Is the Kingdom of Poland better off long term without Lithuania

Originally posted by kasumigenx
If poland never had a union with lithuania, it would get Silesia back...

Why? Poles might try, of course (and I think they would), but it is not certain they would succeed. Getting Silesia back means war with Bohemia.
 
Wthout PLC I do not see any reason for Polish capital to move at all. Why would it? IOTL Cracow remaind official captal of Poland until partitions. Warsaw was known as a "His Majestys' Residential Town". Since XVIIth century Polish kings lived there, the Sejms met mostly there and elections were organized near Warsaw. However the kings were crowned almost always in Cracow (except 2, I believe). You could say Warsaw was de facto the capital of PLC, a federal capital, but Cracow remained the capital of Poland.
Thanks for the clarification! I figured that a Poland that acquired and secured its Baltic coastline early on might see itself being pulled economically and politically towards the Baltic sea, but if Cracow has such a strong position in Poland, I guess there's not much of a reason to move, like you said.

Kyiv ceased to be a great city in 1240 (the Mongols killed most of the population and burned down almost all houses), the most powerful Rus princes resided in other places as early as 1169, and the metropolitan archbishop of all Rus, despite leading a highly conservative institution, moved out of Kyiv in 1299.

If the Grand Duchy of Lithuania conquered Moscow and lesser Great Russian principalities by the late 14th century or later, Vilnius would have already been established as the capital of their empire, and they would have all the legitimacy they need from the simple fact of being victorious and benevolent rulers (the Gediminids (the ruling house of Lithuania) tried hard to respect ancestral rights of nobles in conquered lands, going as far as turning governorships into de-facto hereditary offices and allowing provincial assemblies to pass local laws even if they contradicted laws of Lithuania proper).

If they go Orthodox (which would be likely absent the union with Poland), it'd improve their legitimacy further, and the metropolitan would likely move his see to Vilnius as well (OTL, there were two archbishops, both recognized by the Patriarch in Constantinople, who claimed the title of 'Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus': the Muscovite metropolitan, with his de-facto see in Moscow, and the Lithuanian metropolitan, who alternated his residence between Kyiv and Navahrudak (a city in modern Belarus)).
Oh, for some reason I assumed that Kiev had regained at least some level of importance by the 1400s.

Vilnius as the "Russian" capital does sound pretty interesting. I wonder how such a state would develop and grow compared to Muscovy historically.

If poland never had a union with lithuania, it would get Silesia back...

Getting Silesia back means war with Bohemia.
Unless they regain it in some sort of very favorable diplomatic agreement.

I can't imagine a lot of scenarios where whoever rules Bohemia would willingly give up such important lands though. I suppose they'd also "regain" it in a personal union, but since it would likely still remain under the Bohemian crown, that would probably just be temporary.
 
Honestly, nothing would have been better for high medieval Poland than a legacy distinct from that of Lithuania. The challenge though is getting there.
 
Vilnius as the "Russian" capital does sound pretty interesting. I wonder how such a state would develop and grow compared to Muscovy historically.
Most likely, this Greater Lithuania/alt-Russia would be more of an aristocratic oligarchy and less of an autocratic empire. Of course, it would be earlier and more thoroughly Westernized, despite being largely Orthodox. As for its borders, I see no reason for Greater Lithuania to fail to conquer the steppe zone (as soon as firearms become good enough to negate the nomads' advantages over Slavic infantry) and Siberia. The latter would be ripe for taking as soon as the Volga knanates fall, which happened in the 1550s OTL, but might happen a few decades earlier ITTL, since the Greater Lithuania, unlike OTL Muscovy, would likely have mostly stable western borders, and so would be able to send its musketeers against the Tatars without worrying too much about defending (or expanding) in the west.
 
Most likely, this Greater Lithuania/alt-Russia would be more of an aristocratic oligarchy and less of an autocratic empire. Of course, it would be earlier and more thoroughly Westernized, despite being largely Orthodox. As for its borders, I see no reason for Greater Lithuania to fail to conquer the steppe zone (as soon as firearms become good enough to negate the nomads' advantages over Slavic infantry) and Siberia. The latter would be ripe for taking as soon as the Volga knanates fall, which happened in the 1550s OTL, but might happen a few decades earlier ITTL, since the Greater Lithuania, unlike OTL Muscovy, would likely have mostly stable western borders, and so would be able to send its musketeers against the Tatars without worrying too much about defending (or expanding) in the west.

Well, I'd agree with most of what you said.
Not sure about the 'stable western borders' though.
I mean, adopting the Orthodox version of Christianity the Lithuanians might get infected with the 'Russian' paranoia about being the only 'true Christians' surrounded by the sea of the hostile treacherous infidels and heretics; and some of the 'Russian messianism' which stems from Orthodoxy as well.
 
It depends on what happens When Poland got Lithuania it also got an enemy in Muscovy who was looking to retake the lands that Lithuania had taken from the old Kievan Rus. Without that the union then Poland is not going to be an enemy of Muscovy or any alt Russia by association, or have enough bad blood to intervene assuming no other butterflies in things like the Livonian War or the Time of Troubles.

The problem with a Lithuanian Russia is that anything further, then what they took in OTL requires a friendly or neutral Poland. Lithuanian going eastward is going to have to deal with both a loose confederation of Rus princes who see them as a threat and them calling on Mongol suzerain in the Golden Horde to help. Contrary to what Russian nationalists may say there wasn't much of a Tatar yoke the Rus princes had their uses for the Mongols in their own power plays for helping theirs. So the princes are not going necessarily going to jump ship.
 
Lithuanian going eastward is going to have to deal with both a loose confederation of Rus princes who see them as a threat and them calling on Mongol suzerain in the Golden Horde to help.

No, no, if the Lithuanian "tsar/zar" (and he would definitely be called that by the Russians) is an Orthodox he will never be seen as a threat.
In the first place in that age "us-them" for the Russians was "the Orthodox vs. the non-Orthodox".
And having in mind that the Lithuanian Orthodox elites would be thoroughly Russified (which is pretty inevitable) it will be - "us = Orthodox Lithuanians and Russians".

Remember that "the Mongols" were the Muslims.
So whomever supports a Muslim overlord against the orthodox pious Lithuanian tsar... well, he definitely burns in hell :)
 
Top