AHC: Eastern Europe is dominated by Poland

Create a scenario in which Poland (in any incarnation, not just the PLC) has either political, cultural or military dominance (or all three) over Eastern Europe.
 
Create a scenario in which Poland (in any incarnation, not just the PLC) has either political, cultural or military dominance (or all three) over Eastern Europe.

You have to make Poland more unitary, so that it is able to stop the expansion of Muscovy/Russia and is able to handle its opponents to the west as well.
 
You have to make Poland more unitary, so that it is able to stop the expansion of Muscovy/Russia and is able to handle its opponents to the west as well.
This basically, It wasn't that the PLC wasn't strong, but it was quite as unitary, and both sides ( the Polish and Lithuanian ) didn't exactly always like each other.

A more unified PLC that can overcome the religious, ethnic splits and the storm gathering around it would be a strong force, that said Poland was being torn apart internally via its lines.

too expand just a bit.. as others have said:
  • The King wasn't as strong for the time as other kings
  • You have Prussia on the rise causing internal issues.
  • You have a multi ethnic commonwealth / kingdom made up of Catholics and orthodox
  • You have Ukrainians, Lithuanian - Belarusians - Russians ( depending on how you look at things and during those times the split and identity is odd ), Romanians, Hungarians, Prussians, Germans.
Avoid a few wars, The northern war was a brutal blow

Also the commonwealth needs to adjust, move away from the agrarian serfdom, Land reform, enfranchisement of the population. there really wasn't a central government in any meaningful way outside of the major cities. most villages were semi autonomous feudal fiefs, hence why you could have rise to something like Prussia.

IF you can get the PLC to begin to reform, greater centralized control, greater change; the economic system needed to change, much quicker than it was, the relative backwardness was part of its undoing. bring the Prussians in as partners and a part of the government, don't give them special privileges that allow them to simply just break off.

curb stomp Sweden early when they had the chance
strangle Moscow in the cradle when they had the chance
hit the Austrians when they had the chance and remind them who saved their asses

instead they waited to become surrounded, then divided and finally the bitch of eastern Europe.
 
Last edited:
One of serious problem of PLC was that king was practically powerless person and every members of Sejm had libertum veto so it was difficult ot do any reforms. So keep king strong and remove libertum veto.

And you have too avoid rise of Prussia, Austria and Russia.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
One of serious problem of PLC was that king was practically powerless person and every members of Sejm had libertum veto so it was difficult ot do any reforms. So keep king strong and remove libertum veto.
Either full absolutism, or a British political system. But, to achieve the latter, you must have no serfdom, an educated ruling class and a strong mercantile/urban bourgeois class with significant voice, which would require a very early POD.
 
Maybe a union with Brandenburg, as nearly happened in the 15th century, or a success at Varna.

Easier way would be to go back to the Mongols invasions and swap the fates of Plans and hungary- have the Hungarian king killed and a Polish king (Henry of Dilesia I think?) Survive. If medieval Poland avoids fracturing they can keep a tighter control on silesia and Pomeralia, maybe even forestall German and Danish interest in the region with their own Northern Crusades.
 
Russia´s main advantage was that, after the arrival of guns, it had no significant threat in the east (until it had expanded all the way til the Chinese border). Poland had to deal with the East Slavs. As your scenario would require quite an early POD in order to strengthen the central powers of the state, Prussia could be easily butterflied, but in return Poland would have to deal with other German powers who would likely benefit from such an ATL development (for instance Saxony + of course Austria).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Prussia could be easily butterflied, but in return Poland would have to deal with other German powers who would likely benefit from such an ATL development
This can be achieved even as late as around mid-to-late 17th century. Just have John Sobieski succeeding in vassalizing Brandenburg.
 
Actually, any native Polish ruler or dynasty would have interests in regaining Silesia or at least Upper Silesia due to Ethnic or just Tactical purposes due to Vistula roots, there were many proposals including that of Bona Sforza to restore Silesia to Poland.
 
Poland-Lithuania needs to be able to create absolutism. I don't see any other way for Poland-Lithuania's success but for the king to be an absolute ruler. The king needs to subdue all the szlachta to his will, and prevent the szlachta from calling on other nations to avoid their submission under the Polish king.

If the Polish king can retain his position, the title of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania can evolve like that of the Tsar of Russia, where the influence of the nobles are minimalised and they exist to confirm the monarchy's continuation. This would mean a strong Poland, which dominates Lithuania, and can defeat any Muscovite/East Slavic power.
 
This can be achieved even as late as around mid-to-late 17th century. Just have John Sobieski succeeding in vassalizing Brandenburg.

What about strengthening the central powers of the Polish state? This was a time of constant wars, and states that were too weak were not able to succeed. Poland would need to reform its political system and either an absolutist system or a system more like that in Britain must be introduced. How could this be done? Would a POD in the mid 17th century be sufficient?
 
I don't buy the idea that a successful Commonwealth must have absolutism. Absolutism is certainly not a panacea for all of Poland's problems at the time. (In my opinion, an absolutist PLC would not have lasted as long as PLC did in OTL, but whatever). Of course, the OTL political system shouldn't be around, either.

What the Commonwealth needed, however, was centralization. It needed to rip a page from the Statutes of Lithuania and establish a defined set of laws, and reform it's political system to introduce an early form of the division of powers (so basically the British system at the time). The separation of Poland and Lithuania has to go, it was perhaps the biggest death knell to the Commonwealth since the beginning. The same can be said about noble confederations. It needed an early abolition of serfdom and to adopt a similar model of centralized military organization as surrounding powers (like Sweden), rather than rely on the whim and wishes of the nobility. It would be brutal, it would not have been undertaken by any of the OTL kings of the Commonwealth (except maybe Stephen Bathory, but he died too early), it would have been unpopular, but it all was necessary.

If the Commonwealth was more centralized, yet retained it's republican status, it would not only have been able to stand up to surrounding absolute monarchies, but also reap the positive economic and social effects of being more inclusive, more democratic and more tolerant than most of Europe at the time.

I still think, however, that 1569 was way past the time when Poland could reasonably dominate Eastern Europe.
 
Either full absolutism, or a British political system. But, to achieve the latter, you must have no serfdom, an educated ruling class and a strong mercantile/urban bourgeois class with significant voice, which would require a very early POD.

I think a parliamentary system built off what they had would be doable if you eliminated every member of the sejm having veto power. That seems to have been one of the biggest obstacles to maintaining and building unity.
 
Poland goes Lutheran, it have two benefits, it force Poland to create a centralise power, two it enable term to truly unite with Brandenburg, Saxony, Sweden or Denmark.
 
Wenceslas II of Bohemia successfully holds Poland and his son retains Hungary (even if losing Croatia and Transylvania).
Wenceslas III has a successful reign and creates a tradition of joint assemblies of his triple crown passing this on to his son.
 
1) Avoid dynastic unions with Hungary and Bohemia-plenty of costs and little to gain. Vladislaus III's Hungarian adventures ruined Poland's treasure and effects were clearly visible during 13 years war. And this mistake was repeated during second half of 15th century, when Casimir IV fought for Czech and Hungarian crowns for his sons. Better make deal with Matthias Corvinus and divide Bohemia with him. Another problem was the fact, that poland did not try to regain Silesia as long as Jagiellon sit on Czech throne. Perhaps there is solution to this problem-Casimir has just one son (but not Vladislaus rex bene). If Casimir left just one, capable son Lithuania united under one ruler with Poland would do better against Moscow during late 15th century (especially if this monarch don't piss of Mikhail Glinski-I'm speaking to you Sigismund).
2) Finish Teutonic Order for good and never ever think of giving Ducal Prussia to Hohenzollerns (again, It's about you, Sigi)
3) Harshest part-strenght Catholic Church in the East. Polish nobles somehow must turn more religious. IOTL Polish speaking Catholic settlers from Masovia and Lesser Poland settled in Ukraine quickly converted to Eastern Rite Catholic/Orthodox faith and turned into Ukrainians as result, such process benefited landowners-Orthodox or Eastern Rite Catholic priest was cheaper in accomodation than Roman Catholic one. Solution to keep all these settlers Roman Catholic must be found.
 
Poland goes Lutheran, it have two benefits, it force Poland to create a centralise power, two it enable term to truly unite with Brandenburg, Saxony, Sweden or Denmark.
Why? I mean really what is the relation of poland being lutheran with the centralization of the state?
Most of the magnates,on the PLC, have absolute freedom onf religion, they could convert to whatever they like and maintain his position, like his veto power this was inherent to being magnate i fail to see how turn protestan change these facts
Edit grammar
 
Last edited:
Why? I mean really what is the relation of poland being lutheran with the centralization of the state?
Most of the magnates, of the PLC have absolute freedom onf religion, they could convert to whatever they like and maintain his position, like his veto power this was inherent to be magnate i fail to see how turn protestan change these facts

What have religious tolerance with centralise the state, going Lutheran means removing the Catholic Church and forcing the state to take over its functions, this mean the clergy becomes civil servants, and the state as such extent its power to every hamlet of the country. At the same time it also give the state vast properties which it can use to finance itself.
 
What have religious tolerance with centralise the state, going Lutheran means removing the Catholic Church and forcing the state to take over its functions, this mean the clergy becomes civil servants, and the state as such extent its power to every hamlet of the country. At the same time it also give the state vast properties which it can use to finance itself.
I see and understand your point. And in any other country in Europe at the time, except the papal states, this plan is solid.
But, your problem again is the magnates, they aren't obligated to convert and in the rules of the PLC lets they maitain(or not) the churches and religous personal how they like so a official convertion to luthenarism not mean that the church lose any power as was the case in England and Germany
 
Top