AHC: Poland dominates Europe

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.

All true but well before that time Kievan Rus became peripheral to the Vladimir Rus which became a center of the OTL consolidation.
 
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.
Get rid of, or rather, prevent formation of both magnates and cossacks?
 

krieger

Banned
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.

I'm afraid that you didn't understand what I meant. Cossack's demise became inevitable in XIXth century. And conflict with them and magnates was possible to solve through brutal force. The issue I'm talking about is religion of Ukrainian peasantry which is according to You (if I understood your point correctly) the reason why PLC couldn't be a powerhouse. So, if there is no Orthodoxisation of settlers in Dnieper Ukraine in what way they are different from Poles from the other parts of the country? If there is no Orthodoxy there why they should develop a separate national identity? Effective military systems are not coming out of the blue, yes. But on Polish site we have a TL (I disagree with it's creators in some minor cases, but it's irrelevant) http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=146606&st=12075&#entry1763626 where PLC's potential military strength is very precisely described - every single tax for every single military unit is included. Sobieski wasted a lot of opportunities during the Great Ottoman War because he wasted his forces to grab the throne of Moldavia for his son, James (this plan didn't succeed). No I'm not. Even treaty of Welawa didn't abolish EVERY single tie between Polish crown and Ducal Prussia and in it's decisions were points like: after death of last male-line Hohenzollern the Duchy should be incorporated into Crown, the Estates of Prussia still had a right to ask Polish king for help when they liberties were thought to be broken and the estates were supposed to make homagium after coronation of every new Polish king. So when PLC was starting it's union with Saxony ties with Prussia weren't nonexistent at all. I was not talking about formation. I was talking about it's rise to status of one of major European powers. Not only effective military systems are coming out of the blue, but empires also aren't coming out of the blue. So I'm waiting for your explanation why rise of Russian Empire was inevitable.
 
I'm afraid that you didn't understand what I meant. Cossack's demise became inevitable in XIXth century.

I definitely don't understand what you are trying to say because by the XIX century "Cossack's demise" became a meaningless issue: the Ukrainian Cossacks were integrated into the Russian Empire in the late XVIII when the Hetmanate was abolished and the Cossacks of Don, Kuban, Yaik/Ural, etc. were not the independent entities to start with. OTOH, how can one talk about the "demise" if they remained a privileged social group within the empire and formed elite troops within the Russian army?

And conflict with them and magnates was possible to solve through brutal force.

And what in your opinion the PLC was using against the Cossack uprisings?

The problem with the brutal force is that you need to have an overwhelming advantage over the rebels. The PLC could and did deal with more than one Cossack uprising but Khmelnitsky added a new factor, the Khanate with which he made a deal. And the PLC could not deal with that combination. On the late stage, after the Khan abandoned the Cossacs, Khmelnitsky made a pact with Tsardom of Moscow and the PLC was not able to crush this combination either.

The issue I'm talking about is religion of Ukrainian peasantry which is according to You (if I understood your point correctly) the reason why PLC couldn't be a powerhouse.

No, you did not understand me correctly even if I was quite explicit in what I was saying. I repeat: the religion was just an additional factor which helped to make conflict clearly defined but it was not a reason for the conflict itself. And by the time of at least Khmelnitsky Uprising the PLC's chances to became a powerhouse of Europe or even a dominating regional power were minimal. Which was clearly illustrated by the Deluge and war with Moscow.
 
Last edited:
Get rid of, or rather, prevent formation of both magnates and cossacks?

Rather difficult. The military settlers had been necessary to defend territory against the Crimean raids and how could you prevent the magnates from being "formed" in the state like the PLC?
 
PLC used very, very brutal force against Cossack uprising, something comparable to that used during War of Triple Alliance against Paraguay. Rright-bank Ukraine lost circa 90% of population within generation after start of Khmielnitsky Uprising.
 
PLC used very, very brutal force against Cossack uprising, something comparable to that used during War of Triple Alliance against Paraguay. Rright-bank Ukraine lost circa 90% of population within generation after start of Khmielnitsky Uprising.

Of course, cruelty was on both sides but this did not make things better, especially for the civilian population.
 
Of course, cruelty was on both sides but this did not make things better, especially for the civilian population.
Not only PLC's actions contributed to such heavy losses. Ukraine was devasted by Polish, Tatar, Ottoman, Russian and of course Cossack forces for decades after start of Khmielnitsky Uprising. 17th century wars were much more deadly for civilian population than ww2.
Tatars despite being allied with Khmielnitsky never stopped to hunt slaves in Ukraine.
There is even anecdote about Sobieski's meeting with an old man from Ukraine, who claimed that he's over 100 years old. Sobieski asked him, how he survived so long in such terrible times? Old man replied: 'I survived thanks to my faith'
Sobieski asked again:
'How did your faith saved you?'
'Every time people were saying, that Tatars are close, I've belived them so I've been able to escape at right time'- that was old man's reply.
 
Last edited:
Not only PLC's actions contributed to such heavy losses. Ukraine was devasted by Polish, Tatar, Ottoman, Russian and of course Cossack forces for decades after start of Khmielnitsky Uprising. 17th century wars were much more deadly for civilian population than ww2.
Tatars despite being allied with Khmielnitsky never stopped to hunt slaves in Ukraine.

Of course, they did not: it was a part of a deal 1st with Khmelnitsky (who without them would be probably defeated as was the case with all previous uprisings) and then with the Poles: after all, there should be some reason for them getting involved.

There is even anecdote about Sobieski's meeting with an old man from Ukraine, who claimed that he's over 100 years old. Sobieski asked him, how he survived so long in such terrible times? Old man replied: 'I survived thanks to my faith'
Sobieski asked again:
'How did your faith saved you?'
'Every time people were saying, that Tatars are close, I've belived them so I've been able to escape at right time'- that was old man's reply.

Well, the tricky part was to find a place to escape to. x'D
 
Even treaty of Welawa didn't abolish EVERY single tie between Polish crown and Ducal Prussia

"Single tie" is meaningless term. Prussia became a sovereign state on some conditions.

and in it's decisions were points like: after death of last male-line Hohenzollern the Duchy should be incorporated into Crown, the Estates of Prussia still had a right to ask Polish king for help when they liberties were thought to be broken

Whatever was there it ceased to exist in 1663 when they swore allegiance to Frederick William I.

and the estates were supposed to make homagium after coronation of every new Polish king.

"In case of the extinction of the Brandenburgian Hohenzollern dynasty in the male line, it was agreed that the Prussian duchy should pass on to the Polish crown.[20]Owing to this clause, the Prussian estates were obliged to pay conditional allegiance to an envoy of subsequent Polish kings upon their succession ("hommagium eventuale, Eventualhuldigung"), while they were released from previous oaths and obligations regarding the Polish crown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bromberg#On_the_status_of_Prussia

Which is not exactly the same thing as you implying.

For all practical purposes and for the outside world Prussia became a sovereign state which allowed Emperor Leopold to recognize Elector Frederick III as "King in Prussia".

So when PLC was starting it's union with Saxony ties with Prussia weren't nonexistent at all.

Of course there were ties: they were neigbours and there were some territorial issues like one of Elbing but Brandenburg-Prussia was quite free in its foreign policies (for example, remained neutral during the Russo-Polish War of 1654–1667 and it did not even sent an envoy to the inauguration of the Polish king in 1698.

I was not talking about formation. I was talking about it's rise to status of one of major European powers.

Well, short of your wishful thinking and semi-imaginable "relations", I don't see how this could happen in the world close to OTL.


Not only effective military systems are coming out of the blue, but empires also aren't coming out of the blue. So I'm waiting for your explanation why rise of Russian Empire was inevitable.

As usually, bad quoting. I said that creation of the unified Russian state became pretty much inevitable since the reign of Ivan III. With the GH gobe as a dominating regional power there were very few things which could prevent this process.
 
Top