Ok, I'm mostly talking about the thirteen years war.I'm talking about the Great War era.
Details please?But even for the great war, if they would have sezeid Malbork, and Gdańsk, at least anexation of the western bank of Vistula would be possible. There was even a peace proposition from the Order for that, if I'm correct.
Hello.
For the Novgorod-Muscovite wars. There is an interesting issue, you pointed that Poland wasn't able to totally devasted the TO, because papal and imperial support for this, later you pointed that Moscow could do anything to Novgorod, and lithuanian support was irrevalent. I don't understand what is the difference, that there support of distant leaders mattered, and here a support from a neighbour country didn't.
By subjugating Moscow, I mean not only conquering this thing, but also humilating, defending, succesfully helping Novgorod. More interesting thing here, I think that you by writing that hitted people who dream about timelines about estabilishing the Lithuanian Empire, because you pointed that Lithuania big and under strong leader was too weak to help Novgorod against her eastern archenemy.
Also I want to point that a generation later Ivan III got like a third of Grand Duchy areas after the war with Alexander Jagielończyk, so really that was better to help Novgorod when there was the time for it.
Well, a book about this isn't particulary unbiased. I read about that some years ago in Jasienica's "Polska Jagiellonów".Details please?
Could you explain me please, how the Great Lithuanian Empire was possible, if they were so weak? This is not a hostile question.Because one of the "distant leaders" had been exercising some moral authority (you can't just shrug off importance of a Pope in the Poland of XV century) and, an Emperor could apply some political pressure as well even if he had other problems to attend to.
As for the "neighbour country", aka Lithuania, it was not strong enough to deal with the Muscovite State of that specific time.
Putting aside that "hitting" and "dreaming" nonsense (in case you did not notice, I was among those proposing "Greater Lithuania" scenarios), we are talking about a very specific time. Muscovite state is ruled by Ivan III, "the Great" and is at the peak of its pre-imperial strength. Talk about Novgorod and its "archenemy" is just empty words: there was a strong pro-Moscow party in the city which took over and ended the 1st war. Taking into an account that Novgorodian army had been easily defeated by a small detachment of Ivan's army, Lithuanian help would not save them because Lithuania on its own could not fight successfully even against the self-destructive maniac like Ivan IV who managed to execute most of his military leaders so what chance would it have against more competent opponent?
Isn't that a clear indication of what a war against Ivan III would mean for Lithuania? With Novgorod not being a serious military factor, Lithuania would be ravaged by Ivan's troops. Alexander at least could use his wife (Ivan's daughter) as intermediary.
Jasienica is not good source. He himself admitted, that he written essays, not history books.Well, a book about this isn't particulary unbiased. I read about that some years ago in Jasienica's "Polska Jagiellonów".
It is pretty obvious why I prefer absolutism instead of powerlessness. Although I don't have anything against reasonable noble's demoracy, which had some working institutions, taxations, standing army (I mean for real, not this what was in OTL), and no liberum veto. Back for absolutism, I mean not particular rulers, but that this political system during that age could mobilised/used a country's potential much better than nobles' democracy. It is a very simple, but it shows well what I mean, in old polish history books for school kids, back in times when in those books were some text, not only pictures, were used this example. Numbers I might write wrong, but a sense is the same. That in early 18th century Poland had oficialy 24k of soldiers, and they were worthless, and even lower number in reality, when her neighbours Prussia, Austria and Russia had more than hundred thousands soldiers. It shows how worthless in the darwinian political landscape was polish political system, I know that it was a time of total degeneracy, but roots of that were in the past, and even in this past, this country always troubled with fielding armies. Maybe in diffrent circumstances those idiots could have done better? They didn't have to look at whimpering nobles and aristocrats, or so patheticaly looking for money, to allow prussian inheritance for Brandenburg. Maybe with absolutism, we would have better kings, because it is hard to have worse ones. Russia have had their own number of bad rulers, yet survives, and Poland not. I know that Moscowy of that period was quite barbaric and their despotism was bad, yet Moscow/Russia could field enough army to survive and expand, when Poland got pathetic nobles, even worse aristocrats, and stupid kings, who couldn't do even little to estrenghing country. And at the end we got Kluchosław.@Toraach you said, that Poland needed absolutism to survive, and at the same time you described all monarchs of Poland after Casimir III as idiots, so you think giving absolute power to an idiot would suddenly make him smart??? Also it is worth to note, that nobility of Poland wanted incorporation of Prussia, kings didn't want to hurt their Hohenzollern cousins, so yeah, give more power to them so they would be able to give any part of Poland to anyone if they wished, what about Władysław Opolczyk and fiefs given him by Louis d'Anjou, which he later handed to Teutonic Order (because 'he could', so why not?).
And seemingly it is not Jagiellon blood but very fact of sitting on Polish throne that makes Kings of Poland idiots, because Stephen Bathory, man with no drop of Jagiellon blood also confirmed Brandenburgian Hohenzollern rights to Prussia. Teutonic State in Prussia OTOH provided job for second sons long after raids on Lithuania were over, until Reformation. They made careers in administration of TO state.
And who was main opponent of war against TO? Not nobility but powerful magnate, bishop Oleśnicki. Casimir IV allied with lesser nobility against great magnates, the same thing was done by his sons-Jan Olbracht and Aleksander, and by Matthias Corvinus in Hungary (also idiot???). Priviledge of Mielnik changed king into powerless tool in hands of big magnates, King with support of lesser nobility repelled it and increased his power again.
Lithuania could not help Novgorod in 1480 not necessarily because they saw themselves as too weak (they certainly didn't, given that they believed they could fight Moscow alone as far as the Livonian War) to help Novgorod, but because of the circumstances at the time, more specifically, Menli Giray's takeover of Crimea in 1478 and subsequent beginning of Crimean raids against Lithuania, which sapped its resources.For the Novgorod-Muscovite wars. There is an interesting issue, you pointed that Poland wasn't able to totally devasted the TO, because papal and imperial support for this, later you pointed that Moscow could do anything to Novgorod, and lithuanian support was irrevalent. I don't understand what is the difference, that there support of distant leaders mattered, and here a support from a neighbour country didn't. By subjugating Moscow, I mean not only conquering this thing, but also humilating, defending, succesfully helping Novgorod. More interesting thing here, I think that you by writing that hitted people who dream about timelines about estabilishing the Lithuanian Empire, because you pointed that Lithuania big and under strong leader was too weak to help Novgorod against her eastern archenemy. Also I want to point that a generation later Ivan III got like a third of Grand Duchy areas after the war with Alexander Jagielończyk, so really that was better to help Novgorod when there was the time for it.
Could you explain me please, how the Great Lithuanian Empire was possible, if they were so weak? This is not a hostile question.
I would like to read more about those raids, it is an interesting and not well known thing (except its existence, but not how important they were).Lithuania could not help Novgorod in 1480 not necessarily because they saw themselves as too weak (they certainly didn't, given that they believed they could fight Moscow alone as far as the Livonian War) to help Novgorod, but because of the circumstances at the time, more specifically, Menli Giray's takeover of Crimea in 1478 and subsequent beginning of Crimean raids against Lithuania, which sapped its resources.
The effect of Crimean raids on Lithuania and its capabilities to combat Moscow in this period are often very understated - in the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th, they went as far as the city of Vilnius, even during times of war against Moscow.
Besides, the "greater Lithuania" timeline dreaming people usually put the POD necessarily to create it one or two centuries before this time, anyway, so I don't see how it discredits them.
Lithuania could not help Novgorod in 1480 not necessarily because they saw themselves as too weak (they certainly didn't, given that they believed they could fight Moscow alone as far as the Livonian War) to help Novgorod, but because of the circumstances at the time, more specifically, Menli Giray's takeover of Crimea in 1478 and subsequent beginning of Crimean raids against Lithuania, which sapped its resources.
The effect of Crimean raids on Lithuania and its capabilities to combat Moscow in this period are often very understated - in the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th, they went as far as the city of Vilnius, even during times of war against Moscow.
Stopping Lithuanian raiding was more important for magnates of Lesser Poland than regaining Gdańsk, Lithuanian raids made Polish lands east of Vistula almost useless, fertile Lublin Uppland was almost uninhabitated and magnate eastates located there were of little valu