Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Never Falls?

What if the PLC had been able to avoid it's decline and had remained strong? Could they have realistically been able to consolidate it's power, enforce their borders and avoid total collapse?
 
What if the PLC had been able to avoid it's decline and had remained strong? Could they have realistically been able to consolidate it's power, enforce their borders and avoid total collapse?

Well, the problem is complicated, because if you're talking about "PLC" (so after 1569) it had a system of governance which was not suitable for governing large state - Jean Bodin noticed that governing large state requires strong, centralized monarchy and Parliament couldn't replace the monarchy as a center of decisions, because it reacted, by it's nature - very slowly, also free election created a state of permanent succession war, normalizing the situation which happened in hereditary monarchies only without clear succesor, and what's more the politically-conscious population built their whole identity around the election and the parliament, thus making any possibility towards real help (I don't think that other "solution" - so curbing monarch's power even more and transferring it to House of Envoys would even help, IMHO that would be short-term solution) impossible. IMHO, the best shot for successful Polish-Lithuanian union would be late XIVth-XVth century POD as it could affect birth of republican ideology and curb it when it didn't become prominent yet. @Jan Olbracht
 
By the mid-18th century century they'll only be able to survive as a buffer state if they play their cards right against Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The only other solution is to change how the nobility acts so they aren't so easily bribed and divided which will take more proto-nationalism, less rights granted them (this accelerated by the late 16th century IIRC), and no doubt a few civil wars where an "absolutist" monarch smashes the magnates and centralises the state.
 
By the mid-18th century century they'll only be able to survive as a buffer state if they play their cards right against Prussia, Austria, and Russia. The only other solution is to change how the nobility acts so they aren't so easily bribed and divided which will take more proto-nationalism, less rights granted them (this accelerated by the late 16th century IIRC), and no doubt a few civil wars where an "absolutist" monarch smashes the magnates and centralises the state.
In mid 18th century PLC was at its nadir. The decline began in mid 17th century, and if PLC is to avoid it, as OP wants, this is when it must begin reforming and creating some sort of effective government and financial-administrative system.
 
It’s an extremely tall order to keep it viable. The biggest problem as others have noted is the Sejm. Either you drastically scale down its power and allow a centralised monarchy to rise, or you reform it to resemble something approaching an English parliament with a constitutional monarc. If you go down the reform path you’d need to established a schedule for regular meetings and membership and absolutely have to end the liberum veto that paralysed any attempt at governance.
Next up try to avoid making the kind of decisions Augustus the strong made (he was particularly ineffective) but in particular anything approaching the events leading up to the Great Northern war. Sure it seems tempting to drive the Swedes from Livonia, but without Sweden keeping Russia in check you’re next, so it’s probably best to play the two off each other.
Aside from that carry out the usual financial, military,legal and educational reforms you normally see in threads like these (like road building, literacy and so on)
 
Poland did not have urban elites that could counterbalance the nobility in the Sejm. In early 17th century largest city in Poland (Gdańsk) had something like 50,,000 people and a few others around 15,000 while in the west there were already cities numbering over 200,.000 people. And the elite of those Polish cities was ethnically German and Jewish.
 
Absolutely easiest POD is to kill Catherine II of Russia earlier and keep her son Paul alive longer. And then simply wait for Napoleon, would be still defeated (this time Poles would see him as invader and oppresor, not as liberator) but he'd leave his mark on PLC: to extract resources from PLC to feed his war machine he'd need to build working administration.
 
Here's a crazy idea: have a Sejm v. King civil war, like what happened in England, at a point when there's a very capable grand hetman. If they're at war with the king, then a strong grand hetman could push through key reforms (regular Sejm meetings, ending the liberum veto), then cut back on royal power... or even eliminate it completely.
 
Here's a crazy idea: have a Sejm v. King civil war, like what happened in England, at a point when there's a very capable grand hetman. If they're at war with the king, then a strong grand hetman could push through key reforms (regular Sejm meetings, ending the liberum veto), then cut back on royal power... or even eliminate it completely.
Can't happen if you have liberum veto already (one drunk/bribed nobleman is enough to prevent any reforms, just like IOTL)

A sine qua non of PLC surviving is NOT to have liberum veto (so a POD before 1652 - the first known use of it - is necessary)
 
Can't happen if you have liberum veto already (one drunk/bribed nobleman is enough to prevent any reforms, just like IOTL)

A sine qua non of PLC surviving is NOT to have liberum veto (so a POD before 1652 - the first known use of it - is necessary)
It came in that late? OK, that changes things.

Also, there is a solution if the liberum veto is in place:

Marshal of the Sejm: Does anyone object to removing the liberum veto?
Bribed Nobleman: I veto!
Grand Hetman: I propose a recess.
Sejm: (approves)
(one hour later)
Grand Hetman: I regret to inform you all that I have recently found evidence that Bribed Nobleman is in fact in league with the king. When my troops went to arrest him, he resisted, and was sadly shot dead. Unfortunately, this means we were not able to interrogate him to determine if anyone else here is working with the king. Anyway, I propose that we remove the liberum veto!
Marshal of the Sejm: Does anyone object to removing the liberum veto?
Sejm: (crickets)
Marshal of the Sejm: The liberum veto is abolished!
 
If King John III Sobieski can manage to consolidate power after his victory after Vienna in 1683, and turn the PLC into a absolute hereditary monarchy like he wanted, it may help to postpone Poland's rapid decline. Especially if Poland can strengthen relations with either the Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire or with Tzarist Russia. Prussia is a wild card though. It could be persuaded to ally with the PLC only to prevent Austria from gaining influence among the German States.


But realistically I think to the PLC had a better chance if it retained control of Moscow and honored it's agreement to allow the Rus to practice Orthodoxy freely. It doesn't guarantee it survives but at this point in history, Poland could have become the masters of the modern day territory of Russia. As far fetched as it is
 
Last edited:
Absolutely easiest POD is to kill Catherine II of Russia earlier and keep her son Paul alive longer. And then simply wait for Napoleon, would be still defeated (this time Poles would see him as invader and oppresor, not as liberator) but he'd leave his mark on PLC: to extract resources from PLC to feed his war machine he'd need to build working administration.
I disagree. It's no sure thing what would happen. Paul I wasn't exactly the most hostile European monarch towards Napoleon. If his trend towards anti-English policy continued, he may well have become an ally of Napoleon, and there likely would have been no Napoleonic invasion of Poland. And it cannot be discounted that the expansionist nature of Napoleon's foreign policy has been exaggerated. There is no particular reason why Napoleon would come to blows with Polish interests, so whether it happens or not is subject to too many variables to predict with any reasonable degree of certainty. Indeed, if Paul I did survive longer, and Russia became hostile to Britain and indirectly to the coalitions that it helped organize, the wars that really created Napoleon's Europe-spanning Empire, namely the Wars of the Third, and Fourth Coalitions, may not even take place.
 
Last edited:
Can't happen if you have liberum veto already (one drunk/bribed nobleman is enough to prevent any reforms, just like IOTL)

A sine qua non of PLC surviving is NOT to have liberum veto (so a POD before 1652 - the first known use of it - is necessary)
The PLC survived for a long time with the veto, it must be remembered.

IIRC, this was because of a certain extra-constitutional approach to it--a man who invoked it frivolously could face a duel (and thus death) from his neighbors. Only in the later 17th century and the 18th century did that old check on it start to fade.

But even if the veto survives as a legal technicality, centralization is necessary, either in a competent hereditary monarchy or a republican form of government. I have seen one suggestion that Zygmunt II Augustus might have been inclined to end the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy, giving room for the adoption of a Republic on Roman lines--since he was childless, he has no throne to pass on, so that concern is absent.

Otherwise, I'd say Lubomirski's Rokosz is the last real chance to pull the PLC out of its decline, and it's also important to avoid the Great Northern War (fighting Sweden alongside Moscow is not beneficial for Poland).
 
But even if the veto survives as a legal technicality, centralization is necessary, either in a competent hereditary monarchy or a republican form of government. I have seen one suggestion that Zygmunt II Augustus might have been inclined to end the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy, giving room for the adoption of a Republic on Roman lines--since he was childless, he has no throne to pass on, so that concern is absent
Unfortunately, the chance of Poland surviving as a Republic is ASB.
 
Top