WI: No Chmielnicki Uprising?

Yes, Janusz Radziwiłł (Radvila) indeed wanted to do so. But he was a Calvinist - would he be more sypathetic towards Othodox Cossacks?
Yes, of course! The Calvinists and the Orthodox in the Sejm worked in concert for five decades between Union of Brest and Chmielnicki Uprising. Both groups were dissidents from the dominant Church's point-of-view. They couldn't survive on their own.


As far as their political goals goes, he was a powerful magnate from very proud family and probably considered Cossacks only a little better than peasants. Useful, but much lower than the noblemen.
Yes, but if the Cossacks would remain useful, Radziwill wouldn't speak aloud about his contempt for 'lower classes'.
I also wonder if GDL with Ukraine but without Poland would last long? Russia, Tatars, Ottoman Empire all around, lands wasted by war... sounds unpleasant. The PLC fought many wars with all of them after 1648. Would GDL + Cossacks be able to resist?
GDL+Cossacks... very doubtful. Sweden+GDL+Cossacks - much more interesting. And why should they wage war against Turkey? After all, OTL Chmielnicki was Ottoman ally (and sometimes vassal).
 
Originally posted by sahaidak
Yes, of course! The Calvinists and the Orthodox in the Sejm worked in concert for five decades between Union of Brest and Chmielnicki Uprising. Both groups were dissidents from the dominant Church's point-of-view. They couldn't survive on their own.
And here we have a problem. Such an alliance between Protestants and Orthodox would have enraged the Catholics, who I think still were the majority among the Lithuanian noblemen (I concentrate on the noblemen, cause at that time there was no other social group that could have challenged their power). Cooperation in Sejm is one thing (although notice that they did have their rappresentatives), open defiance or (from PLC POV) treason - totally different.

Yes, but if the Cossacks would remain useful, Radziwill wouldn't speak aloud about his contempt for 'lower classes'.
Agreed. But the other noblemen would scream bloody hell. They had some grudging respect for the Cossacks as for soldiers, but that was it.

GDL+Cossacks... very doubtful. Sweden+GDL+Cossacks - much more interesting. And why should they wage war against Turkey? After all, OTL Chmielnicki was Ottoman ally (and sometimes vassal).

In 1648 Sweden was still busy in Germany (look my previous post). On estern border there was Russia, not exactly friendly towards GDL. And I do not say that the Cossacks might start a war against the Ottomans. I'm saying that the Ottomans might have started a war against the Cossacks. The Ottoman Empire was interested in conquering Ukraine (as was proven later during the war with PLC). Chmielnicki become Ottoman ally later, against PLC. With PLC in shambles I can see Ottoman-Tatar army invading Ukraine, since all sides, except the Ottomans, are seriosuly weakened with war. Cossacks themselves migh not be able to resist. GDL would have been too weak to help them, and Sweden... Sweden would have been happy with controlling all the Baltic Sea and territories around it. Why should they go to face Ottoman Juggernaut? Ukraine didn't have that much to offer. Polish Crown, OTOH was still rich and good for looting.

BTW, I think we're going a littile too far away from the subject. This thread was supposed to deal about WI NO Chmielnicki Uprising, not how to make Chmielnicki win (while that is also an interesting idea, although I doubt he could have).
 
And here we have a problem. Such an alliance between Protestants and Orthodox would have enraged the Catholics, who I think still were the majority among the Lithuanian noblemen (I concentrate on the noblemen, cause at that time there was no other social group that could have challenged their power). Cooperation in Sejm is one thing (although notice that they did have their rappresentatives), open defiance or (from PLC POV) treason - totally different.
Radziwill (as well as many other PLC noblemen, including Catholics) committed high treason in 1655.Under strong enough pressure they could do it earlier, provided their personal rights were guaranteed.
Agreed. But the other noblemen would scream bloody hell. They had some grudging respect for the Cossacks as for soldiers, but that was it.
Some would scream, but some would cooperate wth new regime. After all, many of the Cossack officers were high-born.
In 1648 Sweden was still busy in Germany (look my previous post). On estern border there was Russia, not exactly friendly towards GDL. And I do not say that the Cossacks might start a war against the Ottomans. I'm saying that the Ottomans might have started a war against the Cossacks. The Ottoman Empire was interested in conquering Ukraine (as was proven later during the war with PLC). Chmielnicki become Ottoman ally later, against PLC. With PLC in shambles I can see Ottoman-Tatar army invading Ukraine, since all sides, except the Ottomans, are seriosuly weakened with war. Cossacks themselves migh not be able to resist. GDL would have been too weak to help them, and Sweden... Sweden would have been happy with controlling all the Baltic Sea and territories around it. Why should they go to face Ottoman Juggernaut? Ukraine didn't have that much to offer. Polish Crown, OTOH was still rich and good for looting.
Ottoman Empire wasn't that predatory. They could agree to leave Ukraine alone in the exchange for yearly tribute, cessation of Cossack raids on the Black Sea coast and, maybe, Cossack auxiliaries in the Ottoman service. Of course, it means Ukraine becoming Ottoman vassal. Bad, but better than war, and compatible with Lithuanian-Ukrainian alliance.
BTW, I think we're going a littile too far away from the subject. This thread was supposed to deal about WI NO Chmielnicki Uprising, not how to make Chmielnicki win (while that is also an interesting idea, although I doubt he could have).
Agreed. However, Chmielnicki did have win, at least nowadays. For example, my place of work is situated some half-mile from monument to the Hetman; five-hryvnya bank notes in my pockets have Chmielnicki/Khmelnytsky portrait on them; Ukrainian Army servicemen are awarded Khmelnytsky Order for exceptional bravery, and so on.
As for OP proposal... well, joint Polish-Cossack war against Turkey could become disaster (after all, 17th-century Turkey was strong enough to lay siege to Vienna). On the other hand, in the case of victory (and conquest of new lands), it could be recipe for alleviating Ukraine social problems and preventing all-out war between Cossacks and the Polish nobility, at least for some time. Though, any grand crusade plans would need to get the Sejm's support. For such suppport, one needs to change the szlachta's mindsets, to remake self-contented landowners into aggressive knights. I dunno, was that possible in 1648 Poland, or not.
 
Originally posted by sahaidak
Radziwill (as well as many other PLC noblemen, including Catholics) committed high treason in 1655.Under strong enough pressure they could do it earlier, provided their personal rights were guaranteed.

Yes, but what pression? In 1655 the PLC was bled by the war with the Cossacks, Russians successfully attacked from the east and Sweden from the north. It was easy to believe the PLC was finished. OTOH in 1647 the PLC has still strong armies in the Ukraine, Russia does not attack (truce) and Sweden is still busy in Germany. Radziwiłł has no reason to ally with rebelled Cossacks and no reason at all to betray the PLC in which he is very powerful man.

Some would scream, but some would cooperate wth new regime. After all, many of the Cossack officers were high-born.
IOTL many Catholic magnates openly opposed Radziwiłł and Sweden when the PLC situation was worse, and together with other noblemen they were strong enought to defeat Radziwiłł. With PLC stronger even fewer of them would support independent GDL.

Ottoman Empire wasn't that predatory. They could agree to leave Ukraine alone in the exchange for yearly tribute, cessation of Cossack raids on the Black Sea coast and, maybe, Cossack auxiliaries in the Ottoman service. Of course, it means Ukraine becoming Ottoman vassal. Bad, but better than war, and compatible with Lithuanian-Ukrainian alliance.
In other word Cossacks exchange one master (PLC) for another (OE), which is also of (much more) different faith, demands tribute, service in his army, less chance of booty... Is that really better? There is also a matter of Crimean Tatars, who loved raiding Ukraine and were Otoman allies.

Agreed. However, Chmielnicki did have win, at least nowadays. For example, my place of work is situated some half-mile from monument to the Hetman; five-hryvnya bank notes in my pockets have Chmielnicki/Khmelnytsky portrait on them; Ukrainian Army servicemen are awarded Khmelnytsky Order for exceptional bravery, and so on.

So what? Before denomination we had banknotes with Kościuszko, there are many monuments of the Kościuszko in Poland and we have even a frigate named "Kościuszko". That doesn't mean he won in 1795.

As for OP proposal... well, joint Polish-Cossack war against Turkey could become disaster (after all, 17th-century Turkey was strong enough to lay siege to Vienna). On the other hand, in the case of victory (and conquest of new lands), it could be recipe for alleviating Ukraine social problems and preventing all-out war between Cossacks and the Polish nobility, at least for some time. Though, any grand crusade plans would need to get the Sejm's support. For such suppport, one needs to change the szlachta's mindsets, to remake self-contented landowners into aggressive knights. I dunno, was that possible in 1648 Poland, or not.

Finally, someone noticed my scenario. You are of course right that it would be extremely hard to push that idea through the Sejm. That is why I let Koniecpolski live longer to help king Władysław with that (although I'm not entirely convinced he would have done it). Also, first strike was to be launched against the Crimea, and considering frequent Tatar raids such expedition might have been accepted, especially after some spectacular disaster caused by Tatars (I mentioned a provoked raid - I don't know, let them burn some important town or something). Crushing the Khanate of Crimea probably would have forced OE to react and here we have our crusade.
I agree that it is not very likely scenario, but it's the best I could create during coffee break.
 
Originally posted by abas

Actually that was what Sigismund III and Władysław IV wanted. They were too from House of Vasa family. Only they wanted Sweden, Poland and Lithuania under THEIR rule - nor Gustav Adolph or Charles X Gustav.
Anyway, I'm not sure when exactly Radiwiłł decided to try breaking the ties between Poland and Lithuania. IOTL he signed a treaty with Sweden in Kiejdany (Kedainiai) in 1655 giving GDL under the Swedish protection. However it happened AFTER Chmielnicki Uprising and when haevily weakened PLC was already loosing war with Russia and Sweden. I'm not sure if Radziwiłł would have decided to try it in 1648. And even if he did, would he have been able to pull it off? Other magnate families (like Sapieha) strongly opposed that idea (among other things because it weren't they who were to rule Lithuania), also many Lithuanian noblemen were unhappy with that - after all Radziwiłł died besieged by Lithuanian forces loyal to the PLC. Gaining Cossack aid might have helped him from military POV, but it would have been a political disaster - all noblemen would have been against him. Also, Sweden was a little busy at that time - IIRC Charles Gustav wasn't a king yet (he was crowned 1654) and Sweden was still negotiating treaty of Westphalia. So, no help from their side either.
They first contacted Sweden on 10 August 1655, when Janush Radvila got a letter from the Grand Duke on 2 August where he was informed about betrayal at Ujście and delegated right to make armistice by any cost with Russia and Sweden (as the great hetman he had no such right). Alexey Mikhailovich demanded unconditional surrender, while Sweden were willing to bargain, thus they continued with Sweden.
 
Top