AHQ: How would be Slavs viewed by West if Poland was still a dominant EE power

[krieger]

Slavs are often viewed by Westerners as barbaric, Asian-like savages. There are various causes of presence of this idea like - Mongol overlordship over signifcant amount of Slavs, considerable amount of Slavic countries being not as developed as (narrowly defined) "West" (France, England, western Germany, Scandinavia). But would it change if Poland was still dominant EE power in XVIIIth and XIXth century (the time when modern national stereotypes and racism originated)? IOTL, Westerners looked at Eastern Europe and saw Russia as only important (and existing) Slavic independent state. This caused them to think that Russians are "purest Slavs" and every Russian feature has it's exact copy in every Slavic country. This Western outlook on Russia has it's roots in various things - Russia was influenced by Mongols at some point of it's history (in fact, it was somewhat limited influence, touching mainly elites, not common folk), Russia is predominantly Orthodox (this created religious barrier in minds both Russians and Westerners), Russia contains large sways of land in Asia (which are connected to Russian heartland). Russians also created ideology of "Third Rome" which influenced Russian version of pan-Slavism (creating equation Slav=Orthodox) and ideology of euroasianism (birth of it had major influence on problem discussed in this topic - it created the way of thinking, that Slavs are something different than the West and something bearing strong similiarities with Asians). We should not forget the Russian absolutism, which was quite different from Western version of absolutism and somewhat contributed to the myth of "barbaric Russian, who is not capable to control his own self". This myth was extented to the rest of Slavs. Would this extension also happen in scenario of strong Poland, being a dominant EE power? I think that it'd be unlikely to repeat itself. First of all, Poland was also an Catholic country and it'd eliminate the religious barrier between "strongest Slavic state" and Western powers like France or England (protestantism in this context is treated as a spawn of catholicism, not separate religion). Poland was also never under Mongol yoke, and basing an argument of "Asiatic-ness" of Slavs on Poles would be pretty unlikely prior to XIXth century. In fact, in Poland Germanic (not only modern German, but also Gothic, Vandalic and modern Scandinavian) admixture (although both German and Polish nationalists wouldn't admit this) is much more prominent and noticeable than any Asian influence. Also, Polish national myth was based on being "antemurale christanitatis" and not connected with preaching any serious difference from West (there was hatred towards absolutism, but Polish nobility still saw some Western countries, for example Netherlands as "free"). The rise of Prussia (Prussian elites at some point adopted view of Slavs as a barbarian, inferior people to justify their own landgrabs) would also be butterflied away in scenario of Poland staying EE powerhouse, which would affect German national mindset and stereotypes. Prior to rise of Prussia and partitions of Poland, Poles were viewed by German elites mostly as a neutral factor, with some positive (especially in Saxony, where Polish uprisings against Russia were supported by intellectuals) and some negative. With no PLC decline, this view would probably stay in it's place (not being replaced by general hatred and despise), so in alt-XIXth century, Poland could be probably treated by German nationalists the same way France was - sometimes annoying enemy, but dangerous, sophisticated and by no means barbaric. German nationalist worldview wouldn't spread this negative outlook on Slavs ITTL to French and English elites. Also, lack of the fall of PLC would stop the myth of Slavs as a lacking statehood instincts from spreading. Russia, only independent Slavic state at the beginning of XIXth century, was founded by Normans and this and rest of Slavic nations being under either German or Turkish overlordship contributed to idea that Slavs are born anarchists incapable of doing anything positive on their own. If PLC remained a great power, there would be at least one succesful Slavic state undeniably founded by...Slavs. Also, Poland's core was much closer to the West than Russian and even in the most optimist scenario for Poland with Russia completely steamrolled, any gains of Poland in Asia would treated as colonies, not as a part of Poland proper. So the main reasons for Slavs being considered "Asian" would be removed, and they would be treated as part of the West as Germans or Romans. @Jan Olbracht @alexmilman @Kellan Sullivan

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Possible results:
-if Poland separates Russia from the West and Russians are not involved in western European affairs then Westerners would not care if they are Mongols or Tatars or Ethiopian-Zulu mixture or other BS. They would simply not care about Russians if they're not seen as danger.
-Poles without Partitions would be seen like Hungarians were seen IOTL IMHO.

 

[DocJamore]

If Poland is the most prestigious Slavic country than that means that other Slavic languages like Czech and Croatian would take inspiration from the Polish script. The demise of Poland in OTL meant that Czech used a modified German Script and Croatian copied the Czech script.

 

[Jan Olbracht]

If Poland is the most prestigious Slavic country than that means that other Slavic languages like Czech and Croatian would take inspiration from the Polish script. The demise of Poland in OTL meant that Czech used a modified German Script and Croatian copied the Czech script.

That would be likely result. Polish orthography with surviving powerful Poland means other Catholic Slavs would use Polish as inspirations for their own sctipts. So expext 'w' instead of 'v', 'sz' instead of š and so on in Slovenian and Croatian language, maybe even in Slovak.

 

[krieger]

Possible results:
-if Poland separates Russia from the West and Russians are not involved in western European affairs then Westerners would not care if they are Mongols or Tatars or Ethiopian-Zulu mixture or other BS. They would simply not care about Russians if they're not seen as danger.
-Poles without Partitions would be seen like Hungarians were seen IOTL IMHO.

I'd say a bit closer, Poles still speak Indo-European language, while Hungarians are linguistically Finnish.

That would be likely result. Polish orthography with surviving powerful Poland means other Catholic Slavs would use Polish as inspirations for their own sctipts. So expext 'w' instead of 'v', 'sz' instead of š and so on in Slovenian and Croatian language, maybe even in Slovak.

Especially in Slovak, Slovakia literally borders Poland.

 

[Kerney]

Could the Poles themselves separate themselves as more apart of the West (and to some extent it seems they do) and freeze out the Russ in particular as a Savage 'other'.

What I mean is, I've seen debates whether Russia is part of Western Civilization on these boards and others. Could the Poles effectively in this atl, controlling the Baltic ports, influence this conversation so that the Russians are those dumb yokels somewhere beyond the Dnieper who we hope you forget we're related to (more so than they are otl).

Could that non great power status make the Russ not seen as the brutal bully stereotype that exists and which they sometimes live up to otl?

With the Russ not part of the conversation l, could other Slavs be seen in a better light?

 

[Atterdag]

I'd say a bit closer, Poles still speak Indo-European language, while Hungarians are linguistically Finnish.

I don't think language family was a big issue. Hungarian used to be a pretty prestigeus language with a big presence in the musical world atleast.

 

[alexmilman]

Possible results:
-if Poland separates Russia from the West and Russians are not involved in western European affairs then Westerners would not care if they are Mongols or Tatars or Ethiopian-Zulu mixture or other BS. They would simply not care about Russians if they're not seen as danger.
-Poles without Partitions would be seen like Hungarians were seen IOTL IMHO.

Well, until the early XVII the PLC was pretty much separating Russians from the “West”. To do so completely it should extend all the way to the White Sea which does not seems realistic. Russian state was not seriously considered by the “West” as an international factor until 1710s (Peter’s campaigns in Germany) and not as any kind of a potential danger until the 7YW by which time it was rather hard to ignore it. The PLC was still intact at that time. Taking into an account that the contacts by the Baltic and White Seas between Tsardom and the “West” never ceased to exist even after Tsardom was completely cut off from the Baltic coast I don’t think that a complete isolation was realistically possible even with a strong PLC.

The Poles remained, as you said, something like the Hungarians (somewhat exotic) and the French descriptions of the Polish embassy which came to arrange a marriage between Wladislav and Maria Gonzaga is a clear illustration of the differences: the Poles with their display of the gems, gold and silver on themselves and their horses were considered “asiatic”.

BTW, the Slavic Czechs had been quite “Western”.

 

[alexmilman]

Could the Poles themselves separate themselves as more apart of the West (and to some extent it seems they do) and freeze out the Russ in particular as a Savage 'other'.

What I mean is, I've seen debates whether Russia is part of Western Civilization on these boards and others. Could the Poles effectively in this atl, controlling the Baltic ports, influence this conversation so that the Russians are those dumb yokels somewhere beyond the Dnieper who we hope you forget we're related to (more so than they are otl).

Could that non great power status make the Russ not seen as the brutal bully stereotype that exists and which they sometimes live up to otl?

With the Russ not part of the conversation l, could other Slavs be seen in a better light?

Swedes controlled the Baltic ports for the most of the XVII century and then what? Possession of the ports did not mean isolation: to be profitable these ports needed a flow of the goods and a big part of these goods had been coming from the “East”. The same applies to the opposite direction and there always were people willing to go “East” in a search of profit. By the time Russian state got possession of the Baltic ports the “Western influence” in it had been quite profound (which does not imply that all of it was good).

The “yokels beyond the Dnieper” had been the Polish subjects until mid-XVII and until that time had little to nothing to do with the Russian state (which, in turn, had little to do with the Dnieper).

Most of the Slavs (outside the Russian borders) had very little to do with Russia: Czechia was under the Hapsburgs for centuries, Poles had its own state which also included the Ukrainians and Belorussians (none of whom was considered “Western” then or now), Slovakia belonged to Hungary and the Balkan Slavs were the Ottoman subjects and not associated with the Russian influence until Second half of the XIX century. So the “light” in which each of them had been seen was one of their own.

 

[MuratIsMyWaifu]

"Westerness" of Poland was invented in late 18th and 19th century exactly because of Russian partition. From Sarmatism to fashion (as mentioned by alexmilman) Polish culture was more "eastern" than "western", taking cues from Tatar culture.
While nominally they are catholic, there's tolerance of different denominations unheard of even in the Enlightenment period. Ultimately this is a question of how much is independent PLC seen as a threat. Due to large German presence in Polish borders, (if Poland is dominant I can only assume it will annex Prussia) will see ethnic conflict between Germans and Poles, come nationalism. How much does German antipolonism seep into Anglosphere, France, etc? Without panslavism, would westerners really look on eastern Europe in terms of monolithic bloc of Slavs? Or perhaps they would divide it geographically into north of and south of Carpathians.

Russian state was not seriously considered by the “West” as an international factor until 1710s (Peter’s campaigns in Germany) and not as any kind of a potential danger until the 7YW by which time it was rather hard to ignore it. The PLC was still intact at that time.

Do you really think a truly independent state would let Russian armies through it's borders? The borders may have been intact, but Poland was pacified in 1710, and by the time of 7YW Russian Tsar decided what would be the outcome of the Sejms.

Most of the Slavs (outside the Russian borders) had very little to do with Russia: Czechia was under the Hapsburgs for centuries, Poles had its own state which also included the Ukrainians and Belorussians (none of whom was considered “Western” then or now), Slovakia belonged to Hungary and the Balkan Slavs were the Ottoman subjects and not associated with the Russian influence until Second half of the XIX century. So the “light” in which each of them had been seen was one of their own.

For the average American and even west european everything east of Germany is known really vaguely. I imagine with indepent PLC, the border would be moved to the east, but you can't expect average Englishman to know about nuances of ethnic conflicts in the Balkans etc. I've seen way too many Youtube comments calling Lithuanians, Hungarians etc. Slavs.

 

[alexmilman]

[QUOTE="MuratIsMyWaifu, post: 19770241, member: 130280]

Do you really think a truly independent state would let Russian armies through it's borders? The borders may have been intact, but Poland was pacified in 1710, and by the time of 7YW Russian Tsar decided what would be the outcome of the Sejms.


For the average American and even west european everything east of Germany is known really vaguely. I imagine with indepent PLC, the border would be moved to the east, but you can't expect average Englishman to know about nuances of ethnic conflicts in the Balkans etc. I've seen way too many Youtube comments calling Lithuanians, Hungarians etc. Slavs.[/QUOTE]

Well, to start with the truly independent state would not allow the Swedish and Russian troops to use its territory as a battleground for years. So we would have to start with some considerably earlier period (probably prior to the early XVII) making the PLC a state with the strong hereditary royal power and most of the “freedoms” nonexistent. In the terms of the territory and population it would still be at disadvantage comparing to the Tsardom and Ukraine still would be a powder keg (unless some fundamental issues are being resolved) and there should be a separate scenario describing the realistic ways of not losing the Baltic provinces to Sweden (the PLC would need a seriously different military system). One of the byproducts could be an absence of the GNW because in that scenario August would not become a king and the Baltic areas would be a part of the PLC. Needless to say that this brings a side question about GA, his activities during the 30YW, Swedish Baltic Empire, etc. Then there would be an issue of the territorial ambitions of the alt-PLC:

(a) would it retain Smolensk area
(b) would it try to do something drastic to deal with the Crimean Horde and raiding of the Ukrainian lands (part of the PLC)
(c) would it try to invade Moldavia
(d) would it try to conquer Silesia
(e) what would be its policy regarding the Ducal Prussia
(f) would it try to conquer Pomerania
(g) what would be (if any) its contribution to the 30YW
(h) what would be the short and long term situation vs. Tsardom

In other words, history of the region could be different beyond the recognition.