Polish-Lithuanian Republicanism

Many discussions of a surviving PLC involve reforms that curtail the power of the Senate or install a strong king or hereditary dynasty. Is it possible to go the other way, and have the Sejm abolish the monarchy entirely, even as a fiction? To have Poland-Lithuania ruled by elected officials (be their titles Roman or native) with set terms?

Would a supremely incompetent or unpopular king suffice? Or must there be a more severe social upheaval?

And would a truly Republican Poland-Lithuania be better or worse than the OTL institution or a hypothetical strong monarchy at suppressing the centrifugal tendencies of the szlachta?
 
Many discussions of a surviving PLC involve reforms that curtail the power of the Senate or install a strong king or hereditary dynasty. Is it possible to go the other way, and have the Sejm abolish the monarchy entirely, even as a fiction? To have Poland-Lithuania ruled by elected officials (be their titles Roman or native) with set terms?

Would a supremely incompetent or unpopular king suffice? Or must there be a more severe social upheaval?

And would a truly Republican Poland-Lithuania be better or worse than the OTL institution or a hypothetical strong monarchy at suppressing the centrifugal tendencies of the szlachta?

French-style revolution ? Have absolutism come forth more just before the revolution and then have many food riots and the enlightenment ideals of civil liberties and rights spread ?
 
Many discussions of a surviving PLC involve reforms that curtail the power of the Senate or install a strong king or hereditary dynasty. Is it possible to go the other way, and have the Sejm abolish the monarchy entirely, even as a fiction? To have Poland-Lithuania ruled by elected officials (be their titles Roman or native) with set terms?

Would a supremely incompetent or unpopular king suffice? Or must there be a more severe social upheaval?

And would a truly Republican Poland-Lithuania be better or worse than the OTL institution or a hypothetical strong monarchy at suppressing the centrifugal tendencies of the szlachta?
Abolishing the monarchy was the goal of the Polish Jacobin movement. Generally, the Jacobins had a sizable amount of influence in late 18th century Commonwealth, especially Hugo Kollantaj. It's possible, in theory, that if the conservative forces in the Four Year Sejm are weaker, that the Jacobins could push through an abolition of the monarchy in the Constitution of May 3, but not only do I find that severely unlikely, I also believe that it would cause more chaos and societal upheaval than a maintained monarchy would. At the time, even the French Revolution was not yet calling for an abolition of the monarchy, so such a move would be unprecedented.

Plus, it would not save the Commonwealth from doom anyway, or maybe even hasten it - Russia, Austria and Prussia would not want a center of revolution on their borders.
 
I've seen such TL on Polish site--Sigismund Augustus turns republican. Having no heirs anyway he prepares Poland and Lithuania to continue as republic based on Venetian and ancient Roman model. As result:
-there is no conflict between King and nobles. King is not scapegoat for all problems of PLC, nobles have to take all responsibility for their state themselves.
OTOH King, due to his limited power had to use corruption to enforce his will frequently-by giving offices to his supporters, thus corrupt magnat cliques were created. Also IOTL Kings of PLC often made main goal of their foreign and internal policy to secure throne for their heirs, with poor results for the country (Lubomirski's rebellion, Sobieski's failed Moldavian Campaigns and Wettin's involvement in Great Northern War were all results of such policy)
-state is not paralysed during interregnums (which lasted for months IOTL)
-no foreign involvement in Royal Election anymore, due to title of king being abolished.

Then, depending on long lasting results republicanism would get more popularity (there would be a proof that it really works in large country) ot would be discredited, if PLC fails, but I think first option is more likely to occur.
 
While the elections and interregnums were a time of major dysfunction, they weren't the main cause of the PLC's difficulties. At least in my opinion.

The main problem was that the sizable noble class (which was about 15% of the population I think) had a great deal of privileges, tax exemptions, legal protections, and opposed anything that threatened those privileges. They also owned most of the land, had most of the wealth, and just overall the power. The Golden Liberty was for them. The peasants and bourgeois had limited rights. The nobles opposed any taxes upon them or or demands to provide military services that could have allowed a professional army, instead utilizing an increasingly inefficient call up of the noble knightly classes (I forgot what it is called) that they demanded concessions to actually form while simultaneously using it as its basis for the privileged position of the nobility. The PLC, the largest state in Europe in its time, had a continuously standing army of like two or three thousand in 1600~ because of this, and it was maintained by a tax on royal lands. The nobility soon made its preference for foreign candidates for king, as they'd be out of their power base and thus unlikely to found a strong dynasty in the PLC. A move that often ended up entangling the PLC in foreign affairs. The nobles opposed rights for peasants or bourgeois as it would threaten their hold over them. Finally the big one, the liberum veto allowed any of the Sejm deputies to basically put a halt to the entire legislative process of the entire country, a fact utilized by their neighbors via bribes.

People generally focus on increasing the king's powers because that was the general trend of the time. However in reality what was absolutely needed for any functional PLC was the curtailing of the power, privileges, and monopoly on power held by the szlachta nobility. The constitution of 1791 that actually had a great chance of succeeding besides establishing hereditary monarchy focused on providing rights for the bourgeois and peasants, and banning the liberum veto. Yet even this was too much for many of the nobles, who then sided with Russia and waged a war to put an end to these reforms. This all but led to the Second Partition. They didn't want a reformed state. They wanted a return of the Golden Liberties, and a modern (at the time) state was not conductive to that.

So simply removing the kings won't solve anything, even if many of the kings were ineffective. The nobles were the problem, and reforms to curtail them would either be fought by them or could lead them to searching for foreign support in 'reestablishing the true PLC' like they did IOTL. Course it's possible to reform the PLC, but just removing the king isn't one of them.
 
The constitution of 1791 that actually had a great chance of succeeding besides establishing hereditary monarchy focused on providing rights for the bourgeois and peasants, and banning the liberum veto. Yet even this was too much for many of the nobles, who then sided with Russia and waged a war to put an end to these reforms. This all but led to the Second Partition. They didn't want a reformed state. They wanted a return of the Golden Liberties, and a modern (at the time) state was not conductive to that.
Not all of the nobility sided with the reactionaries to fight against the May 3 Constitution, and probably not even a majority, given that later most of their leadership ended up hanged by the Poles themselves for treason.

It's that by the time 1791 arrived, Russia was too powerful for any Polish reform movement to take place.

I've seen such TL on Polish site--Sigismund Augustus turns republican. Having no heirs anyway he prepares Poland and Lithuania to continue as republic based on Venetian and ancient Roman model. As result:
-there is no conflict between King and nobles. King is not scapegoat for all problems of PLC, nobles have to take all responsibility for their state themselves.
OTOH King, due to his limited power had to use corruption to enforce his will frequently-by giving offices to his supporters, thus corrupt magnat cliques were created. Also IOTL Kings of PLC often made main goal of their foreign and internal policy to secure throne for their heirs, with poor results for the country (Lubomirski's rebellion, Sobieski's failed Moldavian Campaigns and Wettin's involvement in Great Northern War were all results of such policy)
-state is not paralysed during interregnums (which lasted for months IOTL)
-no foreign involvement in Royal Election anymore, due to title of king being abolished.

Then, depending on long lasting results republicanism would get more popularity (there would be a proof that it really works in large country) ot would be discredited, if PLC fails, but I think first option is more likely to occur.
I would argue that a republican PLC from the start would not be any less susceptible to foreign influence and domination than OTL. After all, the majority of Russian, Austrian and other influence in Commonwealth affairs came not from orchestrating elections, but through buying Sejm members and senators, encouraging noble rebellions and often direct military intervention to set the course of the state the way they want (for example, the Silent Sejm of 1717, or the War in Defense of the Constitution). All of these factors could still be replicated in a "Republic of Both Nations", much like they could in the PLC.
 
Not all of the nobility sided with the reactionaries to fight against the May 3 Constitution, and probably not even a majority, given that later most of their leadership ended up hanged by the Poles themselves for treason.

It's that by the time 1791 arrived, Russia was too powerful for any Polish reform movement to take place.

.

True, but Targowica crowd managed to piss off the entire country in record time even without taking into consideration the taking the second partition and confiscations on annexed territories.

And more could be done in 1791/92 if Poles did not sat on their laurels congratulating themselves instead of launching diplomatic campaign in Petersburg, raising taxes, enlisting soldiers, producing weapons, preparing some sort of national guard etc.
 
True, but Targowica crowd managed to piss off the entire country in record time even without taking into consideration the taking the second partition and confiscations on annexed territories.

And more could be done in 1791/92 if Poles did not sat on their laurels congratulating themselves instead of launching diplomatic campaign in Petersburg, raising taxes, enlisting soldiers, producing weapons, preparing some sort of national guard etc.
More could be done only if:
-reforms are more limited, Catherine is not pissed off like IOTL (reforms done after first partition already worked, PLC developed faster than lands taken in 1772 by partitioners, despite fact, that Commonwealth was practically cut-off from the sea). A little of patience would be rewarded soon, when Napoleon would enter the scene...
-Catherine dies in May 1791. Her son would need time to consolidate his power, giving PLC few additional months to prepare, IF he'll react at all! Paul belived, that Poniatowski was his real father, and just like his older sons was quite polonophile (it was backlash against Catherine's actions, she was really bad mother and grandma). Of course, Paul could be assassinated even earlier than IOTL, but again-some time would be won, and the French are coming!
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I would argue that a republican PLC from the start would not be any less susceptible to foreign influence and domination than OTL. After all, the majority of Russian, Austrian and other influence in Commonwealth affairs came not from orchestrating elections, but through buying Sejm members and senators, encouraging noble rebellions and often direct military intervention to set the course of the state the way they want (for example, the Silent Sejm of 1717, or the War in Defense of the Constitution). All of these factors could still be replicated in a "Republic of Both Nations", much like they could in the PLC.
If the bourgeois and mercantile class had more power in the Republic in that timeline, more than enough to marginalize the nobility, then the state would do fine. For example, the equivalent to the President position is available to the bourgeois. Or the UK system is also fine, as long as the bourgeos has sufficient presence in the Sejm, i.e. a Liberal party. Unlike a bunch of nobles, bourgeois/capitalist class would demand a proper standing army to protect their trade, and they would work on the abolition of serfdom to get access to cheap labour.

But you need an early POD to make cities and urban economy (trade, crafts...) more powerful. Also, make such cities independent of nobles and instead declare allegiance directly to the king (and later the Republic).
 
If the bourgeois and mercantile class had more power in the Republic in that timeline, more than enough to marginalize the nobility, then the state would do fine. For example, the equivalent to the President position is available to the bourgeois. Or the UK system is also fine, as long as the bourgeos has sufficient presence in the Sejm, i.e. a Liberal party.
Burgher domination is practically impossible in country like Poland

Unlike a bunch of nobles, bourgeois/capitalist class would demand a proper standing army to protect their trade, and they would work on the abolition of serfdom to get access to cheap labour.
Capitalist class might want abolishment only once industrial revolution kicks in, earlier they have no need for those workers, not to mention that the middle class assembled in guild system would not want competition, as would the city poor. In addition the opinion that standing armies lead to foreign adventurism and dictature is not at all original to USA.
But you need an early POD to make cities and urban economy (trade, crafts...) more powerful. Also, make such cities independent of nobles and instead declare allegiance directly to the king (and later the Republic).
Major cities were mostly royal anyway.
 
Top