A stronger Poland: what would be the effects on Hungary and the Balkans?

[Joe Bonkers]

I'm not at all well versed in the High Middle Ages/Renaissance period, so I thought I'd pose this notion more as a question for the better versed.

I'm reading a history book currently that briefly discusses Tenth Century Eastern Europe, and the author asserted (and it makes sense) that at that point the Czechs and Slovaks hadn't yet diverged culturally/ethnically/linguistically from the Poles to such a degree that they would inevitably develop as separate nations. So, but for a turn or two of the dice, a stronger Poland incorporating Bohemia/Moravia/Slovakia might have emerged, one that might have lasted into modern times as a major power.

I don't know if that would be enough to make such a thing possible, but for the sake of argument let's assume it is. We'll also add in Lithuania as per the 14th Century unification; and we'll also assume that a more formidable Poland prompts the HRE to turn into a more solid Germany, with or without the Habsburgs (and with or without Italy, for that matter).

My question is: what effects would have this have on Hungary and the Balkans? The Hungarians as in OTL would be in the front lines of defending Europe against the Turkish infidel; but without the Habsburg connection, would Germany/Austria be as ready to intervene? If not, would Poland step in? If the Turks ultimately recede from the Balkans more or less as in OTL (or earlier), does Hungary become the dominant power in the Balkans? If so, what about the religious divide - since Romania, Serbia and Bulgaria are all mostly Orthodox, would a Catholic crown in Hungary present a problem? Do the Balkans then get pressured to go Catholic - or does Hungary become Orthodox? And what about the Russians in all this?

Many questions abound.

 

[Joe Bonkers]

Jeez, it can't be THAT boring an idea....

How about the effects on the Reformation?

 

[Polish Eagle]

The butterflies here are a bit steep. If you start changing things in the 10th century AD, there's no guarantee that the Turks will eventually take all of Anatolia from the ERE, let alone stomp their way through the Balkans--we might be talking instead about a Greater Serbia, or a Serbian Dynasty in Constantinople that rules the Balkans.

A Poland-Bohemia union that early in history changes a lot of things more directly--giving the Piasts, or a Bohemian house that rules Poland instead, could prevent the 12th-century breakup of the country, which could give rise to a Poland that embraces Crusading earlier--they might conquer the Prussians themselves, so there's no Teutonic Order to worry about, for example. In that case, with a monolithic Catholic power to their west, Lithuania might go Orthodox instead.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

I'm reading a history book currently that briefly discusses Tenth Century Eastern Europe, and the author asserted (and it makes sense) that at that point the Czechs and Slovaks hadn't yet diverged culturally/ethnically/linguistically from the Poles to such a degree that they would inevitably develop as separate nations.

Well, at least as far as language is involved, the divergence didn't even take place in XIVth century - when Wenceslas II of Bohemia (briefly) conquered Poland Polish nobility considered him speaking "our" language and even later, during first free election in 1572 a Bohemian noble who was proposed Polish crown, William of Rosenberg was also looked upon favorably because of his language (he didn't even want that crown, he was loyal servant of Habsburgs and so declined the offer of that part of nobility), so in Xth century if united in one statehood, they'd almost inevitably coalesce in one nation, probably as diverse as Germans are, but still a nation.

So, but for a turn or two of the dice, a stronger Poland incorporating Bohemia/Moravia/Slovakia might have emerged, one that might have lasted into modern times as a major power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolesław_I_the_Brave did exactly that the problem is - his conquests didn't last very long. To make them longer, you could have:
a) emperor Otto III (who supported Bolesław) lives longer and not do anything about Bolesław taking over Bohemia (his OTL succesor, Henry II did support previous Bohemian house, house of Premyslid in returning to power, and they did, though Bolesław controlled Moravia until his death)
b) Bolesław is more realistic and not deny Henry II's request to pay him homage from Bohemia, though it could still result in the war with Empire bc Bolesław would still lust after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckard_I,_Margrave_of_Meissen 's inheritance which Henry won't allow him to take.
c) Have Henry be captured by Bolesław and his German allies (he was allied to anti-Henry opposition in Germany) https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zjazd_w_Merseburgu_(1002) in reverse what Henry planned IOTL for Bolesław and be forced to grant concessions to dukes (earlier HRE de-facto-breakup in likely) and to Bolesław - that would involve royal title, and Imperial grants for Bohemia and Eckard's inheritance and that would be most stable option - HRE is severely weakened so no risk of curb-stomp by it present in the earlier options and Bolesław and his succesors

We'll also add in Lithuania as per the 14th Century unification

If you're talking about OTL-like unification - not possible. In Piast Poland, women could not inherit anything, especially not the throne and if Poland is more formidable, there is no need for any of Polish kings to will their kingdom to foreign monarch (the Piast system of inheritance worked that way - only sons of reigning monarch had their inheritance guaranteed, and if the monarch was not a king, the sons were bound to have an equal share, if he was a king, the eldest usually inherited, or their preferred son) and Casimir III only willed his state to Louis d'Anjou, king of Hungary, who introduced female succesion (Polish-Lithuanian union was a byproduct of Polish-Hungarian one) because he inherited really, really weak state and needed Hungarian help in conquering Red Ruthenia (modern-day Western Ukraine) and that's not the case ITTL.

 

[Shehryar]

surely a Stronger Poland that incorporates Bohemia/Moravia/Slovakia draws it into great power rivalry with the Holy Roman Empire. Poland is then sucked into that, leading to conflict and wars. rather than trying to trying to defend Christendom later on, the scars of centuries of conflict between the two entities may go on and prevent them from ever allying against some Turkish state.

 

[marcinL]

The butterflies here are a bit steep. If you start changing things in the 10th century AD, there's no guarantee that the Turks will eventually take all of Anatolia from the ERE, let alone stomp their way through the Balkans--we might be talking instead about a Greater Serbia, or a Serbian Dynasty in Constantinople that rules the Balkans.

A Poland-Bohemia union that early in history changes a lot of things more directly--giving the Piasts, or a Bohemian house that rules Poland instead, could prevent the 12th-century breakup of the country, which could give rise to a Poland that embraces Crusading earlier--they might conquer the Prussians themselves, so there's no Teutonic Order to worry about, for example. In that case, with a monolithic Catholic power to their west, Lithuania might go Orthodox instead.

Non-fragmented Poland-Czechia indeed wont need to bother itself with bringing in TK. Otoh it might find itself a more interesting target for the Mongols, assuming of course that something like the Mongols even emerges

However, in case of fragmentation, Czechia would form a natural province and could go away again.

 

[Alcatur]

Geographical conditions are somewhat problematic. Mountain ranges create a natural border, not impassable, but it is clear that they tend to shape the borders.

There was a number of attempts to control lands on both sides of Sudetes-Carpathian mountain ranges - Great Moravia, then Przemyslids, Boleslav the Brave, Brzetyslav, Wencenslaus II and III. Number of those attempts shows that both Czechs and Poles tended to lose the lands on the other side of mountain range; Lesser Poland was lost in X century to Mieszko, Czechia was lost by Boleslav the Brave, Silesia was lost by Brzetyslav to Casimir the Restorer in 1050s. Czechia eventually managed to take control over Silesia, but it was largely due to their close ties with HRE and Polish weakness and then occupation with other threats - and still it is believed that in XV and XVI century Poland would be probably able to retake Silesia if an effort was made (well, one was, but it was quite inept).

I guess it would require a protective envelope from west to better integrate both countries and the center of governance gravitating somewhere to the middle in Silesia. Maybe a more general Western slavic state?

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Sudeten Mountains are not Himalayas and Silesia was part of Czech crown for over 4 centuries. Ottoman Empire had to deal with much bigger and wilder mountain ranges and did it successfully.