 19th century as to precisely who 3) should be attached to?
 
OK, but expand on it a bit...
Pre-1914, there were 4 groups of Balts in terms of government, religion and official language:
  1. The region of Kaunas and Vilnius. Never had been under German power - Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then Rzeczpospolita till 3rd partition in 1795, thereafter Russia of Kaunas and Vilnius Governorates. Nobles originally native, later largely polonized. Religion heathen till end-14th century, then Catholic - after limited Reformation in 16th century, Counterreformation prevailed.
  2. The region of lower Nemunas. Under continuous German power since 13th century. Nobles German. Religion Lutheran since 1525.
  3. Latgale. Under German power since 13th century. Annexed to Rzeczpospolita till 1st partition in 1772, thereafter Russia of Vitebsk Governorate. Nobles originally German, apparently some German nobles still there by 1772, some immigrant Polish nobles. Reformation in 16th century, but Counterreformation largely successful by 1772, so overwhelmingly Catholic.
  4. Vidzeme and Curonia. Under German power since 13th century. Rzeczpospolita administered Vidzeme from 1562 till Swedish conquest by 1625. By 1795, all Russia of Livonian and Curonian Governorates. Nobles firmly German, their self-governing corporations opposed immigrant nobles. Reformation in 16th century. Counterreformation in Vidzeme under Rzeczpospolita 1562-1625 was unsuccessful and reversed by Swedish conquerors - to be a Catholic in Livonia was illegal, full stop. Curonia as an autonomous Rzeczpospolita vassal gave some toleration to Catholics but the official Established Church was also Lutheran.
So... considering how 1) and 2) identified as same people despite different state and religion, why did 3) end up identifying with 4) rather than 2)? Or were there any dissensions back in 19th century as to precisely who 3) should be attached to?

As for why they ended up attached to 4) rather than 1) despite 2) becoming attached to 1)... this was because of historical complexities. The Baltic peoples in Lithuania Minor (2)) were not descendents of local Balts like Prussians, but rather the descendents of Lithuanian colonists and slaves during the Teutonic and post-Teutonic period. 14th-16th centuries. They were attached to Lithuania from the get go. This wasn't the case with Latgale.

But yes, there was some minor conflict over who holds Daugavpils. Lithuania briefly claimed it in the 20th century, but quickly dropped those claims. That's because they didn't really have a historical or any other claim on the area.
 
The Baltic peoples in Lithuania Minor (2)) were not descendents of local Balts like Prussians, but rather the descendents of Lithuanian colonists and slaves during the Teutonic and post-Teutonic period. 14th-16th centuries. They were attached to Lithuania from the get go. This wasn't the case with Latgale.

But yes, there was some minor conflict over who holds Daugavpils. Lithuania briefly claimed it in the 20th century, but quickly dropped those claims. That's because they didn't really have a historical or any other claim on the area.

There was a historical claim. Latgale was a part of Lithuania all the way to 1st Partition in 1772. And after 1772, continued to have a nobility, religion and governing system separate from Livonia and shared with Lithuania.
While the Lithuanians who emigrated to Prussia kept their language, emigration meant accepting new faith, new lords and new government. Not the case between Lithuania and Latgale pre-1772.
Shared lords and government was also the case across Lithuania-Gudija border, but language differed more than between Lithuania and Latgale, and Gudija had the Orthodox religion factor missing in Lithuania and Latgale.
 
There was a historical claim. Latgale was a part of Lithuania all the way to 1st Partition in 1772. And after 1772, continued to have a nobility, religion and governing system separate from Livonia and shared with Lithuania.
While the Lithuanians who emigrated to Prussia kept their language, emigration meant accepting new faith, new lords and new government. Not the case between Lithuania and Latgale pre-1772.
Shared lords and government was also the case across Lithuania-Gudija border, but language differed more than between Lithuania and Latgale, and Gudija had the Orthodox religion factor missing in Lithuania and Latgale.
Lithuania never owned Latgale. It was a part of the Inflanty Voivodeship, which was a joint Polish and Lithuanian fief (but in reality, much like everything in the Commonwealth, the Poles had the bigger say). In addition, any "Lithuanian Latgalia" idea would find problem in the fact that ethnic Lithuania and Latgalia never shared a common border. This removes the chance of any large-scale intermingling and deeper cultural ties between the two regions to help them unite into a single nation.

That doesn't mean that Latgalia didn't develop an identity of their own - they did, and it's still visible in Latvia today. There's even a Latgalian language, if I remember correctly.
 
Lithuania never owned Latgale. It was a part of the Inflanty Voivodeship, which was a joint Polish and Lithuanian fief (but in reality, much like everything in the Commonwealth, the Poles had the bigger say). In addition, any "Lithuanian Latgalia" idea would find problem in the fact that ethnic Lithuania and Latgalia never shared a common border. This removes the chance of any large-scale intermingling and deeper cultural ties between the two regions to help them unite into a single nation.

Under the pre-1772 division, the "ethnic Lithuania" was 3 separate units: Voivodeship of Vilnius, Voivodeship of Trakai and Eldership of Žemaitija. These all belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As did several neighbouring units: Novgorodok Voivodeship, Minsk Voivodeship and Polock Voivodeship.
Which common central institutions did Grand Duchy have after 1569?
 
Under the pre-1772 division, the "ethnic Lithuania" was 3 separate units: Voivodeship of Vilnius, Voivodeship of Trakai and Eldership of Žemaitija. These all belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As did several neighbouring units: Novgorodok Voivodeship, Minsk Voivodeship and Polock Voivodeship.
Which common central institutions did Grand Duchy have after 1569?
I can't really see what point you are trying to make. That ethnic Lithuania was divided into different areas on a similar level of political distance as Latgalia? That isn't true. The Lithuanian voivodeships were just administrative divisions (they had some liberties like being able to raise their own armies, but this was the 16th century, you shouldn't expect modern levels of centralization back then) of a single Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Wenden/Inflanty was also a Voivodeship, but the difference here was that it was not a part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
 
The major surviving Finnic people in Latvia, the Livonians who lived on the southern coastline of the Gulf of Riga just across from their distant relatives in Estonia to the north, lie to the west of the Daugava.
 
Top