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
A good POD would be one the two of Elbowhigh's elbowhigh's two elder sons survive and marry either Clementia of Hungary or Elizabeth of Bohemia.
 
Polonization of Dnepr Ukraine through colonization would not wiek, 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.
Stronger and less tolerant/more religiously active, and above all richer monarchy could stop this, and promote establishment of catholic parishes.
 

krieger

Banned
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.
But was it totaly IMPOSSIBLE to prevent this? I think that there were at least two ways to prevent this situation from happening. The first one is a massive action of building new parishes by Church before colonisation (it would be likely to happen if someone like St Andrew Bobola was a archbishop of Gniezno) or Poland going Protestant - if Poland went protesant the faith of settlers would be much more individualistic - they simply wouldn't care about parishes (like Boers in Africa didn't) and much more different from Orthodoxy (Protestant settler when seeing an Orthodox church would think that it's pagan with all this forms and rituals).
 
Before Turks came there were no problems with Transylvania in Hungary.

Then you have to do massive changes in history all the way to the XV century and probably even earlier, to the mid-XIII century: after their Western Campaign the Mongols pretty much controlled the area where the Danube flows to the Black Sea. Not sure what Transylvania has to do with your schema: AFAIK, it is not Slavic and it does not have access to the sea. And, of course, during the Middle Ages Poland was at war with Hungary more than once.

The Greater Poland had the best income from grain in whole Prussian kingdom.

You really have to settle to some definite historic period: Poland within Prussian Kingdom starts from the late XVIII, which was a little bit too late for creating super-Polish state stretching to the Black Sea. Not to mention that the grain exports had been coming through Danzig targeting Western Europe (IIRC, there was a big grain market in Amsterdam in the XVII - early XVIII and later Britain became a major consumer).

But my point is that "tandem" arises before separate identities of "Polish" and "Bohemian".

In which case you are going so far back in a history that the issue of grain exports becomes pretty much irrelevant: "identity" of Bohemia existed at least since XI century with the kingdom being established in the XII century.

Sweden had various shifts from parliamentary to absolutist periods. And it's peak is early Charles's XII reing - the absolutist period.

You can't arbitrarily take few years out of somebody's reign. Charles XII is a great example of how absolutism can ruin a country within couple decades if an absolute monarch is more stubborn than intelligent.


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),

Charles II stopped nothing. The competing powers kept bickering among themselves regarding various schemes and who is going to be a heir. The issue had been resolved after his death by the War of the Spanish Succession and Spanish possessions in Europe had been partitioned. Thanks for the link but I don't read Polish (or is this Czech?)

which Leszczyński chosen in election supported with all his heart.

Hardly so but he was not in a position to resist 3 major European powers acting in concert.

Francis I and Henry II had no choice.

Now, this is a complete and 100% wrong: Louis XII was planning for a while to give the Italian possessions as a dowry of his daughter and both Francis and Henry had been fighting for the territories that were outside France just because they had the hereditary claims. Only by the very end of the Italian Wars fighting shifted within the French borders and even then only close to the border.


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?

Again, you are missing the fundamentals: situation deteriorated because prestige of a royal power went down the tubes to a great degree due to the disastrous end of the wars with Spain. With the reasonably intelligent monarchs not distracted by the insane wars situation could be either avoided by the meaningful arrangements or dealt with by force on the early stage.

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.

Rather primitive view of the French Revolution but, by your own words, the autocrats had been bad.


No. One of the "Opołoczenije" armies came from Kazań.

Nizahny Novgorod was a paymaster. The troops (professional soldiers) had been coming from Arzamas (service people expelled from Smolensk by the Poles), Vyazma, Dorgobuz, Kolomna and Ryazan. There were also garrisons from the border towns, and Cossacks. All attracted by a regularly paid high salaries: the ordinary soldiers had been getting as much as Tsar's guards before "Smuta". "Armies" as plural requires stretch of imagination size of the 2nd "opolchenie" was slightly above 3,000 and grew slightly during its march up the Volga and further grew during staying in Yaroslavl: mostly troops from Moscow area but some contingents from the lower Volga as well. By the time it fought Khodkewich at Moscow size of the opolchenie was between 7 and 8.000

Reign of Ivan IV also provided Kazań, Astrachań and Siberia for Russia.

At the cost of losing big percentage of the population and economic disaster. Taking into an account that by his time both Kazan and Astrakhan had been vassals of Russia and that "Siberia" amounted to a part of the Western Siberia with a rather tenuous Russian grip on the territory, it is an open question if absolutism was quite necessary for achieving these conquests.

The reforms of first Romanov tsars and Sophia would be impossible with parliament being in charge.

And you know this how exactly? BTW, please, list the reforms you are talking about.

BTW, there is a big difference between absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy and "parliament being in charge", especially "in charge Polish style".

Sweden survived mostly due to Gustaf's efforts.

If you are talking about Gustav IV, thanks to his efforts it lost Finland and was pretty much bankrupted.

If not Gustaf, Sweden could be as much "independent" in XIXth century as Poland was.

Unlike the PLC, which was squeezed between Russia, Austria and Prussia, nobody wanted conquest of Sweden. The only reason why Russia ended up occupying Finland was to prevent the future attacks on St-Petersburg which had been regularly attempted by the Swedish monarchs during the XVIII century (usually, when Russia was at war with somebody else and could not easily spare troops for a new theater).
 
WI we get a sort of miracle of the house of Poland - every ruler of Poland has one and only one heir? That is they might have more sons, but they either predecease their father, or are for some or another reason unable to inherit and rule thus avoiding inheritance wars and partitions of royal domain. Starting with Boleslav the Wrymouth's brother dying early.

So this united Poland should have better chance of keeping Silesia, fending off Brandenburgians, possibly conquering Prussia without having to summon Teutonic Knights, and slowly gaining bits and pieces of land in the east?
 
"Miracle of the House of Poland" would be not enough to keep Poland united-local magnate or governor could start his own dynasty, like Sobiesławic Dynasty in Pomerelia. OTOH it is not needed for monarch to have only one son if one of them is capable enough to get rid of brothers, like almost every generation of Piast Dynasty did, untill Władysław II failed to defeat younger brothers. What would be more helpful? Royal Crown (so one monarch is at least de iure ruler of Poland) and lesser number of cadet branches of House of Piasts, especially in Silesia (Silesia was insanely fragmented, Upper Silesia alone was divided between 19 dukes iirc). Less divided Silesia would not be easy prey for Czech Kingdom and could lead Polish reunification. Perhaps Henryk the Pious instead of 5, mostly incapable sons, left only one but capable?
 
Making Henry Biały/Henry the White only surviving son of Henry the Pious would be good start. Henryk Biały thus would not need to fight against his brother Bolesław over inheritance. If there is no Bolesław the Bald, Lubusz would remain part of Duchy of Silesia (so Brandenburg would not get foothold on the right bank of Oder) IOTL Bolesław the Bald sold Lubusz to Brandenburgians to get money to fight his brother. If Henryk Biały also have only one son, like IOTL, that son (analogue of Henryk IV Probus) could like OTL Henryk IV claim Lesser Poland after death of Leszek II, and then, as ruler of southern half of Poland, start attempts to get royal crown. Then last serious obstacle before full reunification would be Piasts of Greater Poland, but they were never too numerous. Once they die out, Henryk IV would be in the best position to claim Greater Poland, especially considering the fact, that by this time Church of Poland supported unification, so Henryk would have full support of Archbishop of Gniezno as the best candidate to finish unification process.
 

krieger

Banned
Then you have to do massive changes in history all the way to the XV century and probably even earlier, to the mid-XIII century: after their Western Campaign the Mongols pretty much controlled the area where the Danube flows to the Black Sea. Not sure what Transylvania has to do with your schema: AFAIK, it is not Slavic and it does not have access to the sea. And, of course, during the Middle Ages Poland was at war with Hungary more than once.



You really have to settle to some definite historic period: Poland within Prussian Kingdom starts from the late XVIII, which was a little bit too late for creating super-Polish state stretching to the Black Sea. Not to mention that the grain exports had been coming through Danzig targeting Western Europe (IIRC, there was a big grain market in Amsterdam in the XVII - early XVIII and later Britain became a major consumer).



In which case you are going so far back in a history that the issue of grain exports becomes pretty much irrelevant: "identity" of Bohemia existed at least since XI century with the kingdom being established in the XII century.



You can't arbitrarily take few years out of somebody's reign. Charles XII is a great example of how absolutism can ruin a country within couple decades if an absolute monarch is more stubborn than intelligent.




Charles II stopped nothing. The competing powers kept bickering among themselves regarding various schemes and who is going to be a heir. The issue had been resolved after his death by the War of the Spanish Succession and Spanish possessions in Europe had been partitioned. Thanks for the link but I don't read Polish (or is this Czech?)



Hardly so but he was not in a position to resist 3 major European powers acting in concert.



Now, this is a complete and 100% wrong: Louis XII was planning for a while to give the Italian possessions as a dowry of his daughter and both Francis and Henry had been fighting for the territories that were outside France just because they had the hereditary claims. Only by the very end of the Italian Wars fighting shifted within the French borders and even then only close to the border.




Again, you are missing the fundamentals: situation deteriorated because prestige of a royal power went down the tubes to a great degree due to the disastrous end of the wars with Spain. With the reasonably intelligent monarchs not distracted by the insane wars situation could be either avoided by the meaningful arrangements or dealt with by force on the early stage.



Rather primitive view of the French Revolution but, by your own words, the autocrats had been bad.




Nizahny Novgorod was a paymaster. The troops (professional soldiers) had been coming from Arzamas (service people expelled from Smolensk by the Poles), Vyazma, Dorgobuz, Kolomna and Ryazan. There were also garrisons from the border towns, and Cossacks. All attracted by a regularly paid high salaries: the ordinary soldiers had been getting as much as Tsar's guards before "Smuta". "Armies" as plural requires stretch of imagination size of the 2nd "opolchenie" was slightly above 3,000 and grew slightly during its march up the Volga and further grew during staying in Yaroslavl: mostly troops from Moscow area but some contingents from the lower Volga as well. By the time it fought Khodkewich at Moscow size of the opolchenie was between 7 and 8.000



At the cost of losing big percentage of the population and economic disaster. Taking into an account that by his time both Kazan and Astrakhan had been vassals of Russia and that "Siberia" amounted to a part of the Western Siberia with a rather tenuous Russian grip on the territory, it is an open question if absolutism was quite necessary for achieving these conquests.



And you know this how exactly? BTW, please, list the reforms you are talking about.

BTW, there is a big difference between absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy and "parliament being in charge", especially "in charge Polish style".



If you are talking about Gustav IV, thanks to his efforts it lost Finland and was pretty much bankrupted.



Unlike the PLC, which was squeezed between Russia, Austria and Prussia, nobody wanted conquest of Sweden. The only reason why Russia ended up occupying Finland was to prevent the future attacks on St-Petersburg which had been regularly attempted by the Swedish monarchs during the XVIII century (usually, when Russia was at war with somebody else and could not easily spare troops for a new theater).
Yes, the Poland within Prussian kingdom begins in late XVIIIth century. But even before, the Greater Poland was the most developed part of PLC and a "cash cow". There weren't many rebellions because of this. XI century is a broad term. During the reing of Boleslav I (when I am placing my POD) Bohemian identity wasn't definitely full-blown. The peace of Nystad and it's disastrous terms for Sweden came after demise of Charles XII. When he was still in charge, he managed to protect the country and was able to defeat minor enemies such as Denmark even after Poltava (Charles XII died when seizing Frederikshald - castle located in modern-day Norway, which was Danish possesion in the early XVIIIth century). Louis XII died a one year ago Ferdinand and he had all reasons to think that his plan of providing Ferdinand non-Habsburg heir to Aragon by Germaine's womb would work. Francis and Henry worked in the situation of almost complete Habsburg encicrclement of France, so they wanted to gain Italy as a counterbalance to Habsburg power. Charles II resisted partition treaties and gave all his lands to Philip of Anjou in hope of him keeping all the Spanish lands safe. So Spain didn't have to lose a plenty of lands - the Guipuzqocoua part of Basque country could serve as an example.
 
Yes, the Poland within Prussian kingdom begins in late XVIIIth century. But even before, the Greater Poland was the most developed part of PLC and a "cash cow".

I was under the impression that the most developed part of the PLC was the Royal Prussia, especially Danzig. However, this is not too relevant on 2 main accounts:
1st, at least by the late XVI Poland was lagging behind the developed Western-European countries while Bohemia was one of the most developed countries in Europe.
2nd, the Great Poland was the main part of Poland while your "pan-Slavic" state includes 2 distinctively different strong entities: Bohemia and Poland (not to mention other Slavic territories).

XI century is a broad term.
Actually, it is a well-defined term and the same goes for any other century.


During the reing of Boleslav I (when I am placing my POD) Bohemian identity wasn't definitely full-blown.

Which is X century. Duchy of Bohemia already existed and was quite capable of defending itself against Henry the Fowler and his successor, Otto and then to act as a German ally in the Battle of Lechfeld. In other words, Czechs already were a well-defined nation.

The peace of Nystad and it's disastrous terms for Sweden came after demise of Charles XII. When he was still in charge, he managed to protect the country and was able to defeat minor enemies such as Denmark even after Poltava (Charles XII died when seizing Frederikshald - castle located in modern-day Norway, which was Danish possesion in the early XVIIIth century).

Oh dear, I hate to put it this way but are you really that ignorant in history or just writing nonsense in a hope of not being caught? Well before Poltava he lost all the Baltic provinces (and their revenues). After Poltava he was staying in the Ottoman Empire while Finland was occupied by the Russians and August II regained the Polish throne. Arfter he was permitted to return (courtesy of the Ottomans and foolishness of Peter) he was defeated at the Battle of Stresow with a following loss of Rugen. His attempt to conquer Norway in 1716 ended up with fiasco (and failure of taking Frederikshald fortress) and a hasty retreat.

As for siege of Frederikshald in 1718, you are clearly confusing "besieging" ("laying the siege", which he did) with "seizing" ("capturing", which he most definitely did not) and even his most ardent admirers (AFAIK) never claimed that unfinished siege of a fortress in Norway defended by a garrison of 1.400 amounted to the defeat of Denmark.

Louis XII died a one year ago Ferdinand and he had all reasons to think that his plan of providing Ferdinand non-Habsburg heir to Aragon by Germaine's womb would work.

I wish I could understood what you are trying to say. What "non-Habsburg heir to Aragon" are you talking about? The proposal I mentioned was regarding the marriage of Claude, heir presumptive to the Duchy of Brittany, to Charles Hapsburg, future Emperor Charles V.

Francis and Henry worked in the situation of almost complete Habsburg encicrclement of France, so they wanted to gain Italy as a counterbalance to Habsburg power.

Hapsburg "encirclement" continued (with the exception of French Compte and some other small pieces of land) all the way to the War of the Spanish Succession and did not prevent France from becoming the most powerful state in Europe.

Charles II resisted partition treaties and gave all his lands to Philip of Anjou in hope of him keeping all the Spanish lands safe. So Spain didn't have to lose a plenty of lands - the Guipuzqocoua part of Basque country could serve as an example.

Spain lost Italy and Belgium. As for Charles' resistance, it mattered only because the competing European powers could not agree on how exactly the Spanish empire is going to be partitioned. Leaving everything to Philip was meaningless without support of Louis XIV.
 
"Miracle of the House of Poland" would be not enough to keep Poland united-local magnate or governor could start his own dynasty, like Sobiesławic Dynasty in Pomerelia. OTOH it is not needed for monarch to have only one son if one of them is capable enough to get rid of brothers, like almost every generation of Piast Dynasty did, untill Władysław II failed to defeat younger brothers. What would be more helpful? Royal Crown (so one monarch is at least de iure ruler of Poland) and lesser number of cadet branches of House of Piasts, especially in Silesia (Silesia was insanely fragmented, Upper Silesia alone was divided between 19 dukes iirc). Less divided Silesia would not be easy prey for Czech Kingdom and could lead Polish reunification. Perhaps Henryk the Pious instead of 5, mostly incapable sons, left only one but capable?

BTW, wouldn't this miracle also mean that (if starts early enough) there is no union with Lithuania with all resulting territorial consequences?
 
BTW, wouldn't this miracle also mean that (if starts early enough) there is no union with Lithuania with all resulting territorial consequences?
Obviously, union with Lithuania was possible because after 1310 Polish Kings stopped to provide Kingdom with male heirs for 114 years (that was sort of anti-miracle, between birth of Casimir the Great in 1310 and birth of Władysław III in 1424 no legitimate son was born to Polish King). Although Polish expansion to the East started before union with Lithuania (Casimir III's conquest of Red Ruthenia), so could also happen with continuing Piast line, especially with Poland having more population and resources from Pomerelia and Silesia, and no conflict with Teutonic Order. Poland would not reach as far east as PLC did, but perhaps could achieve something similar to Dmowski's Line:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmowski's_Line
 
Obviously, union with Lithuania was possible because after 1310 Polish Kings stopped to provide Kingdom with male heirs for 114 years (that was sort of anti-miracle, between birth of Casimir the Great in 1310 and birth of Władysław III in 1424 no legitimate son was born to Polish King). Although Polish expansion to the East started before union with Lithuania (Casimir III's conquest of Red Ruthenia), so could also happen with continuing Piast line, especially with Poland having more population and resources from Pomerelia and Silesia, and no conflict with Teutonic Order. Poland would not reach as far east as PLC did, but perhaps could achieve something similar to Dmowski's Line:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmowski's_Line

Which would mean conquest of Lithuania including non-Slavic parts.
 
Obviously, union with Lithuania was possible because after 1310 Polish Kings stopped to provide Kingdom with male heirs for 114 years (that was sort of anti-miracle, between birth of Casimir the Great in 1310 and birth of Władysław III in 1424 no legitimate son was born to Polish King). Although Polish expansion to the East started before union with Lithuania (Casimir III's conquest of Red Ruthenia), so could also happen with continuing Piast line, especially with Poland having more population and resources from Pomerelia and Silesia, and no conflict with Teutonic Order. Poland would not reach as far east as PLC did, but perhaps could achieve something similar to Dmowski's Line:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmowski's_Line
Actually, Wladyslaw the Elbowhigh has two other sons who are the same age as John of Bohemia they could survive and marry Elizabeth of Bohemia or Clemence of Naples and bring in heirs.
 
Łokietek would not be able to claim Bohemia or Hungary for his sons in situation, where he hasn't yet finished reunification of Poland. At the time John of Luxembourg took Czech throne, sons of Henry of Głogów still hold Greater Poland.

In my Silesian Piast scenario there is no opportunity for Łokietek to claim Cracow. That means changes in Hungary (Andrew III would not marry niece of Łokietek, who is mere Cuiavian duke ITTL). Premyslid dynasty also could survive (Wenceslaus III was murdered during preparations for campaign to regain Polish throne for his dynasty, and his father Wenceslaus II married as second wife Elizabeth Richeza, daughter of Przemysł II. Something, that would also not happen without period of Czech rule in Poland).
 
Łokietek would not be able to claim Bohemia or Hungary for his sons in situation, where he hasn't yet finished reunification of Poland. At the time John of Luxembourg took Czech throne, sons of Henry of Głogów still hold Greater Poland.

These are the two situations for the older sons of Lokietek
1.If one of the older sons of Lokietek marries Elizabeth, her position in claiming Bohemia is destroyed in favor of her older sister, Anna and butterflies the Luxembourgs and Weakens Bohemia.
2.Clemence marrying one of the older sons of Lokietek would improve relations with Hungary.
 
Last edited:
Top