Polish History

So, in my history of posting Polish history questions on this board, I've found myself sadly out of my depth. I was wondering if anyone could help me to understand how the royal elections, the Golden Privileges, the Sejm etc worked, and what might be the best way to get Poland to follow the example of the Western European nations (centralization, absolutization), preferably during the reigns of IMO the stronger kings (Sigismund II Augustus, Wladyslaw IV or Jan III Sobieski).

Also, how much the Liberum Veto would've paralyzed any possible reforms etc.

Any help welcome.
 
Last edited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty#Development
This article is a good start.
Sigismund II Augustus is the best candidate there is to start reforms, the POD is Barbara Radziwill lives and gives a heir.
With no dynastic issues -95% of sh*t that created the noble republic doesn't happen, no Articles of King Henri, no ultracatholic Vaza dynasty, and no magnates twisting the system into malfunctioning oligarchy.
 
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/history/index.html
Is a good site for an event-based overview of Polish history, for everything else go with Valena's article.

Which western model do you want Poland to follow? If you want it to follow French absolutist tendencies, then you'd probably want to cut out the Nihil Novi and the Act of Melnik - perhaps have St. Kazimierz avoid his unfortunate OTL early death. If you want Poland to follow more English lines and turn into a fiscal-military state, then you would want to strengthen the Sejm and weaken the king. This, in theory, gets the nobles more involved with protecting their country and makes them cough up more in taxes. Unfortunately, you could see something along OTL lines with the rise of unanimous voting and the liberum veto, paralyzing the Commonwealth instead of strengthening it. That wasn't a problem until the end of the 16th century, when the magnates brought it up to protect themselves. Perhaps a part of King Henri's Articles could specify that voting was to be majority voting. This would weaken religious toleration, but centralize the state.
 
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/history/index.html
Is a good site for an event-based overview of Polish history, for everything else go with Valena's article.

Which western model do you want Poland to follow? If you want it to follow French absolutist tendencies, then you'd probably want to cut out the Nihil Novi and the Act of Melnik - perhaps have St. Kazimierz avoid his unfortunate OTL early death. If you want Poland to follow more English lines and turn into a fiscal-military state, then you would want to strengthen the Sejm and weaken the king. This, in theory, gets the nobles more involved with protecting their country and makes them cough up more in taxes. Unfortunately, you could see something along OTL lines with the rise of unanimous voting and the liberum veto, paralyzing the Commonwealth instead of strengthening it. That wasn't a problem until the end of the 16th century, when the magnates brought it up to protect themselves. Perhaps a part of King Henri's Articles could specify that voting was to be majority voting. This would weaken religious toleration, but centralize the state.

I would say - given how pro-French Poland could be, and also given that Louis XIV's absolute monarchy was copied with varying degrees of success across Europe - that perhaps a version thereof.

I like Valena's idea of Barbara Radziwill giving Sigismund II a son (but my knowledge of Poland at that era is sketchy at best, and I'm not always sure what to trust on Wikipedia, because I haven't got a whole lot of other sources available). But, AFAIK the Queen-Mother, the Primate and the aristocracy weren't too fond of Radziwill, how would that affect matters.
 
I would say - given how pro-French Poland could be, and also given that Louis XIV's absolute monarchy was copied with varying degrees of success across Europe - that perhaps a version thereof.

I like Valena's idea of Barbara Radziwill giving Sigismund II a son (but my knowledge of Poland at that era is sketchy at best, and I'm not always sure what to trust on Wikipedia, because I haven't got a whole lot of other sources available). But, AFAIK the Queen-Mother, the Primate and the aristocracy weren't too fond of Radziwill, how would that affect matters.

Ok, for whatever reason my link earlier didn't post, so here goes try number two: :eek: http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/history/index.html

Zygmunt II is definitely a great PoD to have the Commonwealth stay as a great power, but he might not be able to get the Commonwealth to be absolutist in the proper sense; the Sejm was already too powerful to be entirely ignored. Regardless of the dislike of Radziwill by the Sejm, her children (And Zygmunt's) are going to be preferred to Henri Valois, so the hereditary line can continue. Like Valena said, that sidesteps a lot of the dysfunctional issues with the Commonwealth.
 
Ok, for whatever reason my link earlier didn't post, so here goes try number two: :eek: http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/history/index.html

Zygmunt II is definitely a great PoD to have the Commonwealth stay as a great power, but he might not be able to get the Commonwealth to be absolutist in the proper sense; the Sejm was already too powerful to be entirely ignored. Regardless of the dislike of Radziwill by the Sejm, her children (And Zygmunt's) are going to be preferred to Henri Valois, so the hereditary line can continue. Like Valena said, that sidesteps a lot of the dysfunctional issues with the Commonwealth.

Wait, I thought that the commonwealth was only created after it became obvious that Sigismund II wouldn't produce an heir. So if he has children with Barbara then doesn't that butterfly away the Union of Poland and Lithuania into the Commonwealth? Or was it like the union of England and Scotland, bound to happen eventually and the childlessness of the Monarch was just an excuse?
 
Wait, I thought that the commonwealth was only created after it became obvious that Sigismund II wouldn't produce an heir. So if he has children with Barbara then doesn't that butterfly away the Union of Poland and Lithuania into the Commonwealth? Or was it like the union of England and Scotland, bound to happen eventually and the childlessness of the Monarch was just an excuse?

Well, there were powerful arguments in favor of a closer union, namely Lithuania's inability to defend itself, but you're right, it was not called the Commonwealth at that point, and probably wouldn't be ITL. :eek:
 
So a son for Sigismund would mean that the Commonwealth is butterflied away for at least another generation?

And no Henrician Articles? Or are they simply applied in a modified form as they were in the pacta conventa?
 
So a son for Sigismund would mean that the Commonwealth is butterflied away for at least another generation?

And no Henrician Articles? Or are they simply applied in a modified form as they were in the pacta conventa?

Yes, it will be union of crowns but no full union.
No need for them as is, basically, they were approved as conditions for accepting a foreign king, a natural Jagellon won't need giving out such extensive privileges.
 
Top