Margraviate of Brandenburg Doesn't Inherit the Duchy of Prussia?

Somewhat surprised this doesn't seem to have really been done before, that or search simply isn't being helpful. What do people think the outcome might be if John Sigismund Prince-Elector and Margrave of Brandenburg hadn't inherited the Duchy of Prussia in 1618 via his wife? Legally, initially at least, he or his wife wouldn't of had any rights to the Duchy. Albert of Hohenzollern was the last Grand Master of the Teutonic Knights who signed the Treaty of Krakow in 1525 which formally ended the Polish–Teutonic War of 1519–1521 allowing Albert the opportunity to convert to Lutheranism and secularise the Monastic State, making the Prussian Homage to Sigismund I the Old two days later that recognised him Duke of Prussia as a vassal of the Polish King. One of the clauses of the Treaty of Krakow was that Ducal Prussia could only be inherited in the male line by descendants of Albert, this becomes important later.

Fast forward a few years and Albert Frederick the second Duke of Prussia had no sons so Sigismund II Augustus of Poland granted a special dispensation to allow the Duchy to be inherited via one of his daughters. When Albert Frederick dies in 1618 Ducal Prussia passes to his daughter Anna of Prussia and her husband John Sigismund Prince-Elector and Margrave of Brandenburg, thus creating the personal union of Brandenburg-Prussia. What if Sigismund II Augustus had declined to grant the favour though? He was certainly under no legal obligation to. Come 1618 and this means that with no legal heirs Ducal Prussia reverts back to Poland and becomes the property of Sigismund III Vasa as King of Poland. This would certainly seem to throw a spanner in the works of the future Kingdom of Prussia's rise to domination of Germany.
 
The rise of Prussia is one of those imponderable happenstances in history. From a rational perspective, it shouldn't have happened. It's an improbable series of quirks.

  • Brandenburg gets Prussia, which is German but outside the Holy Roman Emperor.
  • One of the Dukes wants to be king.
  • The Emperor actually allows that Duke to become a king because Prussia is outside the HRE, and because he needs that duke's political support.
  • Frederick the Great and his family make Prussia a military power far greater than its size dictates.
  • Prussia gains the Rhineland during the Congress of Vienna.
  • Rhineland happens to have lots of coal that allows Prussia to become a major industrial power.
  • Prussia defeats Austria and unites Germany without it.

Remove any one of those things, and Prussia likely never rules Germany.
 
The core of Brandenburg-Prussia always remained in Brandenburg proper, so losing out on Prussia wouldn't necessarily be such a huge setback in itself. That said, any loss of luck, land, manpower or prestige for Brandenburg is probably going to butterfly away most of their unrealistically/miraculously great success, likely cementing them in a position roughly on par with Saxony in the long-term. They could still get lucky in different ways, and a state consisting of Brandenburg and the Pomeranias (if they acquire both halves) would still be fairly respectable; it would still be one of the only German states with proper access to the sea, after all.

I wonder what the role of Prussia within the PLC would be like though, especially given the nature of their elective monarchy.
 
A very interesting and unexplored idea. Prussia as a lapsed fief goes to King Sigismund III, which would mean that the Duchy could be made a hereditary holding of the House of Vasa. It would give the Vasa dynasty a base independent from the Sejm and the limited authority of the Crown. Of course, Prussia was Lutheran while the Vasas were Catholic, so there could be major issues in attempting to exercise authority on the part of the new ducal dynasty. On the other hand, a secure duchy could boost the power of the Vasa monarchy within the Commonwealth and could help in creating a more centralized government. Really it depends on how the Vasa dynasty is able to develop Prussia.
 
A very interesting and unexplored idea. Prussia as a lapsed fief goes to King Sigismund III, which would mean that the Duchy could be made a hereditary holding of the House of Vasa. It would give the Vasa dynasty a base independent from the Sejm and the limited authority of the Crown. Of course, Prussia was Lutheran while the Vasas were Catholic, so there could be major issues in attempting to exercise authority on the part of the new ducal dynasty. On the other hand, a secure duchy could boost the power of the Vasa monarchy within the Commonwealth and could help in creating a more centralized government. Really it depends on how the Vasa dynasty is able to develop Prussia.

Well, Wlad IV was pretty tolerant - a more likely of unlikely candidates for the Russian diadem than his father - so maybe Sigismund gives it to his eldest son as an appanage, i.e. heir to the throne of Poland being called the Prince of Prussia or something?

Just need to keep Sigismund and his pro-Catholic policies away from it.
 
By looking up the Swedish wiki on Sigismund Vasa it shows he made diplomatic use of Brandenburg in his feud for retaining the Kingdom of Sweden and later on may have seen keeping the friendship of a protestant noble a nice way of having less to worry about in his ongoing conflict with the Sejm and P-L nobility.
Sigismund had been raised a catholic with the purpose of becoming King of P-L all the while having protestant teachers so probably he wouldn't have had any problems in ruling a protestant Duchy.
Though JonasResende will be more knowledgable in this than I.
 
The thing is (at least to me) , that the rise of the Hohenzollern is a product of the 30 years war . Say the great elector was the first great ruler and even without prussia a rise of the dynasty was possible. For exemple prussia suffer a bad plague outburst in 1709 , forcing to ressetle. The real question is how many bad ruler you need to screw brandenburg and obv no miracle of their house. Speaking of this and after a lot of documentation , i came to quite dislike elizabeth of Russia , she was a biggest trouble than Nappy.
 
- so maybe Sigismund gives it to his eldest son as an appanage, i.e. heir to the throne of Poland being called the Prince of Prussia or something?
There wasnt a heir of Poland in that period, the Sejm was always very opposed to that idea. IIRC the Sejm was also opposed to the idea of giving Vasa princes any lands anywhere near Baltic - and in consequence Sweden - as they believed this could lead to a conflict with that country.
 
Besides no duchy of prussia doesn't mean no expansion eastward probably. I think they would probably on the right occasion claiming Prussia.
 
If Prussia reverting and turning into a Vasa fief would face such heavy opposition from the Sejm, what exactly would happen to it? Would a local Prussian noble be elevated to duke, perhaps giving Prussia a similar position in the PLC as Courland held historically?

Besides no duchy of prussia doesn't mean no expansion eastward probably. I think they would probably on the right occasion claiming Prussia.
They could try, but they wouldn't necessarily succeed. A German polity expanding into PLC territory isn't some absolute law of history, after all.
 
Well it would revert to the Crown rather than to Sigismund III personally so it doesn't become Vasa territory unless he either grants it to himself or a member of the family as a vassal. To use a modern example Queen Elizabeth II is also the current Duke of Lancaster, the two positions always being held by the same person. Did the King have the power to create the duchy for a second time and grant lands unilaterally or would it require the consent of the Sejm? As others have said I can't really see them being all that thrilled with the idea or going along with it.
 
Neither the possession of the East Prussian territory nor the royal title were that central in the rise of the Hohenzollern dynasty. As late as 1760, Frederick II regarded East Prussia more as a liability because it was nearly impossble to defend against any Russia attempt to occupy it.
IIRC, he was annoyed that his gradfather had anchored the royal title there because that meant he could not easily exchange it against a more useful possession like Saxon Lusatia. (And this is even a more vague recollection, but I think the "Grand Elector" seriously desired an exchange of Prussia -> Sweden and Western Pomerania from Rügen to Stettin -> Brandenburg.)

This is not to say that Ducal prussia was worthless, but the Electorate of Brandenburg has still options to rise in power and prestige even without it.
 
(...)
This is not to say that Ducal prussia was worthless, but the Electorate of Brandenburg has still options to rise in power and prestige even without it.

As long as the Empire existed, Prussia was, certainly at that point, the only viable territory and title to be raised to a kingdom.

IIRC it's suggested that Frederick felt being left behind with most of his fellow secular Prince-Electors gaining a Royal Title.

Brandenburg wouldn't do worse than OTL Bavaria or Saxony, though the lack of (an earlier( Royal Title would also hurt them, certainly diplomatically.
Prince Eugene of Savoy, Austria's Greatest General did warn that allowing the Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was a mistake for a reason (including but not only focusing on improving the military of his own Habsburg Lands).
 
Well it would revert to the Crown rather than to Sigismund III personally so it doesn't become Vasa territory unless he either grants it to himself or a member of the family as a vassal. To use a modern example Queen Elizabeth II is also the current Duke of Lancaster, the two positions always being held by the same person. Did the King have the power to create the duchy for a second time and grant lands unilaterally or would it require the consent of the Sejm? As others have said I can't really see them being all that thrilled with the idea or going along with it.

I think we should look at Courland in 1758 for an example of what could happen to Prussia. In 1758 King August III of Poland appointed his son Karl as the Duke of Courland and Semigallia, with no input or approval needed from the Sejm. Although the appointment had to be accepted by the Cour Diet, technically the Polish Sejm had no role in determining the next Duke. This is likely the situation to be seen in regards to Prussia and the Vasa line. Sigismund could appoint and invest his son Władysław with the Duchy of Prussia, provided he can pressure the local nobles to accept it.

Neither the possession of the East Prussian territory nor the royal title were that central in the rise of the Hohenzollern dynasty. As late as 1760, Frederick II regarded East Prussia more as a liability because it was nearly impossble to defend against any Russia attempt to occupy it.
IIRC, he was annoyed that his gradfather had anchored the royal title there because that meant he could not easily exchange it against a more useful possession like Saxon Lusatia. (And this is even a more vague recollection, but I think the "Grand Elector" seriously desired an exchange of Prussia -> Sweden and Western Pomerania from Rügen to Stettin -> Brandenburg.)

This is not to say that Ducal prussia was worthless, but the Electorate of Brandenburg has still options to rise in power and prestige even without it.

But without a territory outside of the empire Brandenburg would just be another Prince-Elector, not a power in its own right. Brandenburg would end up like Bavaria and the Palatinate did in the 18th century: prestigious within the Empire but in now way a great power. The Duchy of Prussia also gave the Elector full sovereignty, without obligations to the Emperor in terms of foreign policy. Maybe Prussia wasn't important long term for the rise of the Hohenzollern dynasty, but without it or another extra imperial territory, Brandenburg wouldn't become a true great power.

As long as the Empire existed, Prussia was, certainly at that point, the only viable territory and title to be raised to a kingdom.

IIRC it's suggested that Frederick felt being left behind with most of his fellow secular Prince-Electors gaining a Royal Title.

Brandenburg wouldn't do worse than OTL Bavaria or Saxony, though the lack of (an earlier( Royal Title would also hurt them, certainly diplomatically.
Prince Eugene of Savoy, Austria's Greatest General did warn that allowing the Prince-Elector of Brandenburg was a mistake for a reason (including but not only focusing on improving the military of his own Habsburg Lands).

Basically this. The Hohenzollerns needed Prussia to anchor their rule and their position as a great power. You couldn't be solely part of the Empire and a great power at the same time, as Bavaria proved. Saxony had Poland, Hanover had Great Britain and to a limited extent Savoy had Sardinia. Brandenburg without Prussia could end up like the Palatinate or Bavaria.
 
I don't think Bavaria's history necessarily proves anything expect that the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach was poor at producing monarchs capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. :D
 
I think we should look at Courland in 1758 for an example of what could happen to Prussia. In 1758 King August III of Poland appointed his son Karl as the Duke of Courland and Semigallia, with no input or approval needed from the Sejm. Although the appointment had to be accepted by the Cour Diet, technically the Polish Sejm had no role in determining the next Duke. This is likely the situation to be seen in regards to Prussia and the Vasa line. Sigismund could appoint and invest his son Władysław with the Duchy of Prussia, provided he can pressure the local nobles to accept it.



But without a territory outside of the empire Brandenburg would just be another Prince-Elector, not a power in its own right. Brandenburg would end up like Bavaria and the Palatinate did in the 18th century: prestigious within the Empire but in now way a great power. The Duchy of Prussia also gave the Elector full sovereignty, without obligations to the Emperor in terms of foreign policy. Maybe Prussia wasn't important long term for the rise of the Hohenzollern dynasty, but without it or another extra imperial territory, Brandenburg wouldn't become a true great power.



Basically this. The Hohenzollerns needed Prussia to anchor their rule and their position as a great power. You couldn't be solely part of the Empire and a great power at the same time, as Bavaria proved. Saxony had Poland, Hanover had Great Britain and to a limited extent Savoy had Sardinia. Brandenburg without Prussia could end up like the Palatinate or Bavaria.
Military might was what projected Prussia as a great power,not a royal title.If somehow the series of brilliant rulers still turn up as OTL and beat Austria in wars,I don't see how Brandenburg can't be a great power.
 
It's actually an interesting thing if you think about it. Prussia goes extinct in the male line in 1618, after Sigismund's lost Sweden. I wonder if he might have used Prussia as a springboard to reconquer Sweden?

But (and here's my take on it, although this is based on how IIRC British dukedoms work, so it might be wrong), technically this:

Prussia is created for the heirs-male of the first duke.
Then Albrecht Friedrich dies without sons.
Which means the dukedom is extinct in the male line.
If he had only one daughter, Anna (OTL Electress of Brandenburg), then the dukedom stood a good chance of being recreated for her (as suo jure duchess of Prussia) or her son (OTL Georg Wilhelm).
However, he had multiple daughters, which means that the title (usually) falls into abeyance until either the king desires to recreate it (whether for the heir-general or not) or the senior heir-general is granted a royal license to start using the title (which means that instead of being the 1st duke of London of the new creation, he's the 11th duke of London of the previous creation.) (AFAIR, with Margaret Pole there's some confusion as to whether she's Countess of Salisbury of the same creation as her brother (i.e. royal licensing) or of a new creation.)

That said, if this is how Prussia would've worked, which stands to reason, since until they became kings, the new dukes of Prussia had to swear fealty to the king of Poland/(was the Sejm ever sworn to if it was between kings?), then Sigismund III would've had to recreate the duchy in 1618 whether for the elector of Brandenburg or for his own son. That said, there's no record that the Sejm voiced any disapproval of the regranting of the duchy to not only a foreigner but a German (apparently the Poles didn't like the Germans too much, hence the surprise at the Saxon Elector becoming king) OTL. Wladyslaw (although Queen Constanze was notorious for wanting to sideline Wlad in favor of her own children (despite being his aunt)), would have the bonus of being Polish (the Sejm AFAIK had stipulated his being left behind in Poland as a hostage on his parents' trip to Sweden; Sweden pulled/tried to pull the same stunt with his sister if I'm not mistaken).
 
Military might was what projected Prussia as a great power,not a royal title.If somehow the series of brilliant rulers still turn up as OTL and beat Austria in wars,I don't see how Brandenburg can't be a great power.

Being a Great Power is more than Military might alone. The Royal Title did help in improving the diplomatic stature. Without they might end up getting less from (peace) Treaties than they did IOTL.

Don't get me wrong, they could still rise to become the most prominent Prince-Elector, though still well behind the Emperor.
 
Being a Great Power is more than Military might alone. The Royal Title did help in improving the diplomatic stature. Without they might end up getting less from (peace) Treaties than they did IOTL.

Don't get me wrong, they could still rise to become the most prominent Prince-Elector, though still well behind the Emperor.
I do wonder,will Russia still join the 7yw on Austria's side if the Hohenzollerns don't have Prussia,give possession of East Prussia was one of their war goals.
 
Top