Dynasty. From 15th to 20th century the same House of Hohenzollern. And chain of capable rulers from Great Elector to Frederick the Great. And lots of luck.
AHC: Poland dominates Europe
- Thread starter SeaCambrian
- Start date
-
- Tags
- empire europe plc poland superpower
Yes, it survived for centuries as long as the neighbors had been weak or otherwise occupied. The problem starts when the neighbors are getting stronger (Sweden, Prussia, Tsardom of Moscow) and/or start showing interest to the PLC territory (all of the above plus the Ottomans and then Hapsburgs). This partially was related to the ethnic/religious factor as well as had been demonstrated by Khmelnitsky's rebellion and eventual loss of the Left Bank Ukraine (well, this was more complicated due to the Crimean involvement but still...)
Which "that time"? At the time when PLC was created the GH did not exist and Tsardom of Moscow was not surrounded on all sides by the hostile neighbors. Russia was in a really bad situation during the Time of Troubles due to the internal problems (which had been used both by the PLC and Sweden) but there was still a lot of more or less secure "depth" from which the troops had been eventually raised to relieve Moscow.
It could not "touch" them because it already had been overextended and the term "Donbass" did not make sense until the late XIX century: it was just a remote part of the Wild Steppe which belonged to the Crimean Khanate and was almost completely unpopulated until 2nd half of the XVII century (the 1st town in the area had been built after the PLC lost Left Bank Ukraine).
A successful PLC war of conquest against the Khanate probably was possible in theory but I doubt about the practical side.
As for the rest, to be discussed seriously there should be more details explaining how things could happen, not just "Rule the PLC, rule over the waves!" statements. And no, just "XYZ got screwed" does not qualify as the detailed description.
Well, one may argue that Russia did not have uninterrupted dynasty since the XV century (and honestly Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs have little in common with the first Tsars of that dynasty), that the capable rulers had been quite rare (and with at least some of them it would be an issue of "capable of what exactly?"
) and the luck was rather sporadic (quite often due to the efforts of the said rulers). Which may bring us to a dangerous area of the advantages and disadvantages of absolute monarchies which I'd rather try to avoid (geographic considerations look much more safe). Perhaps I should say capable dynasty. In case of Brandenburg/Prussia it could be said, that Electors/Kings of Prussia did great job if compared to their southern neighbours, who also were Electors of HRE and ruled land more valuable than Brandenburg-Wettins of Saxony. Although in case of Poland monarchs rarely had surviving legitimate sons (son succeeding father on the throne during whole history of Reunited Kingdom of Poland and later PLC (almost 500 years) happened only 5 times) so there was succession crisis every time after monarch's death and random guys could be put on the throne of PLC if they, for example, once shared bed with Empress of Russia. Also two times end of dynasty lead to events, that would not happen otherwise-personal union with Lithuania (which would not happen if not the fact, that Casimir the Great and Louis d'Anjou had no legitimate sons) and real union with Lithuania (which also would not happen if Sigismund Augustus had a son). It is obvious fact, that Union of Krewo and Union of Lublin had massive impact on Polish (and not only Polish) history.Well, one may argue that Russia did not have uninterrupted dynasty since the XV century (and honestly Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs have little in common with the first Tsars of that dynasty), that the capable rulers had been quite rare (and with at least some of them it would be an issue of "capable of what exactly?"
Well, maybe you can see cossack rebellions as partially (just partially!) as ethnic or religious conflict. But yeah, in my opinion not the big problem. With geography I am not sure, but definitely agree that internal problems have really big if not main impact on later polish collapse.
With Hungary - well, it would be ruled by same dynasty. That mean ally on south, instead of Hapsburg monarchy which was for Poland... problematic neighbor? With another branch of Jagiellons still existing, there is even bigger chance that dynasty survive (yeah, maybe they weren´t as capable rulers as Hohenzollern, on the other hand, even weak dynasty on throne is probably better for stability than elective monarchy from OTL...).
Even before ToT, especially before/during unification - Moscow stucked between huuuge Lithuania and Tatars, with some Swedish and Teutonic meddling... doesn´t look good
Maybe. On the other hand, if played better, this could even help Poland (or better say, Lithuania). With Kiev and other former Russian lands polish (lithuanian) rulers could pose as true rulers and protectors of Russian people (and sometime really tried).
But neither Wladislaw IV nor Jan Casimir (well, he was not following his father but still ...) had been convincingly used as examples in favor of the hereditary succession.
BTW, Russian history of succession was not smooth either. Look at the late XVII - XVIII century (when Russia was growing into the European Great Power):
Peter I basically came to power as a result of a coup moving aside his elder half brother Ivan (who de facto remained the "senior Tsar").
After Peter's death the Guards proclaimed his widow as an empress even if there was male Peter's grandson.
After short reign of that grandson (Peter II) the successor was elected from a different branch of Romanov family (Anne, Ivan's daughter).
Anne appointed as her heir a grand nephew (son of her niece, daughter of another Ivan's daughter).
Then there was a coup which brought to power Peter's daughter Elizabeth.
Elizabeth appointed as a heir her nephew.
The nephew, Peter III was overthrown by his wife who ruled as Catherine II
Finally, Paul inherited to be killed (with his son sanctioning regicide).
Alexander I was followed by his younger brother Nicholas because Paul's 2nd son, Constantine, abdicated.
Only after that there was was father to son succession.
Be fair: by the time this happened (once) the PLC was pretty much a basket case with its formal independence being almost completely dependent upon the good graces and political competence of the Russian rulers (Catherine's agreement to the 1st partition was a result of her relative incompetence in the foreign affairs).
But are you saying that this effect was more negative than positive? Actually, the issue is quite interesting and anything but straightforward so please expand on it: I'd really like to know your view on it (yes, you can consider it as a provocation
).But someone usually was strong enough to put a boot on the neck of the rest of the country, collect some taxes, enact some policies, and govern Russia for better or worse, be it tsar or some clique of courtiers, or combination of the both.
Anyway, I think that good POD would be Jagiełło and Jadwiga having a healthy son, instead of short living daughter because it allows for the union with Lithuania to continue, perhaps even turn it into real union ahead of time, and - I think - he would have hereditiary rights to Poland.
Last edited:
Even before ToT, especially before/during unification - Moscow stucked between huuuge Lithuania and Tatars, with some Swedish and Teutonic meddling... doesn´t look good
Yes, and there was a time when Lithuania could end up as the unifying Russian state. Vitold came quite close to it being officially recognized protector not only of Novgorod but of the Grand Princedom of Moscow as well (with his grandson being a prince and daughter a regent). And if his grand schema was successful, he would be an official sovereign of the Grand Princedom of Moscow AND of the Golden Horde (ruled by his vassal Tokhtamysh). Unfortunately, implementation of this schema faced a tiny problem called Yesugei. So, if the above-mentioned problem is gone Vitold is an official overlord of all Russian princedoms and, with few changes here and there, his grandson could end up as a ruler of the "Lithuanian Russia". Which means that the sustained union with Poland may not happen and a lot of other butterflies.
Another Tatar-based POD with non-zero possibility would be Christian GH. Batu's son Sartak (Nestorian Christian) kills his dear uncle Berke (before Berke does this to him) and lives much longer than in OTL. With his successors also being Christians merge of the GH and Russian princedoms becomes quite realistic and the rest is, again, a history.
Now, as far as Teutonic Order is involved, the notion is mostly bred by the famous movie (named after a person who could be considered either Russian Quisling or, as in OTL, savior of Russia
). Strictly speaking the Teutonic Order was on the wrong side of Lithuania from the Russian territories and conflicts were with its Livonian branch. The battle advertised in the movie (which is idiotic in pretty much each and every episode) was involving mostly the forces of Bishopric of Dorpat (including Estonians who were looted by the Novgorodian bands), the Danes with very few Livonian knights (probably less than 100). BTW, at least in Pskov the Livonians were not considered as a danger: not too long before the battle on Peipus the city voluntarily invited TWO Order brothers as city administrators. It also seems that the scope of the whole battle and its significance are mostly post-factum production of the "Muscovite propaganda": Alexander "Nevsky" (it seems that even nickname in reality belonged to a different person) was a founder of the house of the future Great Princes of Moscow and his descendants worked really hard on improving his image (all the way to procuring him a sainthood).The only time when there was some potential danger of the "Northern Crusade" the whole affair ended upon receiving the news that ruler of the GH (Mengu Timur, IIRC) is ready to send his troops to defend his Russian subjects. By the reason I can't quite figure out, the crusaders decided that it would be better to go home.
Well, they had centuries of opportunity which they failed to use.
But are you saying that this effect was more negative than positive? Actually, the issue is quite interesting and anything but straightforward so please expand on it: I'd really like to know your view on it (yes, you can consider it as a provocation
Union of Krewo was positive for Poland IMHO. Devasting Lithuanian raids ended, Teutonic Order was crushed at Grunwald and never recovered. Although Lithuania has not supported Poland during 13 Years War, when Poland finally regained Pomerelia, eastern border was at least peacefull. Union of Lublin OTOH was experiment, that failed. As long as Jagiellon dynasty ruled, there was no need to change status quo-personal union between Poland and Lithuania. But it was uncertain what would happen after end of dynasty. There was fear, that union would be broken completly, so nobility of Poland pushed for real union to prevent such scenario. King Sigismund Augustus also was supporter of real union-because he had no sons, who could inherit Grand Duchy of Lithuania after his death, so he could transfer his hereditary laws to GDL to the Crown. Without Union of Lublin Poland would remain medium sized country (slightly smaller than today's Poland) but would be more stable.
You put the magic words to the very end.
There were, of course, clear advantages of being united with Lithuania but, while eventually Poland was quite successful in "polonizing" the Lithuanian (Lithuanian, Belorussian and Ukrainian) nobility, situation was not the same with the lower classes and in the borderline territory like Ukraine, state got a ticking bomb: one one hand there was a need in a militarized lower class (the Cossacks) as an instrument allowing to deal with the permanent treat from the Crimea while OTOH there was an ongoing process of converting the territory into a standard Polish model (big landowners and the serfs). Reconciliation of these mutually-contradictive trends was possible in theory but in practice it led to the endless Cossack uprisings (without and then with the 3rd side being involved) and eventual loss of the Left Bank Ukraine. Was it possible to prevent such a situation? Yes. Russian state had to deal with the similar problem on Don where the Cossacks ended up having their special status and no "feudal" settlements had been permitted on their territory. In the late XVIII existence of the strong central authority (backed up by strong military) allowed to get rid of the Hetmanate (*), eliminate Zaporozhian Host and to modify the loyal part of it into the Black Sea Cossacks and Kuban Cossacks. But was this possible in the PLC? I doubt it. IIRC, Wladislaw IV was planning to increase the numbers of the "reester" but it did not happen.
Besides that Poland ended up being involved in a series of wars which, strictly speaking, reflected Lithuanian interests (as in the initial territory of the Duchy): Livonian War against Ivan IV, wars with Sweden (mostly about possessions of the Lithuanian-held Livonia), Cossack Wars (initially Ukraine was Lithuanian territory), wars with Tsardom of Moscow in the XVII century.
OTOH, by virtue of being united with Poland the Grand Duchy lost a realistic chance to unite Russian princedoms under its control: combination of the adopted Catholicism and being a "junior partner" of Poland shaped Lithuanian interests in a way which made such a thing impossible.
(*) Abolishing the Hetmanate looked as a joke. Catherine II offered the last Hetman to renounce his title but he refused. After this she forbade him to come to the court (he was spending most of his time in St-Petersburg; was appointed President of the Russian Academy of Sciences when he just turned 18 years old and actively participated in Catherine's coup). It did not take him much time to recognize the error of his ways and to beg for forgiveness. As a compensation for not being anymore a titular head of a state he was made Field marshal (AFAIK, he never led armies into a battle before or after) and lived happily ever after.
Max Sinister
Banned
In my Chaos TL, a Polish king is elected Holy Roman Emperor Stanislaus. This could happen here, and you could build on it.
IMHO with Polish King on Imperial throne Poland would not dominate HRE any more than Sicily under Hohenstaufens or Bohemia under Luxembourgs.
This is too primitive answer to a complicated question. Even if all Ukrainian Cossacks would turn Catholic overnight a potential conflict between them and the magnates would still be in place. Difference in religion was just icing on the cake: Cossacks' Orthodoxy did not stop them from actively participating in the wars against their fellow Orthodox Russians before, during and after the Time of Troubles, usually in alliance with either Catholic Poles or Muslim Tatars.
Effective military systems are not coming out of blue and, as long as we are talking about something reasonably close to the OTL PLC and not about the Lalaland, the PLC had a military system as effective against the Ottomans as it could have realistically.
Of course, defeating the Ottomans was not a complete impossibility but the 1st major European victory happened only in 1664 at Saint Gotthard and it allowed Emperor Leopold only to make peace with the minimal concessions. By that time the Ottomans still had the better system of raising and supplying their armies then their European counterparts and their armies still had been more numerous than the armies of the European states and of a reasonably comparable quality. As the Great Ottoman War (1683 - 99) demonstrated, the Ottomans of the late XVII still could fight a broad European coalition for years and the main losses were to the Hapsburgs, not the PLC.
I'm afraid that you are seriously confused about the timing and many other things. Saxony was in the personal union with the PLC only from 1697 by which time Prussia was not Polish vassal for few decades (since 1657; and BTW while the Duchy was still Polish vassal Elector of Brandenburg felt himself completely free to join Sweden against the PLC) and the PLC already became an international joke both politically and militarily (after they managed to elect 2 kings by two different Sejms August of Saxony resolved the issue by marching with his Saxon troops to Poland; needless to say that these Saxons proved to be absolutely inept during the coming GNW). Formation of the Russian state became practically inevitable since the late XV century and size of its population had little to do with the process.
Hopefully if you make a timeline about the scenario, you call it Poland Can Into Space
What if Kievan Rus' survives and develops into a Holy Roman Empire like entity, and Poland develops into a unitary realm between the decentralized HRE and Kievan Rus' federations? They can play a France-like role in both.
Or later on, what about a Napoleonic victory and Grand Duchy of Warsaw turning into an early industrialization of Poland?
Or later on, what about a Napoleonic victory and Grand Duchy of Warsaw turning into an early industrialization of Poland?
Kievan Rus' already was decentralized and Poland conqured part of it in 14th century (Red Ruthenia) and then took control over the rest as result of Union of Lublin, when Kiev was directly incorporated by Poland.
Would not make a critical difference: the roots of the conflict on Ukraine had been more social than religious and the problems started when at least some of the local magnates also had been Orthodox.