AHC:Make Piast Poland lasting powerhouse with equal strength as PLC

How would you make lasting Piast Poland happen

  • Boleslav I the Brave being more succesful

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • Boleslav II the Generous being not deposed

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • Casimir the Great having children

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Absolutely easiest way to fullfill this challenge is to make PLC ruled by Piasts. Sigismund the Old planned to marry his oldest daughter Hedwig to last Dukes od Mazovia: Stanisław and after his death, his brother Janusz III. They both died young, but if any of them could live a few years longer (with their lifestyle long life is unlikely), Say Janusz lives 5 years longer, marries 17 years old Hedwig in 1530, sees birth of their son Konrad IV in 1531 just before his death (better if their child is not raised by Janusz). If Sigismund Augustus still dies childless, then his Mazovian nephew would be his obvious successor. That means 1573 election is pure formality and there is no such long interregnum. Also with king, who is not foreigner, Jan Zamoyski would not became de facto co-ruler of PLC and would not have chance to shape PLC as much as IOTL (for example by making office of hetman given for life, which was disastrous for PLC's army and changed hetman into more political than military figure). Zamoyski was really destructive person for Commonwealth, easpecially during early Sigismund III's reign, when he was conflicted with King. Also, Mazovian King of PLC, unlike OTL monarchs, would have large hereditary duchy within PLC, which would strenghten his position (Duchy of Mazovia is not Jagiellon's GDL, but is still better than nothing). Also without incorporation of Mazovia Warsaw would not be capital (propably Sejm would be held in Lublin) and numerous Mazovian poor nobility would not get as much influence as IOTL, without Mazovia, Crown would have much less % of nobles-average % of nobles for Poland without Mazovia was 3-6%, addition of Mazovia with 20% of nobles caused nationwide rise to 10%)
 
Absolutely easiest way to fullfill this challenge is to make PLC ruled by Piasts. Sigismund the Old planned to marry his oldest daughter Hedwig to last Dukes od Mazovia: Stanisław and after his death, his brother Janusz III. They both died young, but if any of them could live a few years longer (with their lifestyle long life is unlikely), Say Janusz lives 5 years longer, marries 17 years old Hedwig in 1530, sees birth of their son Konrad IV in 1531 just before his death (better if their child is not raised by Janusz). If Sigismund Augustus still dies childless, then his Mazovian nephew would be his obvious successor. That means 1573 election is pure formality and there is no such long interregnum. Also with king, who is not foreigner, Jan Zamoyski would not became de facto co-ruler of PLC and would not have chance to shape PLC as much as IOTL (for example by making office of hetman given for life, which was disastrous for PLC's army and changed hetman into more political than military figure). Zamoyski was really destructive person for Commonwealth, easpecially during early Sigismund III's reign, when he was conflicted with King. Also, Mazovian King of PLC, unlike OTL monarchs, would have large hereditary duchy within PLC, which would strenghten his position (Duchy of Mazovia is not Jagiellon's GDL, but is still better than nothing). Also without incorporation of Mazovia Warsaw would not be capital (propably Sejm would be held in Lublin) and numerous Mazovian poor nobility would not get as much influence as IOTL, without Mazovia, Crown would have much less % of nobles-average % of nobles for Poland without Mazovia was 3-6%, addition of Mazovia with 20% of nobles caused nationwide rise to 10%)
I like this scenario although I feel like the XVI century might be too late for a “powerhouse” Poland. Though I wonder how Poland’s history would have progressed without exceptionally powerful nobles and constant dynastic changes. A more absolutist and “generic” monarchy?
 
Not so much. This "Ukrainian estates" were the source of PLC's incomes.

I doubt it. At least in the early XVIII Polish tax system included the general poll tax, the hiberna, the kwarta (25% of the income from the royal estates to maintain an army), and the Jewish poll tax. Lithuanian system included poll tax, hearth tax, Jewish poll tax and income from the custom duties (from "The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe c. 1200 - 1815" edited by Richard Bonney).
 

krieger

Banned
Well, most of the areas included in the proposed scenario would add little in the terms of economy and I doubt that Bohemia would willingly consider itself a cash cow for indefinite period of time. As for the population, AFAIK, population of the PLC by the early XVII was greater than of Tsardom of Moscow and much greater than one of Sweden. Losing Livonia was a result of the numerous factors but it is quite clear that when it happen PLC's military system started noticeably lagging behind the "Western" level: they still could win in the field thanks to the superb cavalry but could not defend the cities or take the fortified places. Reforms by Wladislaw did not result in a major breakthrough in that direction. BTW, if nobility had so much power how come that the Great Hetman of Lithuania, Radziwill, had been repeatedly asking Sigismund for the financial help and not getting any because Sigismund wanted his own client (also a major magnate)? It is too easy to blame everything upon the faceless "nobility" but surely the kings also had some responsibility for what's going on.

An idea of having an absolute monarch as a factor improving "efficiency" of the state is not new and it may or may not work depending upon the circumstances. In Tsardom of Moscow an absolute monarch, Ivan IV, basically run country to the ground both economically and by his expansionist policies. Sigismund also was looking for as much expansion as possible and Wladislaw followed the trend. A result was unmitigated disaster with a big loss of a territory and devastation of the country. In the case of a maximum expansion all the way to include Slovakia the country would become even more strategically vulnerable than in OTL and it is an open question if all these assorted nations would be eager to defend it or if there would be Khmelnitsky on steroids scenario.
These areas were basis of Prussian kingdom IOTL. So I wouldn't worry about their utility for "Slavonic" kingdom. Bohemia would be as much "cash cow" as, for example Greater Poland was IOTL Poland or Transylvania was for OTL Hungary. The case of Radziwiłł was quite different than you are portraying it. This general told Sigismund that "he doesn't want to command PLC's troops because Swedes are fighting for their freedom" - so what could be done of the commander doesn't want to do his job? And I am not blaming anything on faceless "nobility" but I am stating the fact that until XIXth century parliamentary system wasn't suitable for big countries located in Europe (especially Eastern). If you are taking Muscovy as an example - absolutist policy of Ivan IV allowed Muscovites to gather overwhelming amount of land, and in the Time of Troubles this land was basis of creating the troops who forced Poles to go back to their own country. Also the lack of such a powerful parliament allowed Muscovites to reform their country and surpass PLC. If the expansion happens in Middle Ages I'd doubt such a disastrous effects. Some crisises (as they happened in France or England) could of course still happen but they wouldn't be as disastrous as OTL Chmielnicki.
 
Absolutism really wasn't norm in Central Europe during 16th and even 17th century. Jagiellon Poland-Lithuania was not that much different from Denmark-Norway. Even Habsburg absolutism was quite late (and not complete, Habsburgs failed to impose absolutism in Hungary), so I don't buy "Polish nobility (or even Poles in general) were bunch of greedy idiots, who could live only under whip" rhethoric. PLC was shaped by massive succession crisis (not only Sigismund II died without kids, he was careless about succession and outlived his nephews-Sigismund of Brandenburg and John Sigismund Zapolya, who could succeede him. First 3 elective monarchs were foreigners (Henri de Valois, Stephen Bathory, Sigismund III) next two had problems with menthal health (Władysław IV and Jan Kazimierz) and they were followed by complete idiot Michał Wiśniowiecki. Such chain of events was hardly inevitable from 16th century perspective.
 

krieger

Banned
Absolutely easiest way to fullfill this challenge is to make PLC ruled by Piasts. Sigismund the Old planned to marry his oldest daughter Hedwig to last Dukes od Mazovia: Stanisław and after his death, his brother Janusz III. They both died young, but if any of them could live a few years longer (with their lifestyle long life is unlikely), Say Janusz lives 5 years longer, marries 17 years old Hedwig in 1530, sees birth of their son Konrad IV in 1531 just before his death (better if their child is not raised by Janusz). If Sigismund Augustus still dies childless, then his Mazovian nephew would be his obvious successor. That means 1573 election is pure formality and there is no such long interregnum. Also with king, who is not foreigner, Jan Zamoyski would not became de facto co-ruler of PLC and would not have chance to shape PLC as much as IOTL (for example by making office of hetman given for life, which was disastrous for PLC's army and changed hetman into more political than military figure). Zamoyski was really destructive person for Commonwealth, easpecially during early Sigismund III's reign, when he was conflicted with King. Also, Mazovian King of PLC, unlike OTL monarchs, would have large hereditary duchy within PLC, which would strenghten his position (Duchy of Mazovia is not Jagiellon's GDL, but is still better than nothing). Also without incorporation of Mazovia Warsaw would not be capital (propably Sejm would be held in Lublin) and numerous Mazovian poor nobility would not get as much influence as IOTL, without Mazovia, Crown would have much less % of nobles-average % of nobles for Poland without Mazovia was 3-6%, addition of Mazovia with 20% of nobles caused nationwide rise to 10%)
It's the easiest way but the crown would be still elective (I don't know if you have some idea to make it hereditary and it's required in opening post). Janusz was quite similar in the number of mistresses to Sigismund August, so I wouldn't say that child being not raised by Janusz but by Sigismund the Old would make that much of a difference. And who could young Konrad marry? Maybe we should let Lucia Dorothea, the daughter of Albrecht Hohenzollern live longer than IOTL and marry young Masovian duke .IOTL Albrecht wanted Masovian-Hohenzollern match in the form of his brother, Wilhelm marrying the sister of the last Mazovian dukes, Anna. Such a marriage wasn't allowed by King Sigismund and Bona but perhaps marriage of young Konrad to Hohenzollern princess would be seen better?
 

krieger

Banned
Absolutism really wasn't norm in Central Europe during 16th and even 17th century. Jagiellon Poland-Lithuania was not that much different from Denmark-Norway. Even Habsburg absolutism was quite late (and not complete, Habsburgs failed to impose absolutism in Hungary), so I don't buy "Polish nobility (or even Poles in general) were bunch of greedy idiots, who could live only under whip" rhethoric. PLC was shaped by massive succession crisis (not only Sigismund II died without kids, he was careless about succession and outlived his nephews-Sigismund of Brandenburg and John Sigismund Zapolya, who could succeede him. First 3 elective monarchs were foreigners (Henri de Valois, Stephen Bathory, Sigismund III) next two had problems with menthal health (Władysław IV and Jan Kazimierz) and they were followed by complete idiot Michał Wiśniowiecki. Such chain of events was hardly inevitable from 16th century perspective.
But even if the absolutism (we have a broad definition of this term, so there is a question - what we count as an absolutism?) wasn't a norm Polish situation wasn't the norm either. It was. Christian III was able to make Denmark Lutheran out of his free will and Sigismund Augustus wasn't able to finish his plans of National Church, because he knew that it'd be useless in Poland. If Poland could achieve even Danish levels of king's power it would be a great improvement for this country. And the problem with nobles of PLC wasn't their greed. If they were juest greedy they could be given something materialistic in exchange of political power. The problem was, that they developed such a praise for republican form of government that they weren't able to make any changes in it. It definitely wasn't normal and republican ideology, who created only more and more useless conflicts in state making the situation during the succesion crisis permament proved it's inferiority to monarchical views of most Austrian, Russian or "German" (coming from HRE outside of Austria) writers.
 
But even if the absolutism (we have a broad definition of this term, so there is a question - what we count as an absolutism?) wasn't a norm Polish situation wasn't the norm either. It was. Christian III was able to make Denmark Lutheran out of his free will and Sigismund Augustus wasn't able to finish his plans of National Church, because he knew that it'd be useless in Poland. If Poland could achieve even Danish levels of king's power it would be a great improvement for this country. And the problem with nobles of PLC wasn't their greed. If they were juest greedy they could be given something materialistic in exchange of political power. The problem was, that they developed such a praise for republican form of government that they weren't able to make any changes in it. It definitely wasn't normal and republican ideology, who created only more and more useless conflicts in state making the situation during the succesion crisis permament proved it's inferiority to monarchical views of most Austrian, Russian or "German" (coming from HRE outside of Austria) writers.
Sigismund Augustus didn't want religious strife in Poland, he wasn't that much into National Church really. But he and his father still enjoyed significant power-under Sigismund the Old House of Envoys was weak institution, whose role was limited to accept new taxes, King ruled through Senate (he could nominate senators, so that was easier way, that rulling with help of House of Envoys). Last Jagiellons also were breaking law notoriously without much consequences, and have not called Sejm for years, if they didn't liked to do it.
 

krieger

Banned
Sigismund Augustus didn't want religious strife in Poland, he wasn't that much into National Church really. But he and his father still enjoyed significant power-under Sigismund the Old House of Envoys was weak institution, whose role was limited to accept new taxes, King ruled through Senate (he could nominate senators, so that was easier way, that rulling with help of House of Envoys). Last Jagiellons also were breaking law notoriously without much consequences, and have not called Sejm for years, if they didn't liked to do it.
But during their reing the praise for republicanism was already developing and that's the question - how can we avoid birth of ideology of "golden liberty" as we know from OTL?
 
But during their reing the praise for republicanism was already developing and that's the question - how can we avoid birth of ideology of "golden liberty" as we know from OTL?
Praise for REPUBLICANISM? Nobles were not willing to take full power, even when it was laying on the ground after death of Sigismund II. They could easily abolish monarchy completly, or could make king mere figurehead. While in fact they stopped half way and still left a lot of power (like nominations for offices) in King's hands. And Jagiellons had their hereditary Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Power of middle nobility would decrease anyway after 1620s, with falling grain prices and with most ambitious nobles becoming magnates.
 

krieger

Banned
Praise for REPUBLICANISM? Nobles were not willing to take full power, even when it was laying on the ground after death of Sigismund II. They could easily abolish monarchy completly, or could make king mere figurehead. While in fact they stopped half way and still left a lot of power (like nominations for offices) in King's hands. And Jagiellons had their hereditary Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Power of middle nobility would decrease anyway after 1620s, with falling grain prices and with most ambitious nobles becoming magnates.
Maybe I used a wrong vocabulary once again. Nobles thought that this "halfway" is the ultimate form of republic (not in the modern sense of this term, the state could have a king and be still called republic - even Machiavelli used this term in exchange with the term "mixed monarchy") and were furious about defending it. For example, the election was called "a basis of liberty" by Marcin Rzecki, member of the House of Envoys in 1626.
 
Maybe I used a wrong vocabulary once again. Nobles thought that this "halfway" is the ultimate form of republic (not in the modern sense of this term, the state could have a king and be still called republic - even Machiavelli used this term in exchange with the term "mixed monarchy") and were furious about defending it. For example, the election was called "a basis of liberty" by Marcin Rzecki, member of the House of Envoys in 1626.
That is long after end of Jagiellon dynasty and implementation of experiment called Union of Lublin. Survival of Jagiellons and hereditary throne of GDL would greatly reduce importance of election. 16th century POD could also easily prevent rise of election "viritim".
 
It's the easiest way but the crown would be still elective (I don't know if you have some idea to make it hereditary and it's required in opening post). Janusz was quite similar in the number of mistresses to Sigismund August, so I wouldn't say that child being not raised by Janusz but by Sigismund the Old would make that much of a difference. And who could young Konrad marry? Maybe we should let Lucia Dorothea, the daughter of Albrecht Hohenzollern live longer than IOTL and marry young Masovian duke .IOTL Albrecht wanted Masovian-Hohenzollern match in the form of his brother, Wilhelm marrying the sister of the last Mazovian dukes, Anna. Such a marriage wasn't allowed by King Sigismund and Bona but perhaps marriage of young Konrad to Hohenzollern princess would be seen better?
Polish throne would be elective, but Mazovia would still be hereditary. So son of the king of PLC would not be mr Nobody before being elected to the throne-he'll be heir to Mazovia. that would make it easier to find wives for royal sons. Hereditary duchy was something monarchs of PLC were dreaming about from the time when Sigismund III lost Sweden. Sobieski tried to get one in Moldavia, Augustus II in Livonia. Both attempts, especially second one, were disastrous.
Sigismund Augustus had plenty of mistresses, but he wasn't drunkard like last Mazovian Piasts. So yes, being raised by Sigismund the Old vs being raised by rarely sober Janusz III would make difference.
Late Mazovian Piasts usually married daughters of Lithuanian magnates (Janusz and Stanisław had Radziwiłł mother), so Konrad IV could also look for wife there. It would not be obvious before 1560s, that Sigismund Augustus is likely to die childless, while Konrad IV likely marry around early/mid 1550s.
 

krieger

Banned
Polish throne would be elective, but Mazovia would still be hereditary. So son of the king of PLC would not be mr Nobody before being elected to the throne-he'll be heir to Mazovia. that would make it easier to find wives for royal sons. Hereditary duchy was something monarchs of PLC were dreaming about from the time when Sigismund III lost Sweden. Sobieski tried to get one in Moldavia, Augustus II in Livonia. Both attempts, especially second one, were disastrous.
Sigismund Augustus had plenty of mistresses, but he wasn't drunkard like last Mazovian Piasts. So yes, being raised by Sigismund the Old vs being raised by rarely sober Janusz III would make difference.
Late Mazovian Piasts usually married daughters of Lithuanian magnates (Janusz and Stanisław had Radziwiłł mother), so Konrad IV could also look for wife there. It would not be obvious before 1560s, that Sigismund Augustus is likely to die childless, while Konrad IV likely marry around early/mid 1550s.
Yes, it would improve the situation a lot. But still nobility could threaten the king with not electing his son. Albrecht wanted to create marriage ties with Masovian Piasts when Sigismund August was a little child. He wanted his brother, Wilhelm to marry the sister of Stanisław and Janusz III - Anna. Sigismund the Old opposed the marriage because he feared that Hohenzollerns could inherit Masovia that way. Marriage of young Konrad to one of Albrecht's daughters would be not seen as a threat to Sigismund's court. Also, Duke of Prussia is equal to duke of Masovia - both are vassal dukes of Polish king. Why Konrad couldn't marry a Hohenzollern then? And if Jadwiga is married to Janusz III who could elector Joachim II marry as a second wife?
 
Relligion could be problem with Piast-Hohenzollern marriage. Mazovia was most conservative Catholic part of Poland back then, with almost no Protestants.
 
These areas were basis of Prussian kingdom IOTL. So I wouldn't worry about their utility for "Slavonic" kingdom.

Not sure which of "these" areas you are talking about but "utility" of Livonia (Latvia & Estonia) was quite clear: the Lithuanian grain exports had been coming through its ports. And Danzig played similar role for Poland.


Bohemia would be as much "cash cow" as, for example Greater Poland was IOTL Poland or Transylvania was for OTL Hungary.

Well, Hungary had a lot of problems with Transilvania and AFAIK, Bohemia one of the most economically developed places in Europe while I never heard anything of the kind about the Greater Poland (perhaps I missed something). Then, of course, goes an issue of who is dominating whom in a tandem Poland - Bohemia. In OTL the issue of Bohemia's dependency from the Hapsburgs had been decided only as a result of the 30YW and why would it be peaceful in your scenario of an unified Slavic state dominated by Poland?


The case of Radziwiłł was quite different than you are portraying it. This general told Sigismund that "he doesn't want to command PLC's troops because Swedes are fighting for their freedom" - so what could be done of the commander doesn't want to do his job?

You are seemingly confusing the events and Radziwills: I was talking about Krzysztof Radziwiłł II and the Swedish conquest of Livonia (1621 - 25) when Sigismund did everything possible to sabotage Radziwill with the resulting loss of Livonia and a need to pay custom duties to Sweden. You are most probably talking about his father, Krzysztof Mikołaj "the Thunderbolt" Radziwiłł: at the time Polish army was fighting in Sweden (1598) Krzysztof Radziwiłł II was a child.

And I am not blaming anything on faceless "nobility" but I am stating the fact that until XIXth century parliamentary system wasn't suitable for big countries located in Europe (especially Eastern).

There are various forms of parliamentary systems and England and Sweden had them (with some interruptions) prior to the XIX century. It also existed in Bohemia prior to the 30YW. In the cases of the PLC and Hungary (prior to the Ottoman conquest) we have parliamentary systems running amok. Strictly peaking, the HRE also had a parliamentary system of the sorts.

So, yes, an argument can be made in a favor of the strong royal power but the results could be opposite to the intended. Spain went bankrupt, Louis XIV destroyed France by the endless wars and insane spending and before him Francis I and Henry II paved the way to the Wars of Religion and devastation of the country by their foreign policies. Ivan IV ruined Tsardom economically and militarily. Gustav III (who tried to play an absolute monarch) was assassinated and Gustav IV forced to abdicate. And Louis XVI was executed (in XVIII century).

If you are taking Muscovy as an example - absolutist policy of Ivan IV allowed Muscovites to gather overwhelming amount of land, and in the Time of Troubles this land was basis of creating the troops who forced Poles to go back to their own country.

Which is, of course, a complete and total nonsense because the newly-acquired territories (Kazan, Astrakhan, etc.) did not play any noticeable role in the events. An army you are talking about had been financed by Nizhny Novgorod, which existed since 1221 and belonged to the Princedom of Vladimir (part of the Muscovite state well before Ivan IV was born).

Reign of Ivan IV "cost" anywhere between 20 and 30% of the population, destruction of Novgorod, destruction of the agriculture (recorded by the English ambassador at his court), pretty much destruction of an army and a "purge" of its commanding cadres unmatched until the Russian Revolution.

Also the lack of such a powerful parliament allowed Muscovites to reform their country and surpass PLC.

It is safe to say that by that time anything different from the anarchy of the PLC would be improvement. However, the "reforms" is a vague term. Reforms of the first 3 Romanov tsars and Sophia regency resulted in the noticeable improvements (comparing to the "ground zero" from which Michael started) but Peter's reforms were approximately as costly in the terms of the population loss as reign of Ivan IV and put country on an absolutely wrong track of economic development with the disastrous long term results.

If the expansion happens in Middle Ages I'd doubt such a disastrous effects. Some crisises (as they happened in France or England) could of course still happen but they wouldn't be as disastrous as OTL Chmielnicki.

Khmelnitsky Uprising was just the most successful in a rather long line of the Cossack revolts and in the "pan-Slavic" monstrosity the conflicts would be inevitable.
 
PLC created system, where legislative (Sejm) and executive (King) powers were conflicted and blocked each other. Evolution of the system halted half-way between monarchy and republic. If whole power-executive and legislative, was given to parliament, making PLC true republic, it would work better. With stronger king it could also work better, but with, say, Władysław IV trying to conquer Moscow, Stockholm and Constantinopole at once, and no one able to prevent him from doing it, PLC would cease to exist much earlier than IOTL. Poland is simply small country if measured by size of neighbours, Poland's powerbase, even at times of PLC, was Vistula and Warta watershed, circa 200 000 square kilometers with 4 millions inhabitants, so no matter how good type of government Poland have, it could be great power only at times, when neighbours are in crisis. Otherwise best thing Poland could expect is to survive as medium sized local power.
 
Last edited:

krieger

Banned
Not sure which of "these" areas you are talking about but "utility" of Livonia (Latvia & Estonia) was quite clear: the Lithuanian grain exports had been coming through its ports. And Danzig played similar role for Poland.




Well, Hungary had a lot of problems with Transilvania and AFAIK, Bohemia one of the most economically developed places in Europe while I never heard anything of the kind about the Greater Poland (perhaps I missed something). Then, of course, goes an issue of who is dominating whom in a tandem Poland - Bohemia. In OTL the issue of Bohemia's dependency from the Hapsburgs had been decided only as a result of the 30YW and why would it be peaceful in your scenario of an unified Slavic state dominated by Poland?




You are seemingly confusing the events and Radziwills: I was talking about Krzysztof Radziwiłł II and the Swedish conquest of Livonia (1621 - 25) when Sigismund did everything possible to sabotage Radziwill with the resulting loss of Livonia and a need to pay custom duties to Sweden. You are most probably talking about his father, Krzysztof Mikołaj "the Thunderbolt" Radziwiłł: at the time Polish army was fighting in Sweden (1598) Krzysztof Radziwiłł II was a child.


There are various forms of parliamentary systems and England and Sweden had them (with some interruptions) prior to the XIX century. It also existed in Bohemia prior to the 30YW. In the cases of the PLC and Hungary (prior to the Ottoman conquest) we have parliamentary systems running amok. Strictly peaking, the HRE also had a parliamentary system of the sorts.

So, yes, an argument can be made in a favor of the strong royal power but the results could be opposite to the intended. Spain went bankrupt, Louis XIV destroyed France by the endless wars and insane spending and before him Francis I and Henry II paved the way to the Wars of Religion and devastation of the country by their foreign policies. Ivan IV ruined Tsardom economically and militarily. Gustav III (who tried to play an absolute monarch) was assassinated and Gustav IV forced to abdicate. And Louis XVI was executed (in XVIII century).



Which is, of course, a complete and total nonsense because the newly-acquired territories (Kazan, Astrakhan, etc.) did not play any noticeable role in the events. An army you are talking about had been financed by Nizhny Novgorod, which existed since 1221 and belonged to the Princedom of Vladimir (part of the Muscovite state well before Ivan IV was born).

Reign of Ivan IV "cost" anywhere between 20 and 30% of the population, destruction of Novgorod, destruction of the agriculture (recorded by the English ambassador at his court), pretty much destruction of an army and a "purge" of its commanding cadres unmatched until the Russian Revolution.



It is safe to say that by that time anything different from the anarchy of the PLC would be improvement. However, the "reforms" is a vague term. Reforms of the first 3 Romanov tsars and Sophia regency resulted in the noticeable improvements (comparing to the "ground zero" from which Michael started) but Peter's reforms were approximately as costly in the terms of the population loss as reign of Ivan IV and put country on an absolutely wrong track of economic development with the disastrous long term results.



Khmelnitsky Uprising was just the most successful in a rather long line of the Cossack revolts and in the "pan-Slavic" monstrosity the conflicts would be inevitable.
Before Turks came there were no problems with Transylvania in Hungary. The Greater Poland had the best income from grain in whole Prussian kingdom. But my point is that "tandem" arises before separate identities of "Polish" and "Bohemian". It would make the same sense as asking who is dominating in Poland - Greater Poland or the Lesser Poland? England is a large country? Sweden had various shifts from parliamentary to absolutist periods. And it's peak is early Charles's XII reing - the absolutist period. No. The quote quoted by me are the words of "Krzysztof Radziwiłł II", which were said in 1624 to King. But we can also disprove Your arguments. Spain went bankrupt, but it's hereditary king Charles II had enough will to stop the partiton projects (http://racjonalista.tv/karol-ii-habsburg-i-wyimaginowana-glupota-niektorych-wladcow/ - here you have more about this), which Leszczyński chosen in election supported with all his heart. Francis I and Henry II had no choice. Huguenots were not only a belief but an organised opposition with a dogma to be subordinate to Geneva Calvinist authorities (they can be compared even to Communists with their "International"). Adam Wielomski perfectly describes this situation in his book - "Teologia polityczna reformacji i kontrreformacji. Część 1. Rewolucja protestancka". So You think that French kings should just allow this anti-state force to exist? And after Louis XVI's demise the parliament didn't have a real power but even worse autocrates than Louis came - Robespierre and Napoleon Bonaparte. No. One of the "Opołoczenije" armies came from Kazań. Reign of Ivan IV also provided Kazań, Astrachań and Siberia for Russia. The reforms of first Romanov tsars and Sophia would be impossible with parliament being in charge. Sweden survived mostly due to Gustaf's efforts. If not Gustaf, Sweden could be as much "independent" in XIXth century as Poland was.
 

krieger

Banned
PLC created system, where legislative (Sejm) and executive (King) powers were conflicted and blocked each other. Evolution of the system halted half-way between monarchy and republic. If whole power-executive and legislative, was given to parliament, making PLC true republic, it would work better. With stronger king it could also work better, but with, say, Władysław IV trying to conquer Moscow, Stockholm and Constantinopole at once, and no one able to prevent him from doing it, PLC would cease to exist much earlier than IOTL. Poland is simply small country if measured by size of neighbours, Poland's powerbase, even at times of PLC, was Vistula and Warta watershed, circa 200 000 square kilometers with 4 millions inhabitants, so no matter how good type of government Poland have, it could be great power only at times, when neighbours are in crisis. Otherwise best thing Poland could expect is to survive as medium sized local power.
I think that true republic wouldn't work in state that large before XIXth (even XXth) century. We can see how Rome ended up - the large territory demanded the rise of Empire to administrate whole Empire succesfully, which republic was unable to do. The plans of Władysław IV were the result of situation, where he couldn't just fight with Sweden. He tried to find ways to make parliament be willing to suport him in his struggle for Swedish crown. And he thought that conquest of Constantinople would be good one. If he had all the power he could just keep fighting Sweden. Do You think that any extension of a powerbase was impossible? I think adding rich Silesia and Western Pomerania to the powerbase could improve the situation. Also succesfully colonized and polonized Ukraine could provide a further extension of powerbase. Also do You think that, for example unification of Germany was inevitable? I don't think so. The differences between Germans are that big, that they could end up balkanized. Bavarian and Saxon could be as disctinct as Serb and Croat are.
 
Polonization of Dnepr Ukraine through colonization would not work, because Catholic Church was weak on these lands. There were no enough Latin Catholic parishes, so Polish Catholic settlers from Mazovia or Lesser Poland became Eastern Orthodox/Greek Catholic, because they were simply unable to find any other church. So instead of polonization there was ruthenization of Polish settlers.
 
Last edited:
Top