Decline of the Commonwealth- Avoidable or Inevitable?

About to torture myself by reading the entirety of Sienkiewicz’s Trilogy, and as a relative illiterate on Polish history at the later end of the Commonwealth, were the factors of hostile neighbors and internal bickering (among many, MANY others) that brought the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth something that were always going to surface no matter how long the state managed to survive, or perhaps with a few good Kings, could the PLC land itself with a good century or two of peace and relative stability?

Again, I am just starting to crack the surface of early modern Polish history so if I’m need of being dunked on with awful takes on this, by all means go ahead.
 
PLC was going to collapse with way or another without very early POD. It had too many hostile enemies, its political system didn't work and many other problems. You would need stronger king and either make Sejm and nobility weaker or at least take that idiotic Libertum Veto away.
 
About to torture myself by reading the entirety of Sienkiewicz’s Trilogy, and as a relative illiterate on Polish history at the later end of the Commonwealth, were the factors of hostile neighbors and internal bickering (among many, MANY others) that brought the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth something that were always going to surface no matter how long the state managed to survive, or perhaps with a few good Kings, could the PLC land itself with a good century or two of peace and relative stability?

PLC's problem wasn't simple "internal bickering" in fact it was a way worse problem, the entire state was founded on the ideology "King bad, any king would want to take away freedom from nobility" while nobility was unwilling to abolish the institution of king itself (I am not saying monarchy, because by late Commonwealth, most of Polish elites didn't even consider their country a monarchy, despite having king) and that conflict, way worse than simple internal bickering of faction X and Y was leading PLC to inevitable downfall + competent King was enemy of the system and was more disliked than liked.
 
PLC's problem wasn't simple "internal bickering" in fact it was a way worse problem, the entire state was founded on the ideology "King bad, any king would want to take away freedom from nobility" while nobility was unwilling to abolish the institution of king itself (I am not saying monarchy, because by late Commonwealth, most of Polish elites didn't even consider their country a monarchy, despite having king) and that conflict, way worse than simple internal bickering of faction X and Y was leading PLC to inevitable downfall + competent King was enemy of the system and was more disliked than liked.

And unlike almost all of other monachies Polish monarchy wasn't even purely hereditary but basically elective where just was life-time ceremonial president whose title just was king. Some kings tried take some power but it was always complete failure.
 
And unlike almost all of other monachies Polish monarchy wasn't even purely hereditary but basically elective where just was life-time ceremonial president whose title just was king. Some kings tried take some power but it was always complete failure.

By the times of PLC it was full elective with nobility guarding the right to election like hawks, tho king had a little bit more power than ceremonial president, but it still was not great comparing to other monarchies of the time period.
 
PLC was going to collapse with way or another without very early POD. It had too many hostile enemies, its political system didn't work and many other problems. You would need stronger king and either make Sejm and nobility weaker or at least take that idiotic Libertum Veto away.
To defend the Liberum veto originally it was just a mechanism for recognizing impassible deadlock and a means to dissolve the game of chicken against kings wishing to install a French king or override Sejm demands for audits and appointing his own positions out of personal loyalty not loyalty to the PLC's people or the PLC.
 
You'd need a POD before the Commonwealth was founded, to be sure. Even when the two were in a personal union, the Kingdom of Poland was in a situation where the Polish nobility gained substantial rights and privileges, starting as early as the 14th century during the reign of Casimir the Great. Certainly the end of the Jagiellon dynasty played a role, too. Though the Vasas eventually succeeded to the throne, their position was quite weak and they were unable to bring about any substantial change.

The commonwealth also expanded who was considered part of the nobility. The Lithuanian / Ruthenian nobility formally joined in the 15th century, and the Union of Lublin added the Prussian and Livonian nobility. The Szlatcha made up some 8-15% of the population, while the nobility in say, France or Italy, was only about 1%.
 
To defend the Liberum veto originally it was just a mechanism for recognizing impassible deadlock and a means to dissolve the game of chicken against kings wishing to install a French king or override Sejm demands for audits and appointing his own positions out of personal loyalty not loyalty to the PLC's people or the PLC.

No, liberum veto had nothing to do with John Casimir (the king who wished to install French king on the Polish throne), it was rather extension of already present principle of unanimity (the principle of every single member of House of Envoys having to agree with the bill for it to be passed), and pre-Liberum Veto it also existed, the house of Envoys just went into the state of passivity (passivitas) when one envoy disagreed with the bill and it means house of Envoys couldn't to anything until that envoy is convinced, which was frankly worse than Liberum Veto, at least after liberum veto the rest of envoys and the king didn't waste their money and time.

You'd need a POD before the Commonwealth was founded, to be sure. Even when the two were in a personal union, the Kingdom of Poland was in a situation where the Polish nobility gained substantial rights and privileges, starting as early as the 14th century during the reign of Casimir the Great. Certainly the end of the Jagiellon dynasty played a role, too. Though the Vasas eventually succeeded to the throne, their position was quite weak and they were unable to bring about any substantial change.

No, Casimir was quite autocratic ruler, his main problem was that the state he inherited was in absolute dogshit state and although he did what he could to rebuild it and managed to make let's say mid-tier power out of it, but still had to rely on Hungary (that fucked up a lot his plans) and almost ended with complete takeover of Poland by Hungary, and that's the problem of early Jagiellon era PODs, sure for example living Hedwig of Anjou and having children would probably save Polish royal power from being completely decimated, but the problem of Hungary would still remain, Poland would need to incorporate Lithuania for real and utterly conquer Teutonic Order state to avoid being Hungarian province in all but name (see Croatia, very similar to Poland in the sense of both being Slavic and Catholic).
 
No, Casimir was quite autocratic ruler, his main problem was that the state he inherited was in absolute dogshit state and although he did what he could to rebuild it and managed to make let's say mid-tier power out of it, but still had to rely on Hungary (that fucked up a lot his plans) and almost ended with complete takeover of Poland by Hungary, and that's the problem of early Jagiellon era PODs, sure for example living Hedwig of Anjou and having children would probably save Polish royal power from being completely decimated, but the problem of Hungary would still remain, Poland would need to incorporate Lithuania for real and utterly conquer Teutonic Order state to avoid being Hungarian province in all but name (see Croatia, very similar to Poland in the sense of both being Slavic and Catholic).
I don't disagree that Casimir had a stronger position than later Polish kings and did much to reverse the issues from previous reigns, but you can't deny that the trend towards favoring the nobility began in his reign. He had to make significant concessions to ensure their military support throughout his reign, and later concessions were made to secure Louis of Hungary's succession to the crown: he lowered their tax burden and ensured they wouldn't have to pay the costs of military expeditions outside of Poland. Whatever good he did was absolutely squandered in pursuing the succession of Louis of Hungary; which even at the end, he attempted to undo by making Casimir IV of Pomerania his heir instead.

While Louis was probably keen to maintain a union between Hungary and Poland even after his death, I don't see how this would be possible barring him having a son. Certainly the Polish had little interest in having Sigismund as their king, and Jagwiga's succession meant that her original betrothal with William of Austria was broken. Hungary dealt with their own issues in the aftermath of Louis' death, there was a lot of unrest following Mary's succession, and her eventual death meant that Sigismund had issues maintaining his power there, not to mention his focus elsewhere, especially after he became Holy Roman Emperor, the Hussites, ect. Sigismund did favor an anti-Polish policy, but the Battle of Grunwald basically meant that it ended in failure.

In fact, Poland and Hungary will still have areas of mutual interest, especially if the Ottoman Turks still rise as OTL. It's not as if Hungary was in a perfect situation in the 15th and 16th centuries, either. They had their own issues that stemmed from a lack of royal succession, conflict between different possible successors, and a rise of the nobility that allowed them to reign supreme. Certainly the Hungarian magnates had little issue in electing Polish princes (Wladyslaw III, Vladislaus II) to serve as their kings.
 
My take is that if something unexpected happened in Russia around 1792, and the Commonwealth's 1792 constitution had gotten a few years to sink in, we might have ended up in a situation where historians would consider the Commonwealth's reform and indefinite survival to be a natural thing. I can imagine the alternate AH.com thread where the poster asking about the possibility of a complete partition in the 18th century is told that the commonwealth's political system and enlightenment-era concepts made reforms inevitable and that farther partitions would have upset the balance of power so much that no one would have permitted them to happen.
 
I don't disagree that Casimir had a stronger position than later Polish kings and did much to reverse the issues from previous reigns, but you can't deny that the trend towards favoring the nobility began in his reign. He had to make significant concessions to ensure their military support throughout his reign, and later concessions were made to secure Louis of Hungary's succession to the crown: he lowered their tax burden and ensured they wouldn't have to pay the costs of military expeditions outside of Poland. Whatever good he did was absolutely squandered in pursuing the succession of Louis of Hungary; which even at the end, he attempted to undo by making Casimir IV of Pomerania his heir instead.

The number of that concessions was actually zero, there wasn't a single privilege issued by him (privilege of Buda of 1355 was issued by Louis and was promise only fulfilled in the event of Casimir's death and until Casimir actually died, it wasn't law, Casimir collected taxes as much as he pleased). Trend actually began even earlier, during so-called feudal collapse (in Polish: "rozbicie dzielnicowe") of Poland, but unification reversed most of it and it resurfaced with Casimir's own succesion problem. Casimir IV thing was illustration what was wrong with Poland of that time, mid-tier power wasn't enough to make sovereign policy when surrounded by much stronger neighbours.

While Louis was probably keen to maintain a union between Hungary and Poland even after his death, I don't see how this would be possible barring him having a son. Certainly the Polish had little interest in having Sigismund as their king, and Jagwiga's succession meant that her original betrothal with William of Austria was broken. Hungary dealt with their own issues in the aftermath of Louis' death, there was a lot of unrest following Mary's succession, and her eventual death meant that Sigismund had issues maintaining his power there, not to mention his focus elsewhere, especially after he became Holy Roman Emperor, the Hussites, ect. Sigismund did favor an anti-Polish policy, but the Battle of Grunwald basically meant that it ended in failure.

If Jadwiga had children post union with Lithuania these children would be legal heirs of Hungary and as you said, Hungarians had little problem with declaring Polish princes as Kings, but that isn't necessarily good for Poland as state (only real incorporation of Lithuania and utter conquest of TO could help Poland avoid being Hungarian province in any union with Hungary), and that's the problem, only solution in late XIVth century which might stop the tendency of the system to autodestruct could be also way to negate Polish independence way before it was lost IOTL.
Hungary didn't have ideal situation, but it had vast financial advantage over Poland due to abundant gold resources in modern-day Slovakia, it had better soil and was overall richer.
The factor which allowed Austria to dominate Hungary was that it was destroyed by civil war, maybe that could be replicated if Naples, Sigismund and Hedwig's son all warred for that crown, it could be replicated, but if takeover was smooth, it'd strenghten Hungary.
 
PLC's problem wasn't simple "internal bickering" in fact it was a way worse problem, the entire state was founded on the ideology "King bad, any king would want to take away freedom from nobility" while nobility was unwilling to abolish the institution of king itself (I am not saying monarchy, because by late Commonwealth, most of Polish elites didn't even consider their country a monarchy, despite having king) and that conflict, way worse than simple internal bickering of faction X and Y was leading PLC to inevitable downfall + competent King was enemy of the system and was more disliked than liked.
Personally I disagree. Bathory, for example, was competent yet still widely liked. For me, the one who truly started the fashion for thinking "king bad", was Sigismund III Vasa. He tried to become an absolutist monarch and he brougth the jesuits to the PLC in spite of the promises about the freedom of religion. Not to mention the introduction of the Uniate Church. Plus bringing the Commonwealth into the unnecessary for PLC wars with Sweden, the wars whose whole purpose was just a personal benefit for Sigismund alone. It's no coincidence that Zebrzydowski's Rokosz happened specifically during Sigismund's reign. If anyone else had become the king in 1587, then the respect for the monarch could have been maintained.
 
Personally I disagree. Bathory, for example, was competent yet still widely liked. For me, the one who truly started the fashion for thinking "king bad", was Sigismund III Vasa. He tried to become an absolutist monarch and he brougth the jesuits to the PLC in spite of the promises about the freedom of religion. Not to mention the introduction of the Uniate Church. Plus bringing the Commonwealth into the unnecessary for PLC wars with Sweden, the wars whose whole purpose was just a personal benefit for Sigismund alone. It's no coincidence that Zebrzydowski's Rokosz happened specifically during Sigismund's reign. If anyone else had become the king in 1587, then the respect for the monarch could have been maintained.

Bathory was neither hyper-competent, nor super-well liked, he was middling in both fields.
Thinking "king bad" was already present before Sigismund, it was byproduct of bullshit spewed by executionist movement. Uniate Church was an necessity, it allowed to limit Moscows/Ottomans influence on Orthodox worshippers in Poland and allowed pathway to further integrate them in society ("independent" Kiev Patriarchate would be just undercover for Ottoman agenture).
Absolutism was actually good form of governance for large, relatively not dense populated states, located in the middle of Europe (and PLC was such a state), so Sigismund's attempts to limit the position of nobility was actually good thing.
 
Last edited:
The PLC king had much more power than stereotypically people think. He could have completely arbitrarily appointed several thousand (!) public officials. Including top civilian and military leaders. However, due to the extreme incompetence of several successive rulers (including Batory), they lost control over this official apparatus. Against the will of the majority of the nobility, officials became practically irremovable and many offices became de facto hereditary. An oligarchy earning a fortune from the illegal exploitation of state property made reforms impossible and convinced people that this administrative pathology was good for them.
 
Last edited:
The PLC king had much more power than stereotypically people think. He could have completely arbitrarily appointed several thousand (!) public officials. Including top civilian and military leaders. However, due to the extreme incompetence of several successive rulers (including Batory), they lost control over this official apparatus. Against the will of the majority of the nobility, officials became practically irremovable and many offices became de facto hereditary. An oligarchy earning a fortune from the illegal exploitation of state property made reforms impossible and convinced people that this administrative pathology was good for them.

King wasn't completely powerless in PLC, but:
a) he was still far less powerful than his counterpart in most of European states
b) nobility still was expansion of King's power and very institution of monarchy as biggest threat to themselves and feared imposing of hereditary succesion
c) lifelong granting of offices was supported by majority of nobility and the alternative (tenure and electing by nobility) was far more disastrous than it was.
 
Bathory was neither hyper-competent, nor super-well liked, he was middling in both fields.
Thinking "king bad" was already present before Sigismund, it was byproduct of bullshit spewed by executionist movement. Uniate Church was an necessity, it allowed to limit Moscows/Ottomans influence on Orthodox worshippers in Poland and allowed pathway to further integrate them in society ("independent" Kiev Patriarchate would be just undercover for Ottoman agenture).
Absolutism was actually good form of governance for large, relatively not dense populated states, located in the middle of Europe (and PLC was such a state), so Sigismund's attempts to limit the position of nobility was actually good thing.
I think you meant the russian agenture. Overall I agree that Sigismund's attempts to make the country more cohesive were well-intended, I simply meant that it sounded radical for the noblemen who then assumed "Damn, good thing that we have the executionist movement". Still, the wars with Sweden were completely unnecessary.
 
I think you meant the russian agenture. Overall I agree that Sigismund's attempts to make the country more cohesive were well-intended, I simply meant that it sounded radical for the noblemen who then assumed "Damn, good thing that we have the executionist movement". Still, the wars with Sweden were completely unnecessary.

Well, wars with Sweden once Sigismund is elected and deposed were kinda unavoidable and if nobility actually wanted to fight in it (not making up bullshit excuses like Krzysztof Radziwiłł, Mr. "Swedes are fighting for their freedom") PLC could win that wars.
No, indepedent Kiev Patriarchate would be in cahoots with Constantinople Patriarchate, completely controlled by Ottomans.
Overall, Polish nobility's approach to governance was simply pathological, in any other single other country in Europe, who had king we had sizable party of people thinking "absolutism is good" even if there was also anti-absolutist opposition (even in England Charles I ruled 11 yrs without parliament), but in Poland there was uphill battle.
 
Well, wars with Sweden once Sigismund is elected and deposed were kinda unavoidable and if nobility actually wanted to fight in it (not making up bullshit excuses like Krzysztof Radziwiłł, Mr. "Swedes are fighting for their freedom") PLC could win that wars.
No, indepedent Kiev Patriarchate would be in cahoots with Constantinople Patriarchate, completely controlled by Ottomans.
Overall, Polish nobility's approach to governance was simply pathological, in any other single other country in Europe, who had king we had sizable party of people thinking "absolutism is good" even if there was also anti-absolutist opposition (even in England Charles I ruled 11 yrs without parliament), but in Poland there was uphill battle.
Unnecessary in a way that except for a brief moment during Livonian Wars, the PLC had no hostile relations with Sweden at all. The Commonwealth already had other enemies, and now Sigismund comes in and orders the noblemen to fight for his personal matter which is unrelated to the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. This surely didn't help the image of the monarch.
 
Unnecessary in a way that except for a brief moment during Livonian Wars, the PLC had no hostile relations with Sweden at all. The Commonwealth already had other enemies, and now Sigismund comes in and orders the noblemen to fight for his personal matter which is unrelated to the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. This surely didn't help the image of the monarch.

He didn't order to fight with Sweden, after the deposition, Sweden was first one to attack Livonia, which was PLC's possesion at the moment. The conflict for Dominium Maris Baltici was more or less inevitable.
 
Top