James Sobieski Elected King of Poland-Lithuania

Historically during the Great Northern War Charles XII developed a desire to depose Augustus the Strong. When Charles finally got around to calling an assembly to elect his candidate he offered the position to James Sobieski and asked him to come to Warsaw. However James was kidnapped by Augustus enroute which deprived Charles of his candidate. Eventually Charles settled on Stanislaus Leszczynski. Leszczynski was not at all an adequate replacement for Sobieski, not only did he lack the support but he lacked the political acumen for the job. When Charles finally exited Poland for Russia, Stanislaus quickly lost control of the country. But what if James had made it to WarsW and been elected? What effect might it have had on the Great Northern War?
 
Historically during the Great Northern War Charles XII developed a desire to depose Augustus the Strong. When Charles finally got around to calling an assembly to elect his candidate he offered the position to James Sobieski and asked him to come to Warsaw. However James was kidnapped by Augustus enroute which deprived Charles of his candidate. Eventually Charles settled on Stanislaus Leszczynski. Leszczynski was not at all an adequate replacement for Sobieski, not only did he lack the support but he lacked the political acumen for the job. When Charles finally exited Poland for Russia, Stanislaus quickly lost control of the country. But what if James had made it to WarsW and been elected? What effect might it have had on the Great Northern War?

Jakub's daughter was supposed to be married to Carl XII to seal the deal, which could've made for fun times. There were two things that I'm aware of counting against Jakub in his election (both in 1696 and during Carl's attempt): 1) he had no son - which the Sejm might've been privately pleased about, since it technically means that they don't have to worry about a dynasty forming - and 2) his issues with his mom. I'm not sure if they'd been sorted out by the 18th century, but in 1696, they were at odds to such an extent that she preferred her son-in-law, the Elector of Bavaria - to her own son (plus she preferred her youngest? son to Jakub). So, if Jakub has a son (he did OTL, Jan (b.1699) who was stillborn) and he has sorted his mommy issues out, he might be more willing to fight for the crown than OTL). But I'm not an expert on Polish history.
 
He might have been a more popular monarch than Leszczyński. IIRC there were several local confederations pushing for him becoming a king even after he officially renounced any claims to Polish throne, which might suggest he had been somewhat popular. Of course it hard to say how much of his popularity was thank to his father, John III.
He also was supported by HRE and Prussia which again might have helped him
However, I'm not sure about him making any serious change in the Great Northern War. At the time PLC was too weak and internally divided. The main fighters were Sweden and Russia, so the outcome of the war would be decided by them.
Even if he had managed to unite PLC under his rule,which IMO would have been highly doubtful, I do not he James Sobiesku would have been able to offer Charles XII any serious help in his campaign against Russia.
 
Jakub's daughter was supposed to be married to Carl XII to seal the deal, which could've made for fun times. There were two things that I'm aware of counting against Jakub in his election (both in 1696 and during Carl's attempt): 1) he had no son - which the Sejm might've been privately pleased about, since it technically means that they don't have to worry about a dynasty forming - and 2) his issues with his mom. I'm not sure if they'd been sorted out by the 18th century, but in 1696, they were at odds to such an extent that she preferred her son-in-law, the Elector of Bavaria - to her own son (plus she preferred her youngest? son to Jakub). So, if Jakub has a son (he did OTL, Jan (b.1699) who was stillborn) and he has sorted his mommy issues out, he might be more willing to fight for the crown than OTL). But I'm not an expert on Polish history.

Ahh.

He might have been a more popular monarch than Leszczyński. IIRC there were several local confederations pushing for him becoming a king even after he officially renounced any claims to Polish throne, which might suggest he had been somewhat popular. Of course it hard to say how much of his popularity was thank to his father, John III.
He also was supported by HRE and Prussia which again might have helped him
However, I'm not sure about him making any serious change in the Great Northern War. At the time PLC was too weak and internally divided. The main fighters were Sweden and Russia, so the outcome of the war would be decided by them.
Even if he had managed to unite PLC under his rule,which IMO would have been highly doubtful, I do not he James Sobiesku would have been able to offer Charles XII any serious help in his campaign against Russia.

But would Jakub be able to manage himself in Poland, and would Poland having a king that Prussia liked have prevented Prussia from joining in the war against Sweden?
 
Unless the election of James change the Great Northern War, I don't see him being elected king of Poland being a good thing for Poland. The Poles needed not only a strong king, they needed a powerful king who was able to curbstump all their traditional "rights" and "liberties", while ensuring a clear succession of a king after him, who was willing and able to continue the curbstumping. Here they just get a new king without the power to centralise Poland and a unclear succession which will lead to yet another weak king.
 
Unless the election of James change the Great Northern War, I don't see him being elected king of Poland being a good thing for Poland. The Poles needed not only a strong king, they needed a powerful king who was able to curbstump all their traditional "rights" and "liberties", while ensuring a clear succession of a king after him, who was willing and able to continue the curbstumping. Here they just get a new king without the power to centralise Poland and a unclear succession which will lead to yet another weak king.

Well, unless we let one of his younger daughters (after the POD) be born male, or his only son survives. Maybe he can engineer the marriage of one of his brothers to some foreign princess with the understanding that their son becomes his heir as long as Hedwig Amalie can't give him a son...
 
Well, unless we let one of his younger daughters (after the POD) be born male, or his only son survives. Maybe he can engineer the marriage of one of his brothers to some foreign princess with the understanding that their son becomes his heir as long as Hedwig Amalie can't give him a son...

The problem are that James lack the personal power to force through a centralisation of the Polish state (including limiting the rights and vetoes of the Sejm) and get his heir elected. If he succeed in limiting the power of the Magnates, the result will be that the Magnates elect a new king after him, who promise to get rid of all James' reforms. Poland needed and had needed since the end of Middle Ages a Stockholm Bloodbath of their nobility (which was the nicest thing Denmark ever did to the Swedes). Something which united land in relative few nobles hands, and which would make them elect a strong monarch with a large personal wealth.
 
Unless the election of James change the Great Northern War, I don't see him being elected king of Poland being a good thing for Poland. The Poles needed not only a strong king, they needed a powerful king who was able to curbstump all their traditional "rights" and "liberties", while ensuring a clear succession of a king after him, who was willing and able to continue the curbstumping. Here they just get a new king without the power to centralise Poland and a unclear succession which will lead to yet another weak king.
At that point, I doubt you could get anyone to successfully centralize Poland-Lithuania and turn it into a stable and strong, if not absolute then at least heavily autocratic, monarchy without some great losses in return.

The reigns of Sobieski and Wisnowiecki were detrimental in that both of the kings were local nobles. And no right Polish or Lithuanian noble would agree to listen to one of themselves as a some sort of king. It heavily hastened the devolution into anarchy that happened during the rule of Augustus II and III. While centralizing the Commonwealth was possible before (although hard, Bathory faced so much opposition during his reign that it was almost unsustainable), it would be extremely unlikely past 1700.

Remember what happened at the end of the century? The situation was even more pressing for reform. While the King in charge wasn't the best, he was intelligent and a follower of the Enlightenment. A large portion of nobles were willing to put aside their golden rights to save the collapsing Commonwealth. Hell, most of the surrounding countries were busy with France, so they couldn't stop the reform. And yet, the May 3rd Constitution was nipped in the bud in less than a year. That's how hard it was.
 
At that point, I doubt you could get anyone to successfully centralize Poland-Lithuania and turn it into a stable and strong, if not absolute then at least heavily autocratic, monarchy without some great losses in return.

The reigns of Sobieski and Wisnowiecki were detrimental in that both of the kings were local nobles. And no right Polish or Lithuanian noble would agree to listen to one of themselves as a some sort of king. It heavily hastened the devolution into anarchy that happened during the rule of Augustus II and III. While centralizing the Commonwealth was possible before (although hard, Bathory faced so much opposition during his reign that it was almost unsustainable), it would be extremely unlikely past 1700.

Remember what happened at the end of the century? The situation was even more pressing for reform. While the King in charge wasn't the best, he was intelligent and a follower of the Enlightenment. A large portion of nobles were willing to put aside their golden rights to save the collapsing Commonwealth. Hell, most of the surrounding countries were busy with France, so they couldn't stop the reform. And yet, the May 3rd Constitution was nipped in the bud in less than a year. That's how hard it was.

I don't disagree, but that's the problem with the 18th century Commonwealth, it was a near dead man staggering through the century. It would take major miracle to save it. Maybe Poland as kingdom could have been saved, if the Russians had accepted a partition of the Commonwealth with Saxony, but the commonwealth as Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, I can't imagine how it wouldn't end up cut up at some point. Without the Napoleonic Wars it would have made it into the 19th century, but the moment Austria showed weakness or decided to put the Commonwealth down, it was finished.
 
Top