The Mad King Gustav II Adolf

Problems with menthal health were quite common in House of Vasa. So what if greatest member of that dynasty "Lion of the North" Gustav Adolf also is affected by these problems, like his uncles-Erik XIV and Magnus? Menthal ilness would develop gradually and over time would be gettting worse, Gustav Adolf would be kind of Erik XIV reborn.
So as parrarel to infamous marriage of his uncle with low born Karin Mansdottir Gustav also marries against interest of his dynasty-he (maybe secretly, "Sigismund Augustus" style) marries his beloved Ebba Brahe, causing country wide scandal. That is his first step to madness, other would follow:
-Obviously his family would oppose his choice, making him more and more suspicious, especially towards family members, being afraid of usurpation attempts (especially taking into account recent family history: how his father Carl and uncle Johan get the throne). Thus his cousin Johan and brother Carl Filip would be certainly under suspicions. He would have, obviously, very bad relations with mother, who would not be happy about Ebba. Also, fearing usurpation by brother-in-law, Gustav would likely oppose any marriage plans for his sister. His growing paranoia would lead him one day to repeat fate of his mad uncle, although one thing would make removing him problematic, especially after deaths of Johan and Carl Filip: fear of Sigismund Vasa returning to the throne. So how would situation develop with King of Sweden being madman busy with making purges of real and imagined enemies, instead of OTL military genius turning Sweden into powerhouse?
 
Problems with menthal health were quite common in House of Vasa. So what if greatest member of that dynasty "Lion of the North" Gustav Adolf also is affected by these problems, like his uncles-Erik XIV and Magnus? Menthal ilness would develop gradually and over time would be gettting worse, Gustav Adolf would be kind of Erik XIV reborn.
So as parrarel to infamous marriage of his uncle with low born Karin Mansdottir Gustav also marries against interest of his dynasty-he (maybe secretly, "Sigismund Augustus" style) marries his beloved Ebba Brahe, causing country wide scandal. That is his first step to madness, other would follow:
-Obviously his family would oppose his choice, making him more and more suspicious, especially towards family members, being afraid of usurpation attempts (especially taking into account recent family history: how his father Carl and uncle Johan get the throne). Thus his cousin Johan and brother Carl Filip would be certainly under suspicions. He would have, obviously, very bad relations with mother, who would not be happy about Ebba. Also, fearing usurpation by brother-in-law, Gustav would likely oppose any marriage plans for his sister. His growing paranoia would lead him one day to repeat fate of his mad uncle, although one thing would make removing him problematic, especially after deaths of Johan and Carl Filip: fear of Sigismund Vasa returning to the throne. So how would situation develop with King of Sweden being madman busy with making purges of real and imagined enemies, instead of OTL military genius turning Sweden into powerhouse?

Few things are seemingly obvious:
1. The PLC is not losing Livonia - personally, I doubt that this means a considerably better internal situation (AFAIK, it was already in a downward spiral).
2. Tsardom of Moscow still losing access to the Baltic Sea (Treaty of Stolbovo - 1617, well before GA modernized his army). It may use Swedish weakness few decades later to regain this access but what use would it make out of an earlier possession of Narva and Nien?
3. Sweden is not a serious player in the 30YW which may end up around 1630 (after defeat of Denmark) with a Treaty of Lubeck. The German Protestants are forced to accept Edict of Restitution. Ferdinand (if his mental capacities are the same as in OTL) still dismisses Wallenstein who remains one of the richest people in the HRE (Duke of Friedland and ruler of the Duchies of Mecklenburg). Demographic situation in Germany is much better than in OTL.
4. Mantuan War was a reasonably isolated affair so it is not quite relevant but Spain does not have to waste its limited resources on participation in the 30YW and potentially can do better in the Netherlands.
5. France can't interfere noticeably earlier than in OTL (by which time the war is over) so it is probably mostly Franco-Spanish war.
6. Probably, if Sweden is never a powerhouse, Prussia remains the Polish vassal for a longer time.
 
30YW being shorter would change internal situation of PLC. Massive loss of population in HRE reduced demand for Polish grain. That in turn reduced Poland's income, especially middle nobility was hit, in combination with Deluge it caused shift of power in PLC: for great magnates it was easier to recover than for lesser nobles. Magnates increased their power at cost of middle nobility, which was turned into their clients. Add to this, that Deluge ruined cities and fueled xenophobia and religious intolerance. PLC would still face crisis, but that crisis may be less severe and survivable.
 
30YW being shorter would change internal situation of PLC. Massive loss of population in HRE reduced demand for Polish grain. That in turn reduced Poland's income, especially middle nobility was hit, in combination with Deluge it caused shift of power in PLC: for great magnates it was easier to recover than for lesser nobles. Magnates increased their power at cost of middle nobility, which was turned into their clients. Add to this, that Deluge ruined cities and fueled xenophobia and religious intolerance. PLC would still face crisis, but that crisis may be less severe and survivable.

I was under impression that political situation in the PLC was lousy enough even during the wars with Sweden. Point about the lesser nobility is interesting but it does not look like the King was in a strong position during the Time of Troubles or wars with Sweden or that Sejm was eager to spend money even on defense of the PLC (or at least Lithuania).
Religious situation, at least for the Orthodox, was not very good even before the Deluge: it was one of the issues triggering the Cossack wars.
 
I was under impression that political situation in the PLC was lousy enough even during the wars with Sweden. Point about the lesser nobility is interesting but it does not look like the King was in a strong position during the Time of Troubles or wars with Sweden or that Sejm was eager to spend money even on defense of the PLC (or at least Lithuania).
Religious situation, at least for the Orthodox, was not very good even before the Deluge: it was one of the issues triggering the Cossack wars.
Cossacks were in fact not very religious, during uprisings they were ravaging also Orthodox churches and monasteries. They were more converned about their freedom, especially-freedom to raid Ottoman Empire.

Religious intolerance after Deluge was a thing-it was after Deluge when Polish Brethren were expelled from the country and apostasy from Catholicism was made crime punished with death penalty. These changes were imposed by the same nobility, that demanded from Henri de Valois guarantees of religious freedom and was concerned about Night of St Bartholomew. Best proof, that Polish nobility was not change resistant hive-mind, although in such case change was obviously negative. Still, after PLC recovered from wars during second half of 18th century, better educated nobility was once again more open to the world, enlightment ideas spread and religious tolerance was not controversial anymore by the time of 3 May Constitution.
 
Cossacks were in fact not very religious, during uprisings they were ravaging also Orthodox churches and monasteries. They were more converned about their freedom, especially-freedom to raid Ottoman Empire.

Religious intolerance after Deluge was a thing-it was after Deluge when Polish Brethren were expelled from the country and apostasy from Catholicism was made crime punished with death penalty. These changes were imposed by the same nobility, that demanded from Henri de Valois guarantees of religious freedom and was concerned about Night of St Bartholomew. Best proof, that Polish nobility was not change resistant hive-mind, although in such case change was obviously negative. Still, after PLC recovered from wars during second half of 18th century, better educated nobility was once again more open to the world, enlightment ideas spread and religious tolerance was not controversial anymore by the time of 3 May Constitution.
What the Cossacks were and what they pretended to be is not the same, especially when it was an issue of the loot: during the ToT they were looting Orthodox churches and monasteries as well. However, taking into an account that their Polish enemies were predominantly Catholics, the issue of religion had been used as one of the excuses and as a part of the “ideological” background for picking Tsar as a protector while Sultan was a more logical option due to the existing affiliations.

I would not overestimate openness of the 2nd part of the XVIII: both OLd Fritz and Catherine had been absolutely exasperated with the unwillingness of their supporters to even raise an issue of the “dissidents” on the Sejm.
 
A important aspect in this is the Kalmar War. Denmark declared war after having being provoked by Sweden, the war was a Danish victory, but at the same time the Swedish army was superior on land, while Denmark won the war thanks to naval superiority.

If this war doesn’t happens, the Danish conscripted land militia doesn’t disappoint, which means it’s likely expanded in size. This is good news from Denmark as it’s failure was mostly caused by it being just established, and the later land militia would serve well in the Scania and Great Northern War. So we fundamental see Denmark having a bigger standing army. This may give Denmark a great edge in the 30YW

A lack of war with Sweden also mean Denmark doesn’t get the large reparations from Sweden. In OTL these money was mostly wasted and kept Christian IV from expanding his income from other sources (like agricultural improvement), saving money and opening the border to Huguenot refuges. The good thing Christian used it on, the improvement in Copenhagen fortifications and the establishment of the Danish stock exchange would have been necessary investment he would have committed to anyway.

A major saving would likely be the greater focus on creating a cheaper and bigger conscript army/land militia mixed with a small standing army, instead of depending so heavily on mercenaries. This would likely make Christian more careful to enter the 30YW, but also he would likely have rented out much of the Danish standing army to Protestants German princes early in the conflict, which would have given him a better idea of the changes in warfare, which had happened and gotten rid of the most incompetent officers. Denmark would still be unlikely to do as well as Sweden, as the Swedes had a superior office recruitment policies, but there’s a lot of room between OTL Danish failure in 30YW and the Swedish success, and honestly while Sweden did better military than Denmark, they did worse political. After having been completely defeated by the imperial army, Denmark made a deal where its prince kept their bishop-principality and Denmark gained the right to tax the trade on the Elbe.

Fundamental the Kalmar War taught Denmark all the wrong lessons and Sweden all the right ones.
 
I would not overestimate openness of the 2nd part of the XVIII: both OLd Fritz and Catherine had been absolutely exasperated with the unwillingness of their supporters to even raise an issue of the “dissidents” on the Sejm.
Change happened during Poniatowski's reign. Nobility of 1760s was not nobility of 1790s. Czasy Stanisławowskie was period, when sarmatism began to die.

And Cossacks pretended to protect Orthodox faith in Ukraine, but not from Catholics, who were few in numbers there, but mainly from way more numerous Jews, who were managing noble's estates and inns, and in opinion of Cossacks, they were helping Poles to loot Ruthenian people.
Khmelnitsky's first ally was Muslim Crimean Khan, not Orthodox Russian Tsar, and Cossacks later tried alliance with Sultan as well. During 3 decades they made deals with Tatars, Russians, Poles and Ottomans and betrayed them all.
 
[QUOTE="Jan Olbracht, post: 19127281, member: 43307]

And Cossacks pretended to protect Orthodox faith in Ukraine, but not from Catholics, who were few in numbers there, but mainly from way more numerous Jews, who were managing noble's estates and inns, and in opinion of Cossacks, they were helping Poles to loot Ruthenian people.
Khmelnitsky's first ally was Muslim Crimean Khan, not Orthodox Russian Tsar, and Cossacks later tried alliance with Sultan as well. During 3 decades they made deals with Tatars, Russians, Poles and Ottomans and betrayed them all.[/QUOTE]

As I already said, for the Cossacks defense of the Orthodox Church was one of the excuses, not the main motivation. The Jews had been acting under protection of the Polish magnates who were predominantly Catholics (and the main oppressors) so “defense” was against both. Khmelnitsky’s pact with the Crimea was the main reason why his uprising did not end up as all the previous ones. My point was that by the time of decision asking protection of the Sultan was seemingly more logical than with Tsardom taking into an account both previous relations with the Khanate and military power. AFAIK, initially Moscow was not the top option on the list which also included the Swedes. However, the Orthodoxy was used as ne of the arguments on the last stage.

As far as the betrayals are involved, according to Peter I “each and every hetman was a traitor” but OTOH being vassal state of Moscow meant that sooner or later any form of independence would come to the end. De facto it happened well before Catherine II: Mazepa was probably the last one who tried to play independence game but the Hetmanate was already too weak militarily and the local nobility was already safely on the Moscow side.
 
Top