Yes but it had a group of crusaders already present that preceded the Teutons. So Germanic Livonia.
AHC: Surviving Poland by 1900?
- Thread starter RookieHistorian
- Start date
Yes but it had a group of crusaders already present that preceded the Teutons. So Germanic Livonia.
informationfan
Banned
Hi,
the alternate timeline need changes to work
in 1762 the case is closed, the internal polish structures do not allow such "strong" poland...
why?
a.) the people are basically peasants, peasants that have really bad leaders, that treat em BAD
b.) the religious thing - poland was and his utterly catholic, prussia wasn´t, so if the prussians are beaten in 1762/63, they will be cut down by austria, russia and france, but they NEVER allow the poles to take over. But you need the poles to take over to avoid the fast destruction of poland
c.) poland is weak - it was the backyard of the backyard of the backyard of europe... dark forests, stupid (because their lords forced em to stay stupid) peasants that couldn´t read, singleminded (cause the strong catholic thing), compare it with all the "german" countries these poles need to take... that doesn´´t work, even if all major european countries look away
world politics:
the world in 1762 wasn´t like it was in 1945, so if the poles do evil things to calvinisits in prussia (they have to if they want to establlish a stable empire), the calvinists of europe will do something against it... the nordic nations, the dutch, great britain.
Austria has no interest in a strong poland, russia has not interest
So to make poland big and powerfull austria and russia need to be weak, very weak, prussia and the rest of the german countries need to be braindead weak, so they look to poland and wait untill it take over...
you need basically poland winning every combat against vastly superior troops for 100 years. because the first battle they loose they are doomed.
so, any plot later as 1000 or 1100 is fantasy...
polands role in the world was and is to be a punshball, that is sad for all the people that died because of this fact, but it is true... only in asb the sheep (single) win against the bloodthirsty bear, the brutal wolf and - to make it worse - the 7000kg hungry T-rex (replace bear
)
No way - it is asb
if prussia is permanently weakend (very possible) austria and russia take over. poland being big? no way in this time fray
the alternate timeline need changes to work
in 1762 the case is closed, the internal polish structures do not allow such "strong" poland...
why?
a.) the people are basically peasants, peasants that have really bad leaders, that treat em BAD
b.) the religious thing - poland was and his utterly catholic, prussia wasn´t, so if the prussians are beaten in 1762/63, they will be cut down by austria, russia and france, but they NEVER allow the poles to take over. But you need the poles to take over to avoid the fast destruction of poland
c.) poland is weak - it was the backyard of the backyard of the backyard of europe... dark forests, stupid (because their lords forced em to stay stupid) peasants that couldn´t read, singleminded (cause the strong catholic thing), compare it with all the "german" countries these poles need to take... that doesn´´t work, even if all major european countries look away
world politics:
the world in 1762 wasn´t like it was in 1945, so if the poles do evil things to calvinisits in prussia (they have to if they want to establlish a stable empire), the calvinists of europe will do something against it... the nordic nations, the dutch, great britain.
Austria has no interest in a strong poland, russia has not interest
So to make poland big and powerfull austria and russia need to be weak, very weak, prussia and the rest of the german countries need to be braindead weak, so they look to poland and wait untill it take over...
you need basically poland winning every combat against vastly superior troops for 100 years. because the first battle they loose they are doomed.
so, any plot later as 1000 or 1100 is fantasy...
polands role in the world was and is to be a punshball, that is sad for all the people that died because of this fact, but it is true... only in asb the sheep (single) win against the bloodthirsty bear, the brutal wolf and - to make it worse - the 7000kg hungry T-rex (replace bear
)No way - it is asb
if prussia is permanently weakend (very possible) austria and russia take over. poland being big? no way in this time fray
I wouldn't go so far as to say Poland was created to be a kicktoy. Why did Poland succumb but its neighbors didn't? Same reason that the HRE never united as a polity but France did. Which is to say, things could have been different.
But unless Poland gets united and internally strong early (prior to any of Brandenburg-Prussia, Russia, or Austria becoming superior), its going to be fighting uphill.
But unless Poland gets united and internally strong early (prior to any of Brandenburg-Prussia, Russia, or Austria becoming superior), its going to be fighting uphill.
Biggest amount of stupid I read in months.
No, there are also burghers (though relatively few compared to Western Europe) and numerous szlachta (gentry) class. Besides, illiterate peasants were majority in most countries, even more so in Russia AFAIK.
No, there are also burghers (though relatively few compared to Western Europe) and numerous szlachta (gentry) class. Besides, illiterate peasants were majority in most countries, even more so in Russia AFAIK.
Wrong again. Protestant, orthodox and even muslims were free to practice their faith, there really wasn't any state sponsored religious policy.
It seems that you even have no idea about geography.
Already answered.
Again, religious policies were more common in the Western Europe than in Poland at a time.
Nope, 16th/early 17th century could do a trick (Prussia is nothing, Muscovy is weak, and Austria is occupied with Ottomans).
That's common misconception, though i'm surprised to see it on AH.com, where most people seem to have some basic historical knowledge and opened mind. You seems to project all kinds of stereotypes (inferior stupid catholic peasants living in dark forests, invincible Prussia even though it was one of the luckiest powers to rise, etc.), that my head hurts.EDIT It almost sounds like you are insulted at a mere thought of Poland being successful.polands role in the world was and is to be a punshball, that is sad for all the people that died because of this fact, but it is true... only in asb the sheep (single) win against the bloodthirsty bear, the brutal wolf and - to make it worse - the 7000kg hungry T-rex (replace bear
No way - it is asb
if prussia is permanently weakend (very possible) austria and russia take over. poland being big? no way in this time fray
Last edited:
If Prussia looses the 7-years war and is eliminated as a power, that could already do the trick. Say Prussia looses its western parts, Silesia remains Austrian, large parts of Prussian Pommerania become Swedish, Saxony gets parts and East Prussia, which becomes a vassal of Poland.
The Austrians participated in the Polish partitions, but the Prussians and Russians were the driving powers. Without Prussia, the Hapsburgs should have an interest in keeping Poland as a counterweight to Russia, the only remaining great power in the region. And with only Russia remaining the Polish may be able to do reforms.
The Austrians participated in the Polish partitions, but the Prussians and Russians were the driving powers. Without Prussia, the Hapsburgs should have an interest in keeping Poland as a counterweight to Russia, the only remaining great power in the region. And with only Russia remaining the Polish may be able to do reforms.
My impression of Poland as someone who has read a little about it:
1) Wasn't Poland a little too much of a feudal economy? Maybe not more than Russia, but it seems to have not been developing away from that as fast as England or the Netherlands (to pick the two most extreme antis, I'll admit). This might not matter in the 15th century, I'm looking at the 17th or 18th. As such, all the disadvantages of serfdom - both for the serfs and producing very much. Though apparently Poland grow a considerable amount of wheat, and for a while (can't remember what years, read it somewhere) made good money on that - and then things fell apart.
2) I don't know for certain on this, but Poland seems very much a forest-and-exforests sort of landscape...though that sounds a lot like Germany. Not necessarily a bad thing here, as the main disadvantage was obviously avoided (can't have grain exports without grain surpluses). And then east of that is plains - the Ukraine for instance. Not so good in some aspects, but we're not looking at how defensible it was.
3) If memory serves,the Brandenburg Hohenzollerns inheriting Prussia was with, essentially, the permission of the Commonwealth.
4) Poland - the independent kingdom, that is, not the commonwealth - seems to have been a fairly modest power. And early-ish on, some bad compromises were made over royal power that seems to have gotten worse over time. It doesn't seem to have crippled the Commonwealth until well into the early modern period, but it did get off to a relatively poor start and got more problematic as time went on and the disadvantages became increasingly bad in a world with increasingly large and hungry enemies.
Not an inevitable path, just one that would take some doing to break out of. Prussia had good fortune to have opportunities and leaders able to seize them. Unfortunately, Poland-Lithuania weakening was one of those opportunities.
But with a POD up to at least the union with Hungary, most of this looks like any other new kingdom. Who would have thought Sweden would rise to be mistress of the Baltic for a while, and you already mentioned Prussia.
So my semi-educated guess is that a POD before 1600-1700 is needed to avoid the worst of these things, and before 1700 to fix them before they hurt the state. Assuming, of course, that we're looking at PODs within Poland - a scenario where Poland's neighbors are even less able to take advantage of it than OTL would be different, so I'm looking at internal affairs as what (to my understanding) artificially weakened the Commonwealth.
If strong kings make for strong states, a lack of such unity of purpose and noble focus on selfish personal interest (something found in all nobles everywhere) tends to end poorly. Poland had the misfortune to prove it.
More burghers, less serfs, stronger kings...
Hell, even a wise sejm (instead of the monarchy) would be enough.
If any of this is in error, please point it out.
1)Yes. That's why PLC with PoD since early 17th century is at disadvantage.
2) Nope, it was mostly plains in Poland proper, plains/steppe in Ukraine, Forests/Swamps in Belarus, and only Lithuania and north-eastern parts were heavily forested. Muscovy of that time could be described as heavily forested country, PLC not so much - it was quite diverse.
3) Yes, it was direct result of troubles of Poland, and more directly, of it's political system where king was very weak.
4) Yes, process of granting privileges to nobility was started by Casimir the Great, though royal power was decaying slowly over time.
Yes, you're basically right. Late 16th century (when PLC was at zenith of its power), or early 17th century (time of troubles in Russia) at a stretch, are pivotal, last moments for successful Poland. Theoretically, strong talented king could stop degradation of royal power - later on it was very much irreversible. May Constitution showed that Poland could reform itself, but willingness to do so was triggered only in face of danger (and much too late). So yeah - I would say talented strong king stopping/reversing political decay before early 17th century, or Poland 'forced' to reform later on, and somehow managing to survive into 19th century, thanks to intervention of foreign power (France, Ottomans ?).
informationfan
Banned
Hi,
you really should read what others wrote...
i said, in 1762/63 poland can not be a strong nation, i never said it cannot be a strong nation at all....
to say that poland was tolerant against protestants or jews is - well, showing that you really need to improve your knowledge...
if you could show where i wrote that prussia is invincible it would be nice (hint: you can´t...
)but the facts about 1762-poland isn´t wrong
catholic, very unfriendly to any other religion, the people here had been backyarded and very uneducated, because the ruling class of aristocrats was so bad. in no other country at this time the reading abilities are so low...
so if you want a strong poland you need a plot way earlier as 1762. I really suggest you read what one write...
so you could explain how this should happen in 1762...
we speak about 85% of 1939 poland... right?
you say that russia had illiterated peasants, too. right, but it is the big ugly t-rex, so it doesn´t matter. You have a poland surrounded by enemies...
you have the protestants in prussia - prussia is really "nationalistic" at this stage, so how will the poles handle them?
you have austria-hungaria, one true enemy to you...
you have russia, very very very upset about a strong neighbour, posessing large parts of soil you think its yours... you know what happened to sweden in the early part of the 18th century, right?
so, if you want to make a plot with "poland-superpower" you need a very early start... 1500 is too late... you need a homogenious country as early as 1300, but how do you handle the 1240-onslaught? so you need an earlier start... you even need to win in this battle (how? wonderweapons?)
so no, from 1762 on poland is nothing. Not because i want them weak (i do not care about poland or prussia or austria in 1762... i just make clear what is asb and what not... poland important is - with a start in 1762 just asb, even more as "japan beats usa in ww2"... the japanese at last have a chance to win, poland has none to survive in this plot - just like playing lotto or not playing lotto, the first one has a very small chance, the second none... poland is the second, trying to win a jackpot without playing the game)
informationfan
Banned
thank you for agreeing...
you just not recognize that the plot is "poland 1762 - stay a important power with at last 85% of its 1939-size"...
maybe you do not know that 1762 is "mid of 18th century"? if numbers are difficulty for you, i apologize. if not i call you a troll.
thank you very much...
but - maybe you explain the rise of 1762-poland, esp. how they manage to take (and HOLD) the areas they need to reach 85%? we did not spoke about "the 25 sucsessfull polish years" but "reach 1900 as a power with 85%"... hope you get the real problems you ignored?
You can do this in the 1790s, prevent the final partition, maybe have Kosciuszko's uprising succeed. Don't forget that the circumstances that allowed for the eradication of Poland are as much external and international as they are to do with internal dynamics.
If Poland survives it will then have a role to play in whatever wars are now analogous to the Napoleonic period, and it will be in a position to develop in the 19th century. It will cause a realignment of policies across Europe in so far as they will be different from OTL - it won't SEEM like a realignment as much as an inevitable evolution from existing policies.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If Poland survives it will then have a role to play in whatever wars are now analogous to the Napoleonic period, and it will be in a position to develop in the 19th century. It will cause a realignment of policies across Europe in so far as they will be different from OTL - it won't SEEM like a realignment as much as an inevitable evolution from existing policies.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Gotcha. I wasn't sure whether it was in the "steppe-lite or "ex-forest" zone. My knowledge of geography in Eastern Europe (if I can use that without abuse on my head) isn't so hot.
Sounds easy enough - the people actually doing the work being motivated to do so aside.
Certainly no harder than any of the other examples of nations managing to endure - surrounded by enemies describes anyone not on the fringes of Europe, after all.
Somehow, France survived without any particular ill effects.
Note to informationfan: I'm not a Pole expert, but I know rather more on other countries, so these are my thoughts based on a study of nations:
informationfan said:
Catholic but notoriously tolerant of different religions (Jews especially), and the aristocrats...are doing what the aristocracy has done everywhere in Europe, and is continuing to do everywhere that they can. As for literacy, some sources would be nice.
I mean, the 18th century is depressingly illiterate. What makes Poland worse than France (which will be used as an example of a couldda-busted power for discussion's sake)?
Irony is ironic. From the person you claim is not reading what others write: "Nope, 16th/early 17th century could do a trick (Prussia is nothing, Muscovy is weak, and Austria is occupied with Ottomans)."
It is also smaller in population than France (not by much, however), thinly settled, and generally a nobody prior to Peter the Great. As for surrounded by enemies: And France isn't? Austria isn't? Prussia isn't?
Everyone not on the fringes of Europe is "surrounded by enemies".
Prussia: Nationalistic? Not sure I'd call it that.
The Habsburg Empire (its not Austria-Hungary until a century later)
Russia: If Poland is strong enough to be a "strong neighbor", its strong enough to deal with Russia. If its not strong enough, that's not the reason for Russia being hungry for more land.
Sweden the grossly underpopulated? This is not a good example for how no one can stand before Russia.
A Poland-Lithuania working out its bugs is probably still not capable of being a superpower, but it will be a considerable regional one - on the level of the not-quite first rate states like Austria was in the 19th century and maybe more. Even with a 1500 POD. Or a 1600 POD.
As for 1240: Simple. Have the Mongols lose. It did happen at times. Exactly how depends on the details - but it wouldn't take super weapons.
And with an earlier POD (up to around John Sobeiski I'd say), Poland has a good chance of at least surviving, and at worst being a not-easily-pushed-over middle weight.
Just because Poland is all but doomed by the Seven Years war doesn't mean that it can't succeed at all.
That I can agree with - I never said otherwise. Not so with your individual points which I addressed, or that PoD in 1000-1100 is needed.
thank you for agreeing...
you just not recognize that the plot is "poland 1762 - stay a important power with at last 85% of its 1939-size"...
maybe you do not know that 1762 is "mid of 18th century"? if numbers are difficulty for you, i apologize. if not i call you a troll.
thank you very much...
but - maybe you explain the rise of 1762-poland, esp. how they manage to take (and HOLD) the areas they need to reach 85%? we did not spoke about "the 25 sucsessfull polish years" but "reach 1900 as a power with 85%"... hope you get the real problems you ignored?
From the original post:
Using whatever POD's you can (that are within reason for this case) create a Poland that manages to survive all the way up to 1900. It does not have to be a major power, but it must possess at least 85% of what makes up 1939 Poland.
No need for this to involve 1762. And your idea that this has to go back to the beginning of there being a Poland to work is so misguided I can only hope that its an overreaction.
informationfan
Banned
Gotcha. I wasn't sure whether it was in the "steppe-lite or "ex-forest" zone. My knowledge of geography in Eastern Europe (if I can use that without abuse on my head) isn't so hot.
Sounds easy enough - the people actually doing the work being motivated to do so aside.
Certainly no harder than any of the other examples of nations managing to endure - surrounded by enemies describes anyone not on the fringes of Europe, after all.
Somehow, France survived without any particular ill effects.
Note to informationfan: I'm not a Pole expert, but I know rather more on other countries, so these are my thoughts based on a study of nations:
Catholic but notoriously tolerant of different religions (Jews especially), and the aristocrats...are doing what the aristocracy has done everywhere in Europe, and is continuing to do everywhere that they can. As for literacy, some sources would be nice.
I mean, the 18th century is depressingly illiterate. What makes Poland worse than France (which will be used as an example of a couldda-busted power for discussion's sake)?
Irony is ironic. From the person you claim is not reading what others write: "Nope, 16th/early 17th century could do a trick (Prussia is nothing, Muscovy is weak, and Austria is occupied with Ottomans)."
It is also smaller in population than France (not by much, however), thinly settled, and generally a nobody prior to Peter the Great. As for surrounded by enemies: And France isn't? Austria isn't? Prussia isn't?
Everyone not on the fringes of Europe is "surrounded by enemies".
Prussia: Nationalistic? Not sure I'd call it that.
The Habsburg Empire (its not Austria-Hungary until a century later)
Russia: If Poland is strong enough to be a "strong neighbor", its strong enough to deal with Russia. If its not strong enough, that's not the reason for Russia being hungry for more land.
Sweden the grossly underpopulated? This is not a good example for how no one can stand before Russia.
A Poland-Lithuania working out its bugs is probably still not capable of being a superpower, but it will be a considerable regional one - on the level of the not-quite first rate states like Austria was in the 19th century and maybe more. Even with a 1500 POD. Or a 1600 POD.
As for 1240: Simple. Have the Mongols lose. It did happen at times. Exactly how depends on the details - but it wouldn't take super weapons.
And with an earlier POD (up to around John Sobeiski I'd say), Poland has a good chance of at least surviving, and at worst being a not-easily-pushed-over middle weight.
Just because Poland is all but doomed by the Seven Years war doesn't mean that it can't succeed at all.
Hi,
sorry - i just follow the original question:
here it was "how can poland hold 85% of its 1939-borders" with a plot not earlier as 1762"...
if one come up with 15th century, he mix apples and oranges, right?`
so my comments soley answered the original question. he jumped in with red eyes... sorry.
poland was, for that time really behind... i did not compare 1920-france with 1760-poland, just 1760-poland with 1760-france or prussia
after the 7yearswar, prussia was a "nation", exhausted? yes. but still it was a nation. here the poles gain this nation, just like spain get france... how should this work? with spain being far behind france in nearly anything, having a different religion and - the people - are really serious about this - why had jews in poland such a bad time?
i really just look at this date...
the idea that napoleon manage to build his mighty ally poland could happen, but again, only for a short time. or you say napoleon conquer europe and hold it? If not, in 1815 everything will be turned back...
again please think about the original question.
it was "untill 1900"... poland alone cannot survive.. but it is surronded by enemies, esp. russia, the rest of prussia, germany (as far as poland here do not conquer the whole area?), austria... britain - because balance of power...
no way this can happen, not with these nations developted in 1762... so i mentioned 1100... that could be a possibility... later? difficulty, or the poles in the prussian areas (just think about the Deutscher Ritterorden) had been absorbed easily... but the fact is, that they stood different...
if one like to discuss short times of powerful polands, that could be true - no problem
but the fall after the defeat would be hard, cause the enemies they had beaten before will take revenge. we are near 1800... that is around 30 years... 80 to 1850... how will poland survive against russia? just think about all the soil the poles have taken from russia - compared with this the french wishes for revenge are "nil"... it cannot happen
informationfan
Banned
Apologize
hi,
i just reread the thread starter...
the date of 1762 was my mistake, i mixed a later post about Katharina with the one of the thread starter...
so i agree, this date isn´t a keymarker!
but any plot starting AFTER 1550 is a BIG wank, any plot after 1648 is asb.
Also, a poland that has 85% of 1939-borders has big parts of russia - to keep them is impossible. if we just say, it is needed to have so much square kilometers, this is something different, but means also that poland absorb germany completly... this will not happen.
so either asb or megawank ... only a polish-russian union could work
but for this you need to go back to an empire of kiev...
hi,
i just reread the thread starter...
the date of 1762 was my mistake, i mixed a later post about Katharina with the one of the thread starter...
so i agree, this date isn´t a keymarker!
but any plot starting AFTER 1550 is a BIG wank, any plot after 1648 is asb.
Also, a poland that has 85% of 1939-borders has big parts of russia - to keep them is impossible. if we just say, it is needed to have so much square kilometers, this is something different, but means also that poland absorb germany completly... this will not happen.
so either asb or megawank ... only a polish-russian union could work
but for this you need to go back to an empire of kiev...
RookieHistorian
Banned
Correct. The idea is not for Poland to be a superpower (I'm not sure if thats even possible) but to be a regional power, or at best a secondary power. It can still lose wars, and it can still have difficulties, but the overall idea is that by 1900 its still around, and still has at least 85% of the territory 1939 Poland had (though I can settle for 75%)
EDIT:I'm sure given the right circumstances, Poland could be a superpower, but depending on what said circumstances are, it might be pretty hard to pull off.
EDIT:I'm sure given the right circumstances, Poland could be a superpower, but depending on what said circumstances are, it might be pretty hard to pull off.
informationfan
Banned
no overreaction, poland wasn´t a real strong nation, it had good times, it had bad times but it never had the possibility to be "powerfull" - you need to be powerfull if you want to hold 85% of what poland had for 20 years from 1919-1939
i agree completly, poland could be some time stronger as it was, it could even reach larger areas... but not for long.
the problem is:
if you move the plot in time back, you can achive something... but the chance that this nation survive so long with the easter (russia), southern (austria-hungaria AND the osmans) and western (france) rivals is asb.
if you go ahead in time (here we are with 1762 or 1790ties with napoleon) you have the problem that the differences between poland and his neighbours is to big. either way it doesn´t work
just think about a strong unified germany - say Friedrich II create "great germany"... in 1770... how long would this hold? latest with napoleon (or another guy who beat the prussian worldpower) this nation is doomed.
you need the right timing and luck... this isn´t possible for poland
What's so special about 1648? Or 1550?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rzeczpospolita_1939.svg
vs. what it was earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rzeczpospolita_1600.png
Looks like Poland has moved westward, not eastward, to me.
*Cough, cough* You are forgetting a thing called butterflies, you start changing something and the events that happened in OTL are no longer set in stone.
Muscovy later Russia started its Manifest Destiny of uniting all Slavs under it because of one Grand Duke and his Wife who set the ground work and instilled the idea into its people.
Austria-Hungary can be said that it happened because of certain circumstances. Hungary prior to being in personal union to Hungary was ruled by a Jagiellon, the brother of the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania.
I am disgusted by this or that fact that you think that the only thing Poland is good for is to be a punching bag and roadway for its neighbors.
This is flawed thinking, because, ultimately every country has neighbours. How Netherlands managed to survive, being surrounded by much more powerful France and Germany, to give an example? Plus, rise of Habsburg Empire, or even monolithic Russian Empire wasn't inevitable.