WI: Polish-Lithuanian union with Russia in 1600’s

WI: Polish-Lithuanian union with Russia in 1600’s

Poland wins the Polish-Muscovite war and Władysław IV Vasa, with the help of the pro-polish faction Russia, is made Czar in 1610. No popular uprisings develop and Władysław’s father, Polish King Sigismund III, does not try to take the throne from himself or push Catholicism. By the time of his father’s death, in 1632, Władysław is well established in Russia and now inherits the titles of King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania and maybe even a claim to the Swedish throne.

How would this effect Russian, Swedish and Polish history? What effect would it have on the Ottoman-Polish wars and the Thirty years war? On the death of Władysław would the union disintegrate?
 
WI: Polish-Lithuanian union with Russia in 1600’s

Poland wins the Polish-Muscovite war and Władysław IV Vasa, with the help of the pro-polish faction Russia, is made Czar in 1610. No popular uprisings develop and Władysław’s father, Polish King Sigismund III, does not try to take the throne from himself or push Catholicism. By the time of his father’s death, in 1632, Władysław is well established in Russia and now inherits the titles of King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania and maybe even a claim to the Swedish throne.

How would this effect Russian, Swedish and Polish history? What effect would it have on the Ottoman-Polish wars and the Thirty years war? On the death of Władysław would the union disintegrate?

I'm not too good with the history, but first of all I'd like to mention that this is a great idea! Secondly; perhaps I want to use it in a future TL (if I find time and you'd allow me to do so).
To answer a bit of your questions: I think claiming the Swedish throne as well would be a little too much. I think Poland-Lithuania-Russia could become a real, real mighty empire. They would probably be able to beat the Ottomans. I hope the union wouldn't disintegrate when Władysław dies, but there's a reasonable chance. Just look at this ancient example: Alexander the Great's empire collapsed shortly after his death. However, I think that wouldn't be cool for an alternate history timeline. Hence, you'll need to think of something that would boost the union's survival.
 
There are a couple of problems with this potential union: too much religious differences between the Commonwealth and Russia, and the inclusion of the latter will shift the demographical balance of power away from the Catholic majority. Also, the predominantly Orthodox Christian Russians aren't comfortable with having a nominally Catholic ruler since they feared Catholicization. Finally, the Polish camp also faced competition from supporters of False Dmitry II for the Tsarist throne.
 
Just an odd idea there, but could an agreement be made that the King will convert to Protestantism or Greek-Catholicism as a compromise (while the country remains secular and the King stays out of church and religious affairs)?

Also maybe an understanding that all state officials in Russian territory must be Orthodox?
 
Just an odd idea there, but could an agreement be made that the King will convert to Protestantism or Greek-Catholicism as a compromise (while the country remains secular and the King stays out of church and religious affairs)?

Also maybe an understanding that all state officials in Russian territory must be Orthodox?

Sigismund III is a really hard core catholic, so i dont think he would allow his son to convert. It could be done after his death maybe. Also Romanos you can surly use this in your timeline.
 
I think the Habsburgs might try to get elected again to the Polish throne if the Vasa heir converted, some Polish Szlachta do have lands in Silesia and the Habsburgs might use their influence on them to get them on the throne.
 
Sigismund III is a really hard core catholic, so i dont think he would allow his son to convert. It could be done after his death maybe. Also Romanos you can surly use this in your timeline.
What do you mean, my TL is 21st century. :p

As I understand it, the Russians would accept only an Orthodox ruler. Sigismund IV, as opposed to his father, was willing to convert, albeit not to Orthodoxy.

And I don't know why a compromise of Sigismund IV ruling with an Orthodox wife wasn't suggested...?

A polish catholic king 'forced' to rule jointly with a foreign (presumably russian?) orthodox woman? This might lead to civil war, sooner or later...
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the Russians would accept only an Orthodox ruler. Wladysław IV, as opposed to his father, was willing to convert, albeit not to Orthodoxy.

And I don't know why a compromise of Władysław IV ruling with an Orthodox wife wasn't suggested...?
 
Last edited:
sorry Romanos I meant Theseus

Ah, of course! Well, actually, I already decided I will... Have a look at the links in my signature. The second link on the second line includes this Russo-Lithuanian-Polish Union, if you take a good look.

PS Feel free to help a hand on the other link too (first link, second line).
 
What about PLM Union with TWO co-rulling emperors sharing united office and crown, like Sparta or Late Roman Empire? One catholic ( in the East, rulling Russia, Ukraine ... the ortodox east slavs ) and one Ortodox ( rulling the West - the catholics )?
 
Originally posted by Sharkani Rend
What about PLM Union with TWO co-rulling emperors sharing united office and crown, like Sparta or Late Roman Empire? One catholic ( in the East, rulling Russia, Ukraine ... the ortodox east slavs ) and one Ortodox ( rulling the West - the catholics )?

That wouldn't have worked.You're talking in fact about a ruler for "catholic" Poland-Lithuania (noblemen were mostly Catholic, but peasants in Ukraine and today Belarus mostly Orthodox) and separate ruler for Orthodox Moscow. Question: what is a difference between having 2 separate rulers and 2 separate states? Poland and Lithuania were formally separate - united only by common ruler (King of Poland was also Great Duke of Lithuania), and common Parliament (the Sejm), common currency and foreign policy. Even armies of the Crown (Poland) and Lithuania were separate. The person of the King/Grand Duke was the most important factor uniting the PLC - today most of UE states have common currency they at least try to coordinate their foreign policy, they also have a common parliament, but you can not say that UE is a federal state.
A separate ruler for Moscow means, IMHO, a separate state. The interests of Moscow and PLC were sometimes in conflict - a ruler of Moscow will protect the interests of his subjects, the ruler of PL will protect his subjects. Result - a "civil" war.
Not to mention the fact that PLC was an elective monarchy. Electing one ruler was a headache, electing 2 would have been a nightmare, not to mention the fact that Moscovites might be unhappy about Poles electing "their" ruler and Poles/Lithuanians would be furious with Moscovites electing "their" ruler. Imagine a situation: King of Poland/Grand Duke dies, but his Moscovian co-ruler is alive and well. Moscovian noblemen come "en masse" to election and elect an Orthodox Moscovian as a Polish King. Polish rebelion guaranteed.

Originally posted by Zirael
And I don't know why a compromise of Sigismund IV ruling with an Orthodox wife wasn't suggested...?

Who is Sigismund IV? You mean Władysław IV?
 
I think the Habsburgs might try to get elected again to the Polish throne if the Vasa heir converted, some Polish Szlachta do have lands in Silesia and the Habsburgs might use their influence on them to get them on the throne.

Considering that it's a first time I'm hearing about Polish szlachta owning lands in Silesia I doubt it was that many. Besides I don't think that those owners would be that malleable. And Habsburgs were NOT popular anyway.

What about PLM Union with TWO co-rulling emperors sharing united office and crown, like Sparta or Late Roman Empire? One catholic ( in the East, rulling Russia, Ukraine ... the ortodox east slavs ) and one Ortodox ( rulling the West - the catholics )?

I don't see ANYONE going with it or even imagining that. It's too much outside the experience and custom.

Personally I don't see Władysław taking the throne of Russia without converting to Orthodoxy - he won't be accepted otherwise. But with him being Orthodox, it's unlikely that he'd be considered for P-L throne after his father's death. Instead one of his brothers would end up ruling P-L.
 
Considering that it's a first time I'm hearing about Polish szlachta owning lands in Silesia I doubt it was that many. Besides I don't think that those owners would be that malleable. And Habsburgs were NOT popular anyway.
Some Szlachta families/clans have members that are also nobles in Silesia, but I don't think that would be important at this point.

I don't see ANYONE going with it or even imagining that. It's too much outside the experience and custom.

Personally I don't see Władysław taking the throne of Russia without converting to Orthodoxy - he won't be accepted otherwise. But with him being Orthodox, it's unlikely that he'd be considered for P-L throne after his father's death. Instead one of his brothers would end up ruling P-L.
I don't think he would accept getting the throne of Russia because he would be barred from succeeding in the PLC, perhaps he would try that a younger brother would succeed in Russia instead.
 
I'm thinking if Wladyslaw IV renounces his claims on the Polish throne and John II Casimir takes it, he may have a chance at taking the Russian throne.
 
the religious problem was too much of a big deal to be easily ignored and there are other issues as well.i don't think wladislaw could have reigned if elected czar, here's why:

1. does the szlachta give golden liberty to the boyars? are they allowed to perform the liberum veto? polish nobles didn't want Cossacks in the szlachta in 1650s (hence the treaty of Pereyslav between Cossacks and Russia), what makes you think they would allow their prerogatives to the russian nobles? if they don't, they have a major problem, if they do they have a great one as well, because every legislation proposed by Poles is vetoed by Russians and so on. so basically, to make this empire work, you have to change the laws of the Reczpospolita. and the szlachta wouldn't have liked it.

2. again, religion. the first false Dmitri (the late Gryrory Otrapev), was forced to convert to catholicism in order to start a complete conversion if he was put on the throne (with polish help). so why wouldn't Wlad try the same, if elected? but the boyars and mostly the people would never accept such a fact, orthodoxy in the 17th century was bigger than in the centuries ahead (the son of the Patriarch Filarete was chosen to be the Czar in 1613, that should be enough to confirm it), so it's another big NO to Wlad
 
Top