WI: Unified Western Slavic state

krieger

Banned
The eastern Slavs were unified in early Middle Ages in a single form of statehood called Kievan Rus, could the same happen to Western Slavs? IMHO there were two possibilites of forming of unfied Western Slavic state: 1) If Hungarians didn't invade Pannonian plain - therefore Great Moravia could survive and with possible lack of HRE (Otto I crowned himself Emperor in 952) could subjugate early Poland and Elbean Slavs, creating common national identity among Western Slavs (who didn't differ in langauge back then) - even if Moravian statehood still collapsed there will still be a memory about common statehood - like it was in Germany or in Russia and there will be a desire to reunification 2) If Boleslav I the Brave of Poland was more lucky in his conquests and kept all of them intact - the all Western Slavic lands will be annexed to Poland in this case @Jan Olbracht
 
Honestly, if you have a Great Moravian Empire - I think you'd see more than a union of the West Slavs - but potentially the South Slavs as well. However, a state between the Elbe, Vistula and built on the Oder is a pretty interesting idea, even if the borders make it difficult to defend.

A potential PoD that might lead to this is that we see a different Battle of Boulgarophygon, or at least a different prelude. Effectively have the Byzantines and Maygars continue their invasion of Bulgaria to kill it off. If we can see that succeed, then an alliance between the Maygar and the Byzantines means they don't get forced off of the Pontic Steppe into Pannonia. That means no Maygar invasion.

But more crucially, I'm not sure that a unified West Slavic kingdom is going to be much more (in the long term) than a Greater Poland. The Vistula is really vital, so that region will likely become wealthiest. The alternative is that somehow the Moravians can unify Pannonia as well. This creates a defensible contiguous Empire within the Carpathian Basin, and ties the kingdom to both the Oder and Danube basins economically. Which could allow them to flourish.

Further, I expect in such a scenario, you'd also see that Empire conquer and absorb the South Slavs as well, at least between the Romans and Germans.

If I could suggest a second potential PoD to tie to the first - have the Maygar work with the Byzantines, but then have them invade Poland, or what would become Poland. The influx of more West Slavs to Great Moravia would give them the men and people to conquer and settle Pannonia, and create a more defensible realm, that could play the Romans and Germans off of each other to secure its dominance, effectively taking the role of Hungary and Bohemia in OTL.

EDIT : So effectively swap Poland and Hungary via Great Moravia and a might conquest.
 

krieger

Banned
Honestly, if you have a Great Moravian Empire - I think you'd see more than a union of the West Slavs - but potentially the South Slavs as well. However, a state between the Elbe, Vistula and built on the Oder is a pretty interesting idea, even if the borders make it difficult to defend.

A potential PoD that might lead to this is that we see a different Battle of Boulgarophygon, or at least a different prelude. Effectively have the Byzantines and Maygars continue their invasion of Bulgaria to kill it off. If we can see that succeed, then an alliance between the Maygar and the Byzantines means they don't get forced off of the Pontic Steppe into Pannonia. That means no Maygar invasion.

But more crucially, I'm not sure that a unified West Slavic kingdom is going to be much more (in the long term) than a Greater Poland. The Vistula is really vital, so that region will likely become wealthiest. The alternative is that somehow the Moravians can unify Pannonia as well. This creates a defensible contiguous Empire within the Carpathian Basin, and ties the kingdom to both the Oder and Danube basins economically. Which could allow them to flourish.

Further, I expect in such a scenario, you'd also see that Empire conquer and absorb the South Slavs as well, at least between the Romans and Germans.

If I could suggest a second potential PoD to tie to the first - have the Maygar work with the Byzantines, but then have them invade Poland, or what would become Poland. The influx of more West Slavs to Great Moravia would give them the men and people to conquer and settle Pannonia, and create a more defensible realm, that could play the Romans and Germans off of each other to secure its dominance, effectively taking the role of Hungary and Bohemia in OTL.

EDIT : So effectively swap Poland and Hungary via Great Moravia and a might conquest.

But Magyars settling in Poland proper are impossible, because one thing - Poland proper at that time was one, big FOREST and Hungarians were steppe nomads. There is no space for them to keep horses in Poland (even the most plain Mazovia and Greater Poland are not suitable for that much horses), so Hungarians have no place to settle there. Moravians did hold Pannonia for some time, they would only have to not lose it.
 
3) Wenceslas II of Bohemia is more lucky (and more popular-does not piss off Poles by relying on Germans in his rule as much as IOTL).
 
But Magyars settling in Poland proper are impossible, because one thing - Poland proper at that time was one, big FOREST and Hungarians were steppe nomads. There is no space for them to keep horses in Poland (even the most plain Mazovia and Greater Poland are not suitable for that much horses), so Hungarians have no place to settle there. Moravians did hold Pannonia for some time, they would only have to not lose it.

Maygars successfully settling in Poland might be impossible (forgive me, but the Maygars were capable of chopping down trees, and if they're going to settle, they're going to need to build places to live, so I don't agree with the impossibility.) It might just be that they raid, some settle along the Vistula, but the majority either diffuse or go back to OTL Wallachia/Moldavia and continue to live there. It just needs to be a brutal enough attack to force a significant population of West Slavs from the less defensible North European Plain into the more defensible Carpathian basin.

Plus, I do mean the Moravians holding ALL of Pannonia, the entire basin, not merely the NW quarter.
 

krieger

Banned
Maygars successfully settling in Poland might be impossible (forgive me, but the Maygars were capable of chopping down trees, and if they're going to settle, they're going to need to build places to live, so I don't agree with the impossibility.) It might just be that they raid, some settle along the Vistula, but the majority either diffuse or go back to OTL Wallachia/Moldavia and continue to live there. It just needs to be a brutal enough attack to force a significant population of West Slavs from the less defensible North European Plain into the more defensible Carpathian basin.

Plus, I do mean the Moravians holding ALL of Pannonia, the entire basin, not merely the NW quarter.

Sure they were capable of chopping down trees. But it wouldn't make Vistula basin a good place for nomads (which early Hungarians/Magyars were) and Hungarians at that time were too accustomed to their nomadic tradition to change it. The threat to very existence of Magyars in the form of battle of Lechfeld and it's aftermath was required for them to stop nomadism. And even after it, Stephen I faced serious troubles in creating fully settled and agricultural kingdom of Hungary. The raid, forcing a significant piece of population from Vistula basin to seek protection in Moravia is much more likely.
 
Louis II of Hungary wins at the Battle of Mohacs (Suleiman the Magnificent dies in battle and the Ottoman Empire gets involved in a civil war of succession) and then, he claims successfully Poland-Lithuania as the son of Casimir IV Jagiellon's firstborn, Vladislaus II, creating a Jagiellonian massive empire in Central Europe that unites under its authority the territories of Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Poland and Lithuania.

bien.png


This would be the extension of that massive Jagiellonian empire.

This detailed map was originally made by @Milites, and shows the political situation of Europe in 1521.
 
Last edited:
This was my approximate take:
Banner of the Slovak Federation

The Banner of the Slovak Federation (Federacja Slowacka, Federace Slowanska) [1] derives from the royal banners of the original kingdoms of Bohemia, Poland, and Tatrania [2]. It consists of a red and white cottised triband bearing the federal arms. The Arms are an amalgamation of those borne during the Triple Kingdom period when Cornelius II Sawoisky of Poland-Tatrania inherited Bohemia:
  • Bohemia - Gules; an eagle displayed chequy Sable & Or, charged with a Silesian Crescent Argent, beaked, taloned, & crowned Or.
  • Poland - Gules; an eagle displayed Argent, armed, beaked, taloned, & crowned Or.
  • Tatrania - Argent; an eagle displayed Gules, armed, beaked, taloned, and crowned Or.
  • Savoy-Chamberie - Gules, a cross Argent, a bordure compony Sable & Or.

evolution_of_slovak_bannersm-png.376334

Cornelius I/II/II used the cottised triband most often, though did use a cottised white cross. His Palatine [3] Peter Korvinsky recorded that the cottised triband was an invention of the King, reflecting the common banners of Bohemia (red field or red & white triband) and Poland-Tatrania (red & white pentaband) alike. Cornelius as King of Poland-Tatrania previously used a pentaband bearing the simple dimidiated Arms of Poland & Tatrania.

Brief History
1304 Treaty of Durazzo. Laurence Tarantino and Uros Andrij Nemanjic agree to recognise each other as King of Croatia and Bosnia-Syrmia respectively and allowing the Hungarian Magnates to elect a (High) King of Hungary.
1305 Death of Wenceslas II Premysl King of Bohemia & Poland, claimant King of Hungary. Due to the Polish civil war Wenceslas III cedes his Hungarian territory and claim to his brother Henry. Henry adds to the Durazzo Treaty becoming King of Tatrania.
1307 Henry Premysl elected High King Andrew IV of Hungary.
Bohemian Succession War in death of Ottokar III. Henry IV Piast Duke of All Silesia, Ottokar's maternal halfbrother, succeeds as king.
1351 Stephan Premysl Duke of Styria succeeds his halfbrother Andrew V as King of Tatrania. Prince Ladislaus of Transylvania elected High King of Hungary.
1378 Casimir III Piast of Poland succeeded by grandson Casimir Savoy King of Tatrania Count of Chamberie (son in law of Stephan).
Schismatic War. Tatrania detached from Hungarian vassalship. Rise of Tarantine Roman Empire.
Baltic War. Cornelius I accepts loss of Prussia to U.K. of the North.
Cornelius II of Poland-Tatrania inherits Bohemia.

[1] Slovak being TTL term for West Slavic.
[2] The historical territory of northern Hungary i.e. OTL Slovakia. Named for the Tatras Mountains of the Western Carpathians.
[3] Prime Minister.
 
Louis II of Hungary wins at the Battle of Mohacs (Suleiman the Magnificent dies in battle and the Ottoman Empire gets involved in a civil war of succession) and then, he claims successfully Poland-Lithuania as the son of Casimir IV Jagiellon's firstborn, Vladislaus II, creating a Jagiellonian massive empire in Central Europe that unites under its authority the territories of Hungary, Croatia, Bohemia, Poland and Lithuania.

bien.png


This would be the extension of that massive Jagiellonian empire.

This detailed map was originally made by @Milites, and shows the political situation of Europe in 1521.

AFAIK, territories of the “Cossacks” did not get all the way to the Black Sea coast but the fundamental issue with all similar schemes is that in each entity the king was elected and in more than one just a pawn of the local magnates. So the chances of making a proposedmonstrosity into a lasting state with a meaningful government would be quite slim.
 
AFAIK, territories of the “Cossacks” did not get all the way to the Black Sea coast but the fundamental issue with all similar schemes is that in each entity the king was elected and in more than one just a pawn of the local magnates. So the chances of making a proposedmonstrosity into a lasting state with a meaningful government would be quite slim.
Furthermore merely keeping that thing together would take the entire attention of a much better monarch than Louis Jagiellon, and XVI century is probably too late to create an united state out of Bohemia and Poland.
 

krieger

Banned
AFAIK, territories of the “Cossacks” did not get all the way to the Black Sea coast but the fundamental issue with all similar schemes is that in each entity the king was elected and in more than one just a pawn of the local magnates. So the chances of making a proposedmonstrosity into a lasting state with a meaningful government would be quite slim.

So that's why for more succesful Jagiellons earlier POD is needed. The biggest Jagiellon-wank is Jogaila having surviving children with Hedwig d'Anjou. Not only because rapidly improved political situation, but also because a lot better (for Jagiellons) state of internal affairs in Poland itself. Hedwig d'Anjou was recognized as an heiress of Polish kingdom, so her children will automatically have a status of heirs. No need of securing their succesion. What's more the fiscal policy could also be improved by a stronger position of Jogaila himself within Kingdom. There was a privilege of Koszyce, which guaranteed the nobility abolition from any taxes apart from one constant tax (łanowe). But was this privilege fully enacted by a King? The research done recently by a Polish historian, Stanisław Bardach proves otherwise. Jagiełło was often gathering not strictly legal taxes from nobility and not enacting Koszyce privilege. This remained unopposed, until Jagiełło (after death of his first and a second wife) wanted to marry Elizabeth of Pilcza, his mere subject. It caused a first major shift in King's policies, quite harsh from nobility. And Jagiełło (according to chronicle of Długosz and research of Bardach's team) strived towards one other thing. During reign of Louis I, his mother and governor in Poland, Elżbieta Łokietkówna created so-called "restitution comitee", which task was to give nobles estates confiscated by her brother (King Casimir III back). Jagiełło wanted to undo it's work and in Piotrków in year 1388, he restored an Casimir's institution, whose task was to punish nobility particularily for financial crimes. This way, Jagiełło wanted to get back royal estates from nobles. And he achieved some level of success - he didn't need to sign any priviledges to afford the Great War (1409-1411) with Teutonic Order, because he had enough money to fund it on his own. The unstable succesion and loss of authority of King paved the way to ruin his achievements from first half of his Reign. The regency over Vladislaus of Varna also heavily contributed to loss of King's money (and it would not happen with Jagiełło having children with Hedwig), because a lot of nobles just stole King's estates. Vladislaus III, being young and easily to manipulate agreed to recognize these losses in exchange for funds for Hungarian campaign. You were writing on this forum about French (large royal domain able to give King a lot of funds) and Russian (everything is the property of a monarch) models of royal power - it seems that both Casimir III and Jagiełło strived towards the first one, but Jagiełło's achievements were ruined by loss of his authority due to his non-dynastic marriages and regency period after his death.
 
So that's why for more succesful Jagiellons earlier POD is needed. The biggest Jagiellon-wank is Jogaila having surviving children with Hedwig d'Anjou. Not only because rapidly improved political situation, but also because a lot better (for Jagiellons) state of internal affairs in Poland itself. Hedwig d'Anjou was recognized as an heiress of Polish kingdom, so her children will automatically have a status of heirs. No need of securing their succesion. What's more the fiscal policy could also be improved by a stronger position of Jogaila himself within Kingdom. There was a privilege of Koszyce, which guaranteed the nobility abolition from any taxes apart from one constant tax (łanowe). But was this privilege fully enacted by a King? The research done recently by a Polish historian, Stanisław Bardach proves otherwise. Jagiełło was often gathering not strictly legal taxes from nobility and not enacting Koszyce privilege. This remained unopposed, until Jagiełło (after death of his first and a second wife) wanted to marry Elizabeth of Pilcza, his mere subject. It caused a first major shift in King's policies, quite harsh from nobility. And Jagiełło (according to chronicle of Długosz and research of Bardach's team) strived towards one other thing. During reign of Louis I, his mother and governor in Poland, Elżbieta Łokietkówna created so-called "restitution comitee", which task was to give nobles estates confiscated by her brother (King Casimir III back). Jagiełło wanted to undo it's work and in Piotrków in year 1388, he restored an Casimir's institution, whose task was to punish nobility particularily for financial crimes. This way, Jagiełło wanted to get back royal estates from nobles. And he achieved some level of success - he didn't need to sign any priviledges to afford the Great War (1409-1411) with Teutonic Order, because he had enough money to fund it on his own. The unstable succesion and loss of authority of King paved the way to ruin his achievements from first half of his Reign. The regency over Vladislaus of Varna also heavily contributed to loss of King's money (and it would not happen with Jagiełło having children with Hedwig), because a lot of nobles just stole King's estates. Vladislaus III, being young and easily to manipulate agreed to recognize these losses in exchange for funds for Hungarian campaign. You were writing on this forum about French (large royal domain able to give King a lot of funds) and Russian (everything is the property of a monarch) models of royal power - it seems that both Casimir III and Jagiełło strived towards the first one, but Jagiełło's achievements were ruined by loss of his authority due to his non-dynastic marriages and regency period after his death.


As far as I can see, the fundamental difference was that both in the case of France and the early Muscovite state there was a notion of a national state (however rudimentary) and a clear national majority unified by a single language, culture and religion. In the case of the Polish-Lithuanian (leaving Bohemia aside) union there was nothing of the kind: it seems that even nowadays the Lithuanians and Belorussians are arguing which of them are “historic Lithuanians” and you need to add Ukraine and Western Russia to this ethnic mess. Eventually, the Polish culture had been expanded to the Lithuanian nobility but not to the majority of the population.

Having royal control over a big part of a land was an important but not the only requirement if you are talking about creation of a stable state.
 
So that's why for more succesful Jagiellons earlier POD is needed. The biggest Jagiellon-wank is Jogaila having surviving children with Hedwig d'Anjou..(snip)

So, let's say, Jagiełło and Jadwiga's firstborn, let's say, Władysław Boniface accepts Bohemian crown in IIRC 1418, or once Sigismund Luxemburg kicks the bucket, and it rolls on from that (he would have rights to the Hungary too, and better than Sigismund to that) ... Although IMO all trying to rule all those realms by one person would be still too difficult, while if J+J have more sons they would divide them between themselves which ruins the premise.
 
You could easily achieve this with a point of divergence after 1900:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_confederation

Actually, text of the article indicates that this idea belonged to the category of the pipe dreams of the Polish government-in-exile (its contact with a reality was quite tenuous). To start with, the whole idea was generated by the Poles only after both countries had been occupied (the Czechs did not forget that the Poles helped themselves with a piece of the Czech territory). It never got anything but a general agreement to discuss post-war cooperation from Benes, got a lukewarm attitude from the Brits and, what was more important in practical terms, never was endorsed by the SU so that in the early 1943 the Czechs stopped all discussions saying that they would not be interested in any agreement hostile to the Soviet interests.

It could be different if the proposal was made prior to Munich but it was not.
 
Last edited:
Actually, text of the article indicates that this idea belonged to the category of the pipe dreams of the Polish government-in-exile (its contact with a reality was quite tenuous). To start with, the whole idea was generated by the Poles only after both countries had been occupied and the Czechs did not forget Polish post-Never got anything but a general agreement to discuss post-war cooperation from Benes, got a lukewarm attitude from the Brits and, what was more important in practical terms, never was endorsed by the SU so that in the early 1943 the Czechs stopped all discussions saying that they would not be interested in any agreement hostile to the Soviet interests.
Perhaps if Entente wins on its own in 1942 or so, while Soviets are unable to take advantage of Germany losing due to... reasons.
 
Perhaps if Entente wins on its own in 1942 or so, while Soviets are unable to take advantage of Germany losing due to... reasons.

This is too far from the OTL to start making meaningful speculations and, anyway, if this happens why would the Czechs (one of the most developed countries in Europe) want to be unified with Poland (one of the least developed)?
 

krieger

Banned
As far as I can see, the fundamental difference was that both in the case of France and the early Muscovite state there was a notion of a national state (however rudimentary) and a clear national majority unified by a single language, culture and religion. In the case of the Polish-Lithuanian (leaving Bohemia aside) union there was nothing of the kind: it seems that even nowadays the Lithuanians and Belorussians are arguing which of them are “historic Lithuanians” and you need to add Ukraine and Western Russia to this ethnic mess. Eventually, the Polish culture had been expanded to the Lithuanian nobility but not to the majority of the population.

Having royal control over a big part of a land was an important but not the only requirement if you are talking about creation of a stable state.

I'd disagree with sense of national unity being a requirement to form an stable state in the Middle Ages. It became important in XIXth century. For example - we have a Castilian-Aragonese union. Castilians and Catalans (Catalans formed a majority of Aragonese nobility) differ between themselves even more than Poles differed with Ruthenians back then and it was a non-issue in forming a state, which held kind of an superpower position in XVIth century. And if you're talking about Lithuania proper than the Polish language was also spread to the fair share of lower clases (of course not in the times of Jagiełło) - lands around Wilno were completely polonized. Ukraine was scarcely populated before XVIIth century, it wasn't that much of a problem.
 
I'd disagree with sense of national unity being a requirement to form an stable state in the Middle Ages. It became important in XIXth century. For example - we have a Castilian-Aragonese union. Castilians and Catalans (Catalans formed a majority of Aragonese nobility) differ between themselves even more than Poles differed with Ruthenians back then and it was a non-issue in forming a state, which held kind of an superpower position in XVIth century. And if you're talking about Lithuania proper than the Polish language was also spread to the fair share of lower clases (of course not in the times of Jagiełło) - lands around Wilno were completely polonized. Ukraine was scarcely populated before XVIIth century, it wasn't that much of a problem.

The problem was not with Lithuania proper because it was a rather small and backward part of the Grand Duchy. In Belorussian only nobility was polonized and When you are talking about UKraine, are you saying that it’s Western part was scarcely populated? I don’t think that this can be said about the Right Bank Ukraine. Plus, there was a both religious split and linguistic between the nobility and peasantry.

But back to the initial point, there was a much greater chance for a stable unification of Poland and Lithuania proper by the reasons you listed than within the OTL borders (addition of Ukraine, Belorussian, Western Russia). And it would be even lesser chance for a monstrosity to which Bohemia is being added.
 
Top