Challenge: Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Survives

Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW was the successor of the king elected during the current monarch's reign or after the dead of the monarch?
After. There were interregnum periods between death of one king and election of another one, and the Commonwealth was especially vulnerable at such moments. The Khmelnytsky Uprising hit the PLC exactly during such an interregnum (it started two months before death of Wladislaw and peaked immediately before election of Jan Kazimierz).
Hm. But could it really stop Russian ambitions in the area?
I think so. Without Ukrainian help, Russians would never invade the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as they did in 1654-1655, destroying its economy and inciting religious war. Only when almost all resources of the Kingdom of Poland were tied up by Khmelnytsky's army, the GDL became defenseless against any Russian move towards Smolensk, Polotsk and even Vilnius itself. With Ukraine calm, the PLC would be at least able to stand its own against Moscow, or even get some lands from the Tsar, as they did in 1619. Russians tried to reconquer their westernmost provinces in 1632-1634, but failed (with 20, 000 Ukrainian Cossacks assisting the Commonwealth side, BTW). It was because of that bloody failure that the Tsar and the Council of Land decided to help Ukraine against the PLC government only in 1653 - Khmelnytsky requested Russian help (including invasion) as early as 1648, but authorities in Moscow were against any risks: they waited till the PLC weakens enough, and then attacked.

So - with minorities content, the PLC could survive, even despite administrative inefficiency (and sometimes outright anarchy). But when disfunctional state is engulfed by a terrible civil war... well, it's doomed. First proposals for partition of the PLC were made as early as 1655; only competition between potential partitioners allowed the Commonwealth to survive for such long time after the Deluge. OTOH, any disfunctional state almost inevitably will have difficult relations with its minorities - its government is too weak to guarantee minorities' rights - and at the same time too weak to suppress minorities' uprisings.

Consequently, to survive the PLC would have at very least to evade the Khmelnytsky Uprising, or, better still, to reform itself so that causes of such uprisings are eliminated.
 
Last edited:
Some possible PODs (possible combination of them):
- Jagiellons surving longer. They had stronger position that most elected rulers.

- Protestant reformation succeeds, perhaps in form of Anglican-like pseudo-Catholic National Church . Many questionable policies, both foreign and domestic, where based on supporting Catholic interests. Of course that might have lead to mistakes based on supporting protestantism instead :p

- Prussian/Brandenburgian Hohenzollers becoming rulers of Poland at some point. Would eliminate a later threat and perhaps lead to stronger monarchy/merchant classes.

-NO grain boom in the 16th century. It was a curse in disguise as it cemented the total economical domination of nobility.

-More successful "Executionist" movement in the 16th century, first attempt at reforming PLC political system.

-Muscovy destroyed for good in the late 15th century, perhaps as a result of Lithuanian, Novgorodian and Tatar alliance.
 
There is an old german saying if two people argue about nothing and irrelevant minor details "They are fighting over the polish crown".

Wasn't the Sejm always undermining the central authority?
So no matter how bad the Russian threat was, the threat from within was always as bad.
 
Some possible PODs (possible combination of them):
- Jagiellons surving longer. They had stronger position that most elected rulers.
The end of Jagiellons was the cause for creating the Commonwealth. With Jagiellons surviving longer we would get Poland and Lithuania in a personal union.
-NO grain boom in the 16th century. It was a curse in disguise as it cemented the total economical domination of nobility.
Maybe. The distortion of the grain trade by the Deluge was very strong hit to the economy of the PLC.
-More successful "Executionist" movement in the 16th century, first attempt at reforming PLC political system.
That was more relevant for the Poland.
-Muscovy destroyed for good in the late 15th century, perhaps as a result of Lithuanian, Novgorodian and Tatar alliance.
Hmm.. the reasons that led to the rise of Moscow and creation of the Commonwealth were the same. If you remove Polish - Lithuanian personal union in 15th century you very likely would distort the both processes.
 
The end of Jagiellons was the cause for creating the Commonwealth. With Jagiellons surviving longer we would get Poland and Lithuania in a personal union.
Maybe. The distortion of the grain trade by the Deluge was very strong hit to the economy of the PLC.
That was more relevant for the Poland.
Hmm.. the reasons that led to the rise of Moscow and creation of the Commonwealth were the same. If you remove Polish - Lithuanian personal union in 15th century you very likely would distort the both processes.

A surviving Jagiellon Poland-Lithuania may have been stronger than the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, but it would also have had different strengths and weaknesses. This personal union may have turned into a stronger union in the future, at least some monarchs would have tried so.

Anyway since it wouldn't be the PLC, it apparently isn't the answer to this question;).
 
Wow, lots of good answers so far! I'm glad to have started a topic to get everyone's juices flowing :cool:

So, if I'm understanding the collected responses correctly, the Commonwealth had some things going for it, but it needed a lot of work. Short of ASB, or a very ahistorical complete destruction of Muscovite-Russia, Prussia, or Hapsburg Austria, the Commonwealth would need to;

* implement the early reforms of the Ruch egzekucyjny
* successfully enforce the Treaty of Hadiach, averting the worst of the Khmelnytsky Uprising
** As an addendum to this, the Commonwealth would also have to be more successful in the Russo-Polish War of 1654–1667

Achieving either one or both of those points, the Commonwealth would later be more successful resisting the Swedish Deluge and subsequent incursions and divisions as per OTL. This seems to be the major turning point, and any POD past this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, would still appear to lead to a highly weakened and eventually fragmented Commonwealth.

So, how do any of these changes happen? While maintaining the Commonwealth structure - no cheating via a personal union under a Jagiellon dynasty ;)

Also, I think its very interesting no one even touched the idea of a Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth :p

Some specific points;
---
What we hence need is a PLC (which would be best described as Aristocracy - while it used republic it wasnt really one because it had a king, and it surely wasnt a democracy. Nobles democracy is even a contradiction in terms)

I knew and was hoping someone would comment on this. I didn't want to bog down the first post talking about the Commonwealth's governmental system, but I think it is important to the question at hand. To quote Wiki;
The foundation of the Commonwealth's political system, the "Golden Liberty" (Polish: Złota Wolność, a term used from 1573), included:

* free election of the king by all nobles wishing to participate;
* Sejm, the Commonwealth parliament which the king was required to hold every two years;
* pacta conventa (Latin), "agreed-to agreements" negotiated with the king-elect, including a bill of rights, binding on the king, derived from the earlier King Henry's Articles;
* rokosz (insurrection), the right of szlachta (nobles) to form a legal rebellion against a king who violated their guaranteed freedoms;
* liberum veto (Latin), the right of an individual land envoy to oppose a decision by the majority in a Sejm session; the voicing of such a "free veto" nullified all the legislation that had been passed at that session; during the crisis of the second half of the 17th century, Polish nobles could also use the liberum veto in provincial sejmiks;
* konfederacja (from the Latin confederatio), the right to form an organization to force through a common political aim.

The Commonwealth's political system is difficult to fit into a simple category, but it can be tentatively described as a mixture of:

* confederation and federation, with regard to the broad autonomy of its regions. It is however difficult to decisively call the Commonwealth either confederation or federation, as it had some qualities of both of them;
* oligarchy, as only the szlachta—around 10% of the population—had political rights;
* democracy, since all the szlachta were equal in rights and privileges, and the Sejm could veto the king on important matters, including legislation (the adoption of new laws), foreign affairs, declaration of war, and taxation (changes of existing taxes or the levying of new ones). Also, the 10% of Commonwealth population who enjoyed those political rights (the szlachta) was a substantially larger percentage than in any other European country; note that in 1831 in France only about 1% of the population had the right to vote, and in 1867 in the United Kingdom, only about 3%;
* elective monarchy, since the monarch, elected by the szlachta, was Head of State;
* constitutional monarchy, since the monarch was bound by pacta conventa and other laws, and the szlachta could disobey any king's decrees they deemed illegal.
So, its very hard to pigeon-hole the Commonwealth into a very small and neat box in regards to its polity. It truly was unique in European and World history. :)

---
If I could add my 3 dinars, Susano said the Deluge was the greatest blow, and solving the Cossack issue wouldn't help much. Well, Deluge was the greatest blow indeed, but the Khmelnitsky Uprising was devastating too. As was the Russian invasion it triggered. I also read that Charles chose the Commonwealth as the target of his invasion because of it's weakness, he considered Russia too.

I say, creating of a separate Ruthenian/Cossack unit in the PLC, may very well bring many positive changes. However, it will be hard, very hard to force it on the nobility, who was opposed to such changes. Perhaps an earlier uprising, when everyone else is busy could help.

Also, it wasn't the Ruthenian voivodship that would be given a duchy status, but three easternmost voivodships of the Polish Crown: Kiev, Bratslav and Chernigov. Ruthenian voivodship lied around Lwów/Lviv/Lemberg/Lwow/Ilov And I don't think it would have weakened the Crown, quite the opposite.


Other than that, slowing the reforms so that PLC lasts until Napoleon is a decent way to keep it alive, and a plausible one.
Thank you for clarifying all that, especially regarding the Ruthenian voivodship. Yes, the Uprising was really the opening, IMO, for many of the Commonwealth's neighbors needed to make inroads into Central-Eastern Europe. No uprising, or a smaller one, leading to a successful Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth and a victorious Commonwealth in the Russo-Polish War would most likely make Musovite-Russia seem weaker, and instead lead King Karl X Gustav to attack there instead of the Commonwealth. Or perhaps instead of launching an attack across the Baltic, Gustav moves against Denmark earlier than he did IOTL.

Would would you say would be the repercussions of the Commonwealth lasting, even as a minor power, into the Napoleonic Era? As I asked earlier, do you think the Commonwealth would support the French Revolutionaries (at least in the early stages)?
 
I don't know who would they side with (both sides aren't out of the question IMO), but if they'd last till Napoleon, you could count they will have his code forced down their throats, which is always nice (let's hope it's hard cover). It would be a good moment to implement some other changes too. Besides, I guess it would be hard for them to completely divide such a huge country in the Congress or afterwards, so there you go. It's not a power, but at least it exists.

They don't even have to be a minor power, being a zombie would be enough, and it's quite easy to do that: remove the Constitution and the war in it's defence, and there is no pretext for a second partition. It's just a few years. Or remove the Kosciuszko uprising, that's even less years.

Still, evading the collapse of mid-17th century would be better since it gives a strong PLC, the wars were really backbreaking.
 
So, its very hard to pigeon-hole the Commonwealth into a very small and neat box in regards to its polity. It truly was unique in European and World history. :)

My personal opinion on this Polish exceptionalism: it wasn't. It was simly a feudal monarchy that evolved in a different direction that most of the others - with domination of nobility instead of rulers.
 
Get rid of the House of Vasa

Some of the options mentioned in other posts such as revising the constituion to get rid of the debilitating efect of the 'liberum veto' and finding ways of either preventing or reducing the effect of the Khelmentsky uprising are probably necessary in any scenario in which the Commonwealth survives. The impact of the election of Zygmunt III Vasa in 1587 also had a major impact on the diection theh Commonwealth took.

Bringing the house of Vasa to the throne resulted in the Commonwealth becoming embroiled in the affairs of Sweden. This was made worse as the House of Vasa appeared to value the throne of Sweden more than that of the Commonwealth. Some friction between the Commonwealth and Sweden was inevitable and would probably have lead to wars between them. However, in the absence of the House of Vasa on the Commonwealth throne these wars would have been less prolonged and less destructive. There would also likely have been more resources of both Sweden and the Commonwealth devoted to resisting the advance of Russia which would have reduced the pace of their advances and possibly during the Time of Troubles (1598 to 1613) in Russia when the Commonwealth occupied large parts of Russia (including Moscow) it is possible that Sweden and the Commonwealth would have used the opportunity to annexe large areas of Russian territory. The Commonwealth could have adsorbed most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia and Sweden taking the area around St. Petersburg. This would certainly have delayed the advancement of Russia as a great power, possibly permanently. Also with less Swedish effort to reduce the power of the Commonwealth the effects of the Deluge (1648 to 1667) would have been reduced. With the Commonwealth able to concentrate on the Khmeltnytsky revolt and possibly end it sooner with less impact on the Commonwealth. It is also possible that the Commonwealth would not have had to give effective independence to Prussia thus preventing or slowing the rise of Prussian influence.
 
Some possible PODs (possible combination of them):
- Jagiellons surving longer. They had stronger position that most elected rulers.


Howabout if Lajos II of Hungary/Bohemia survives the Battle of Mohacs. He probably loses Hungary to some Turkish puppet, but he's still King of Bohemia.

Then when the other branch of the Jagiellons dies out a grandson (?) of his becomes King of Poland/Lithuania as well as Bohemia. So Austria never becomes a big power and the strengthened PL can maintain itself against its other neighbours.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Some of the options mentioned in other posts such as revising the constituion to get rid of the debilitating efect of the 'liberum veto' and finding ways of either preventing or reducing the effect of the Khelmentsky uprising are probably necessary in any scenario in which the Commonwealth survives. The impact of the election of Zygmunt III Vasa in 1587 also had a major impact on the diection theh Commonwealth took.

Bringing the house of Vasa to the throne resulted in the Commonwealth becoming embroiled in the affairs of Sweden. This was made worse as the House of Vasa appeared to value the throne of Sweden more than that of the Commonwealth. Some friction between the Commonwealth and Sweden was inevitable and would probably have lead to wars between them. However, in the absence of the House of Vasa on the Commonwealth throne these wars would have been less prolonged and less destructive. There would also likely have been more resources of both Sweden and the Commonwealth devoted to resisting the advance of Russia which would have reduced the pace of their advances and possibly during the Time of Troubles (1598 to 1613) in Russia when the Commonwealth occupied large parts of Russia (including Moscow) it is possible that Sweden and the Commonwealth would have used the opportunity to annexe large areas of Russian territory. The Commonwealth could have adsorbed most of the Ukraine and Byelorussia and Sweden taking the area around St. Petersburg. This would certainly have delayed the advancement of Russia as a great power, possibly permanently. Also with less Swedish effort to reduce the power of the Commonwealth the effects of the Deluge (1648 to 1667) would have been reduced. With the Commonwealth able to concentrate on the Khmeltnytsky revolt and possibly end it sooner with less impact on the Commonwealth. It is also possible that the Commonwealth would not have had to give effective independence to Prussia thus preventing or slowing the rise of Prussian influence.

The Prussian problem are best dealt with by the Bradenburgian Hohenzollern not inherited the Duchy, that's easy dealt with let Duke Albert Frederick produce a son whom survive to adulthood, of course that create the problem that the son would be heir to Jülich-Cleves-Berg-Mark too, and would likely be seen as more harmless than the Brandenburg elector and get the entire inherience. But it the end that's a lot better, because it would make him focus on his richer westen possesions, and leave Prussia to status quo. While the Brandenburg electors in OTL succeded in breaking the burghers of Königsburg strong position and create a streamlined absolut state. Of course neither the lack of Vasas or the lack of Brandenburgian Prussia are changing the Polish-Lithuanian state real problem, that it's a structures are obsolete. They need to reform badly, even if they didn't adopt the worst idiocies of the Commonwealth as the veto.
 
- Protestant reformation succeeds, perhaps in form of Anglican-like pseudo-Catholic National Church . Many questionable policies, both foreign and domestic, where based on supporting Catholic interests. Of course that might have lead to mistakes based on supporting protestantism instead :p

Maybe if Sigismund II had gone a "Henry VIII" in order to have his divorce from Catherine of Austria? But wouldn't this cause a civil war?
 

Don Grey

Banned
To the OP

So you want the commonwealth to last longer. Since i dont know much about its history so i will take it from an ottoman perpective so dont jump on me im just trying my best hear (and i didnt quite catch the pod for this aswell). Correct me if im wrong but i think russia is the biggest threat to the commonwealth thats why i say the things below.

I hope this isnt too late int he game.
In the Russo-Turkish War of (1710–1711) grand vezir baltacı mehmet pasha had surrounded and defeated the army of Peter the Great in OTL. They signed a very easy treaty the treaty of pruth which was just a slap on the wrist for russia. It was about demolishing fortresses and not interfering in the affairs of the common wealth.Rumor has it that baltacı was bribed by catherine which people think explianes the very easy term.

Now instead letting them go so easy baltacı pasha destroyes the army kills Peter The Great including what i think was his two top commanders Boris Shemeretiv and Dimitri Cantemir. Now if people more knowladgeble on russian history could tell me the excat effects of this it would be great.

What i belive will happen is a decline on russia behalf temporrary or long term not sure. Now the ottomans cantbe a threat to the commonwealth at this point it still has to deal with AH empire and has internal problams of its own. Now at most the ottomans if they were to expand they would try in the balkans or move father north into the caucasus and make sure crimea is safe. But the commonwealth is to far for ottomans so i dont know why you want them curbed so badly.

Why i picked this is because of a snippid i found on wiki (sorry had to use wiki). see artical below.

"
Turkish historians have traditionally argued that Baltacı Mehmet Pasha made an important strategic mistake by signing the treaty with relatively easy terms for the Russians, due to the numerically superior Ottoman force. Since Peter himself was commanding the Russian army, and had Baltacı Mehmet Pasha not accepted Peter's peace proposal and pursued to capture him as a prisoner instead, the course of history could have changed. Without Peter, Russia would have hardly become an imperial power, and the future arch-enemy of the Ottoman State in the Balkans, the Black Sea basin and the Caucasus."

And because you also said this below. "The Commonwealth eventually became a vassal of Russia between the time of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great."

So if the rumors are true that catherine bribe the pasha. Then this time around he doesnt except then destroyes the army along with peter and his comanders some of your problams are solved.

Again wiki snip below.
"Surrounded by overwhelming numbers of Turkish troops, Catherine suggested before surrendering, her jewels and those of the other women be used in an effort to bribe the Grand Vizier Baltaji into allowing a retreat. Baltaji allowed the retreat, whether motivated by a bribe or considerations of trade and diplomacy."

My point was to damage russia severly (as i feel she is the greates threat to you).I think this will help you cause greatly. Well this is my idea would it help you in any way?
 
Last edited:
I hope this isnt too late int he game.
In the Russo-Turkish War of (1710–1711) grand vezir baltacı mehmet pasha had surrounded and defeated the army of Peter the Great in OTL. They signed a very easy treaty the treaty of pruth which was just a slap on the wrist for russia. It was about demolishing fortresses and not interfering in the affairs of the common wealth.Rumor has it that baltacı was bribed by catherine which people think explianes the very easy term.
AFAIK the Ottoman army had suffered very heavy casualties and that was cause for the moderate terms.
 
Howabout if Lajos II of Hungary/Bohemia survives the Battle of Mohacs. He probably loses Hungary to some Turkish puppet, but he's still King of Bohemia.

Then when the other branch of the Jagiellons dies out a grandson (?) of his becomes King of Poland/Lithuania as well as Bohemia. So Austria never becomes a big power and the strengthened PL can maintain itself against its other neighbours.

Maybe if Sigismund II had gone a "Henry VIII" in order to have his divorce from Catherine of Austria? But wouldn't this cause a civil war?
As I pointed before the continuation of Jagiellons would prevent the Commonwealth. That was the dynastic policy of Jagiellons to keep status quo. The reason was that they had inherited rights to GDL but in Poland they ruled as elected kings.

IMO the Sigismund August's rule was the best chance to make both Poland and Lithuania protestant (or fell in time when it was possible)
 
Prussia was just so barely accepted as Great Power after the Silesian Wars, surely as weakest among the Pentarchy. It could never have acted uniliterally aggressive against Poland. It required Russia for that. OTOH, Russia was in a position to act uniliterally, it just preferred to get partners on board. So I dont think killing off or even weakening Prussia is really necessary. Russia is indeed the problem. However, once Muscovy has united Russia, its rise as Great Power is rather inevitable, and sabotaging Muscovy would require a rather very early PoD. So that is difficult. What we hence need is a PLC (which would be best described as Aristocracy - while it used republic it wasnt really one because it had a king, and it surely wasnt a democracy. Nobles democracy is even a contradiction in terms) that can stand up to Russia on its own.

The Ruthenian/Cossack plans have been discussed now and then here, but I dont see them helping much with retaining the area. After all, it wasnt lost due to revolution but due to foreign conquest. OTOH, what has also been discussed here, and what I think most people here (especially the Poles) see as central reason for the PLCs decline is the Great Deluge in mid-17th century, as it apparently killed off a good portion of the population and devastated the economy. So if that particular catastrophic event can be avoided, maybe...

Of course Now, it is a matter of discussion wether the reform movements in the Commonwealth were a pretext or a genuine reason (due to fears after the French Revolution) for the three partition powers to completly finish the PLC off, but in any case if the French Revolution is avoided that might also avoid the Second and Third Partition. Of course, it would also have far more wide-reaching consequences than that...

Oh, and seeing how Jan spoke of the monarchy - Of course what might also help as a late PoD is to have the Wettins not being so friggen incompetent. I mean, seriously. They had the most prosperous country in the HRE (measured per inhabitant or square mile), with all the wealth of the Ore Mountains, and they had the royal title of Poland - and they did absolutely nothing with it. They squandered the whole money on the court, on parties and on gems. And not only one ruler, but for some reason the entire line starting with August the Strong. Really, they had far better conditions to rise to great power status than Brandenburg-Prussia, but gave it away due to incompetence. Surely, there must be a possibility to change the personality of at least one Wettin to make him a competent or even great ruler, creating a strong central authority and hereditary monarchy in the PLC, and leading Poland(-Lithuania)-Saxony to great power status.
the french revolution wad not a thing then...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top