The Deluge ends with Poland-Brandenburg and Sweden-Lithuania

[MSZ]

Umm what, where, when?

From my knowledge of the Deluge, it wasn't until Habsburg Austria, Russia and Denmark declared war on Sweden that the Swedish decided to leave Poland and crush Denmark.

When did Austria or Denmark intervene to PLC aid? And Russia was a Swedish ally in the war.

The Swedes made it really far south forcing the King out of the country, but overextended themselves, got bled out from guerilla warfare and forced to withdraw. Denmark and Austria had nothing to do with it.

Lithuanian nobles were traditionally loyal to GDL as were Polish to Poland. And Poles backstabbing Lithuania weren't less common than Lithuanians backstabbing Poland. That was some feature of PLC.

The king of PLC was required to be catholic.

Huh. Didn't know that. When did the Poles sign their own version of Kedaini? And if the King was required to be catholic, why did the orthodox tzars attempt to get elected on occasions?

 

[abas]

Sophia of Lithuania, the daughter of Vytautas was married to Vasily of Moscow and was the Queen of Russia.

But Romanovs weren't descendants of Sophia.

The Poles wanted a Piast after the demise of the Jagellonians but all the surviving Piasts became protestant, I think Queen Bona Sforza could arrange a marriage of one of her daughters to a Silesian Piast instead of a Vasa.

The Polish throne was elective under and after Jagellons.

 

[abas]

Huh. Didn't know that. When did the Poles sign their own version of Kedaini?

At Ujście on July 1655

And if the King was required to be catholic, why did the orthodox tzars attempt to get elected on occasions?

They did, but never were elected.

 

[Rubicon]

When did Austria or Denmark intervene to PLC aid? And Russia was a Swedish ally in the war.

The Swedes made it really far south forcing the King out of the country, but overextended themselves, got bled out from guerilla warfare and forced to withdraw. Denmark and Austria had nothing to do with it.

Oh really? So why was peace only settled in 1660 then, when the Swedish main army had left Poland in June 1657 to attack Denmark?

Why was there then an Austrian army under fieldmarshall Spork attacking Swedish controlled Thorn (Torún) in October 1657?

Why was there then an Austrian army under von Hatzfeldt besieging the Swedish controlled Krákow, which surrendered to the Austrians in August 1658?

Why was Russia at war with Sweden since June 1656? And what impact did that have?

Why was there Austrian and Brandenburgian armies in Swedish Pommerania in August 1659?

Why was the peace in Oliwa in May 1660 still favorable to the Swedish, if they got their asses kicked?

 

[MSZ]

Oh really? So why was peace only settled in 1660 then, when the Swedish main army had left Poland in June 1657 to attack Denmark?

Because the Swedes were still present in Poland by 1659? You stated it yourself in your other questions....

Why was there then an Austrian army under fieldmarshall Spork attacking Swedish controlled Thorn (Torún) in October 1657?

Why was there then an Austrian army under von Hatzfeldt besieging the Swedish controlled Krákow, which surrendered to the Austrians in August 1658?

Providing token support for the Poles after the war was already turning to Poland's favour, with polish counter-offensives in southern Poland in 1656.

Why was there Austrian and Brandenburgian armies in Swedish Pommerania in August 1659?

Same as above, plus Brandenburg-Prussia was a polish ally/fief in the war

Why was Russia at war with Sweden since June 1656? And what impact did that have?

Small, since it was still at war with the PLC at the very same time.

Why was there Austrian and Brandenburgian armies in Swedish Pommerania in August 1659?

Why was the peace in Oliwa in May 1660 still favorable to the Swedish, if they got their asses kicked?

It was? They got nothing out of the war other than breaking the PLC's power, but their goals of dominating the Baltic were not fulfilled.



Besides - the point of the OP is the probability and result of a Brandenburgian on the Polish throne as a result of the Deluge. For that to happen, I assume that Brandenburg would have to ally with Sweden permanently and be rewarded with the polish crown. This would require either:

a) Swedish victory and peace, in which it annexes Lithuania, and elections are held giving the crown to the Hohenzollerns
b) Elections being held without peace, in which case the Hohenzollern would be an usurper.

Both scenarios would result with an unpopular King on the Polish throne who can't count on keeping the throne for a long time, as it would only be guarnteed by swedish military presence, which inturn as OTL had proven the swedes can't maintain for a long time.

 

[Rubicon]

Because the Swedes were still present in Poland by 1659? You stated it yourself in your other questions....

The Swedish main army as well as the Swedish king was occupying Sjaelland (Denmark) in 1659.

A much smaller Swedish field army as well as several garrisons remained behind in Poland.

Providing token support for the Poles after the war was already turning to Poland's favour, with polish counter-offensives in southern Poland in 1656.

Sounds like Polish nationalistic revisionism to me that completely lacks an understanding of the political and military situation in Europe.

In July 1656 Russia declared war on Sweden. Ask yourself why.
In November 1656 Russia signed a peace with Poland, ask yourself why.
In March 1657 Austria signed an alliance with Poland. Ask yourself why.
In June 1657 Denmark declared war on Sweden, ask yourself why.
In the same month, the Swedish main army, and the Swedish king left Poland, and to attack Denmark. Ask yourself why.

Same as above, plus Brandenburg-Prussia was a polish ally/fief in the war

Really? So why was the Brandenburgian participating on the Swedish side during the battle of Warsaw 18-21st July 1656?

Small, since it was still at war with the PLC at the very same time.

Russia was not at war with Poland between November 1656 and July 1658.

It was? They got nothing out of the war other than breaking the PLC's power, but their goals of dominating the Baltic were not fulfilled.

Territory wise? No. However the Polish king rescinded any claims to the Swedish crown as well as the claims on Überdünische Livonia, Estonia and Ösel. The first part is particularly important as it resolved the Wasa inheritance issue, a rather sticky point between Sweden and Poland since 1604.

 

[MSZ]

snip

I'm going to give you the last shot, since the thread is not meant pursue the "who and how won/lost the deluge" - that would a subject of another thread. Point is that the deluge is meant to end with Sweden getting Lithuania - something I find hardly possible due to the Poles wanting to fight for it and eventually having an advantage - and with some kind of Brandenburg - Poland union under the Hohenzoller's - which I doubt would last due to both Brandenburg not being a suitable country to provide a Polish King, as well as religion. What are your opinions?

Another possibility could be Brandenburg and Prussia stalwartly siding with Poland-Lithuania in the war with Sweden from the start, coupled with the polish King dying somewhere during the war. His death leads the polish nobles to sue for somewhat favourable peace, such as Brandenburg getting Pomerania and Prussia, Poland keeping it's crown territories, followed by Brandenburg aiding Poland against Russia in the Ukraine. End result being some member of the Hohenzollern family with ties to the silesian piasts getting elected. I am unaware of a suitable candidate though.

 

[Rubicon]

Point is that the deluge is meant to end with Sweden getting Lithuania - something I find hardly possible due to the Poles wanting to fight for it and eventually having an advantage - and with some kind of Brandenburg - Poland union under the Hohenzoller's - which I doubt would last due to both Brandenburg not being a suitable country to provide a Polish King, as well as religion. What are your opinions?
.

Only possibility I see is a personal union between Sweden and Lithuania. Sweden lacked the manpower base to successfully conquer and subdue the entire country. Not to mention to incorporate.
In regards to any personal union between Sweden and Lithuania I think the chances are slim at best. The Swedish people, nobility and clergy would not support King Charles X to convert to Catholicism, something his cousin the previous queen Christina had abdicated in his favor to do. I am also quite dubious as to whether the Lithuanian people, nobility and clergy would accept a Lutheran king either.

 

[Detlef]

Not sure what your point is here.

While nominally Prussia stopped being a polish fief in 1657, it de facto remained one, paying tribute until 1700. The "Great electors" greatness came at the cost of depleting Brandenburg's population after he indirectly brought it to ruin by remaining so staunchly calvinist, 'inviting' both protestant Sweden to loot it and later the catholic league to do the same. Growth by percantage is hardly a problem once you bring a country to rock bottom.

Given that the Great Elector became ruler of Brandenburg in 1640 I don´t quite see how you can make him responsible for the 30-Year-War (since you mention the Catholic League)? Which started in 1618.
And by 1640 practically all armies in Germany were looting. And moving from place to place to loot a new region. Nobody at that time "invited" them in.

What 'split' are you mentioning? Polish and Lithuanian? Seeing that the Lithuanian nobles were traditionally disloyal, willing to side with anyone who at the moment offered the something, I doubt they would think twice about backstabbing Poland which btw. they did OTL - before Sweden got its ass owned by the Poles, causing the Lithuanians to revert back to the Polish side. And given Poland's traditional religous tolerance, a King of non-catholic religion isn't that hard to imagine (not sure if catholicism was required, didn't orthodox tzrs try to get elected fromtime to time?).

The "split" I was mentioning was between Poland and Lithuania.
Quite simply put it didn´t make sense to me that those two Catholic countries would be split. With one supposedly entering a union with Protestant Sweden and the other one a union with Protestant Brandenburg.

That´s what I wrote:
The religious differences between Catholic Poland and Protestant Brandenburg might be more awkward. Same for Protestant Sweden and Catholic Lithuania. So the "split" doesn´t quite make sense?

Was that point so hard to understand?
Especially since exactly these kind of "unions" are the starting point of this thread?