From a 1750 AD p.o.v., what were the multiversal odds that the PLC would partitioned out of existence by 1850 AD?

[raharris1973]

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by 1750 AD was a weak state. It had been for awhile. It was kind of a de facto puppet state of Russia's as well. It was subject to heavy foreign influence in general. It had weak executive powers.

But it had existed for quite awhile, nearly a century since being severely weakened by the events of the Chmielnicki uprising and the multiple invasions of the Potop or Deluge.

Certainly, weak states in Europe, and elsewhere, have live surprisingly long lives at times, protected simply by custom inertia, or whatever international equilibria or balance of power supports them.

As of 1750, what were the multiversal odds of the Polish-Lithuanian state being totally eliminated through a series of partitions, over the course of the next century, by 1850? As it happened, in TL we live in, it all happened by 1795, in a space of 45 years. But did weakness and debility such as it was in 1750 have to mean extinction in the near or long-term?

If you find the term multiversal odds confusing, I'll give a simple translation, if you were an ASB who were given the the universe as it existed in OTL 1750 and got 100 copies of this universe to play with, and simply let these 100 copies randomly play out, each in their own way, in how many of them, by 1850, would have a Polish-Lithuanian independent state still existing, and how many would we not?

 

[Qastiel]

Fairly unlikely in my opinion. The partitions of Poland were instigated because Russia lost their influence/power over Poland relative to Prussia and Austria. That Prussians not being dismembered in the 7 Years War to a real degree was a miracle. Could see a trade between Poland and Russia for Ducal Prussia to be returned to Poland from the war. Though this may be leaning into AHtropes and calling it a conservative estimate of timeline in respects to likelihood.

I imagine the Russians would try to force a Personal Union or maybe a Russian dynasty onto the throne as they pushed reform in Poland.

I can’t really know for certain if this would push the Austrians into a French “Independent Poland” camp but I think Austria alone wouldn’t be able to make Russia agree to a partition of Poland but equally wouldn’t tolerate Russian influence further growing in Poland without a way to profit themselves.

 

[Augenis]

Thing is, even if the partitions as we know them are avoidable (though I personally disagree with the opinion of some people that they were essentially done on a whim in 1772. I think previous incidents, such as the Treaty of Radnot, show that the idea of simply divying the Republic between the surrounding powers was at least a concept that floated around way earlier.), 1850 is a long time away. If we keep the butterflies relatively contained, this means that it will need to survive whatever is the alternate equivalent of the Napoleonic Wars - and they're bound to end up involved if they aren't extinguished by 1795. Reformist Polish nobility will jump head over heels to an alliance with Napoleon if it means that they can break out of the Russian protectorate, and even if they don't, Russia will drag them into the war on the opposing side, even if indirectly. France dismantling it, or Russia dismantling it after France is defeated, are both possible options.

Another thing is, the pre-1772 situation was simply unsustainable. The Russian protectorate over the Republic was 1. fairly weak (as the Great Sejm shows, something as simple as Russia ending up at war with another power forces them to loosen their grip) and 2. really, really unstable. Poland was not a calm loyal protectorate helpless against the whims of greater powers, it was highly rebellious and large factions within its noble electorate sought to break the protectorate at any possible opportunity. From 1717, when the protectorate status became factual, to the Republic being destroyed in 1795, Russia had to deploy troops to suppress uprisings (1733-1736, 1768, 1792, 1794) four times. And because it was an independent, (relatively) democratic state, with a growing educated population and moderate acceptance to liberal Enlightenment values (especially after Stanislaw II's election), Russia did not have the ability to crack down on local resistance, root out opponents, close universities and commit to anywhere near as much repression as they needed after 1795.

I give it a 60% chance for Partitions, either complete, or partial with such a neutering of the state (something close to 1794 borders or Congress Poland) that means it is effectively destroyed.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by 1750 AD was a weak state. It had been for awhile. It was kind of a de facto puppet sate of Russia's as well. It was subject to heavy foreign influence in general. It had weak executive powers.

But it had existed for quite awhile, nearly a century since being severely weakened by the events of the Chmielnicki uprising and the multiple invasions of the Potop or Deluge.

Certainly, weak states in Europe, and elsewhere, have live surprisingly long lives at times, protected simply by custom inertia, or whatever international equilibria or balance of power supports them.

As of 1750, what were the multiversal odds of the Polish-Lithuanian state being totally eliminated through a series of partitions, over the course of the next century, by 1850? As it happened, in TL we live in, it all happened by 1795, in a space of 45 years. But did weakness and debility such as it was in 1750 have to mean extinction in the near or long-term?

If you find the term multiversal odds confusing, I'll give a simple translation, if you were an ASB who were given the the universe as it existed in OTL 1750 and got 100 copies of this universe to play with, and simply let these 100 copies randomly play out, each in their own way, in how many of them, by 1850, would have a Polish-Lithuanian independent state still existing, and how many would we not?

They were almost certain, the partition plans existed since Treaty of Radnot, and in times more relevant to the topic they were brought up during III Great Northern War and during Elizabeth Romanov's reign in Russia, and the population was concerned mostly with preventing their King from having any real power in the country and shitting on monarchy itself, in the eyes of PLC nobility anything could be absolutism, for example there was Sejm in 1744 convened with general intention of extending the army. That was the aim, that theoretically most of nobility supported. The problem was:
a) nobility was so naive and trusting (it was not the case of bad education, a lot of them were well-educated and bright) that they mostly supported projects which were intended as flawed by their own creators, designed to keep PLC's army still weak, and nobility thought they are completely valid
b) even that support was quickly rescinded when Frederick II of Prussia designed the series of pamphlets threatening that that rise of army is introduction of absolutism and hereditary throne and nobility rescinded it's support on basis of: "trust me bro"
c) even if it didn't, the liberum veto law enabling one House of Envoys (lower house of Sejm) member to annull whole Sejm and make it moot, and Russians were hellbent of making their agents use it in order to fuck up the Sejm
And the root of it was absolutely genius idea - "we have society which thinks that monarchy is evil and entirely dedicated to making throne absolute and hereditary which is evil so we keep electing kings whom we distrust and who want their sons to succeed them (who wouldn't)",

 

[Hastings]

To be fair to Polish nobles Prussia was a vivid illustrator of how being militarized could be associated with absolutism... Of course there are more reasonable ways to try to prevent absolutism than making yourself a cooked turkey. For one thing that means some of you get the introduction of absolutism and hereditary rule Frederick warned about at the hands of the aforementioned Frederick... Eg a more British-style system. The Sejm must vote on funding, maybe some say in officers. But nothing so dysfunctional as needing unanimity. You need ability to raise an army, but there are ways hopefully to structure it to minimize the ability to viably try an autocoup.

 

[jacob ningen]

They were almost certain, the partition plans existed since Treaty of Radnot, and in times more relevant to the topic they were brought up during III Great Northern War and during Elizabeth Romanov's reign in Russia, and the population was concerned mostly with preventing their King from having any real power in the country and shitting on monarchy itself, in the eyes of PLC nobility anything could be absolutism, for example there was Sejm in 1744 convened with general intention of extending the army. That was the aim, that theoretically most of nobility supported. The problem was:
a) nobility was so naive and trusting (it was not the case of bad education, a lot of them were well-educated and bright) that they mostly supported projects which were intended as flawed by their own creators, designed to keep PLC's army still weak, and nobility thought they are completely valid
b) even that support was quickly rescinded when Frederick II of Prussia designed the series of pamphlets threatening that that rise of army is introduction of absolutism and hereditary throne and nobility rescinded it's support on basis of: "trust me bro"
c) even if it didn't, the liberum veto law enabling one House of Envoys (lower house of Sejm) member to annull whole Sejm and make it moot, and Russians were hellbent of making their agents use it in order to fuck up the Sejm
And the root of it was absolutely genius idea - "we have society which thinks that monarchy is evil and entirely dedicated to making throne absolute and hereditary which is evil so we keep electing kings whom we distrust and who want their sons to succeed them (who wouldn't)",

a way around sons is to elected childless brotherless kings who swear an oath of celibacy on assuming the throne

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

To be fair to Polish nobles Prussia was a vivid illustrator of how being militarized could be associated with absolutism... Of course there are more reasonable ways to try to prevent absolutism than making yourself a cooked turkey. For one thing that means some of you get the introduction of absolutism and hereditary rule Frederick warned about at the hands of the aforementioned Frederick... Eg a more British-style system. The Sejm must vote on funding, maybe some say in officers. But nothing so dysfunctional as needing unanimity. You need ability to raise an army, but there are ways hopefully to structure it to minimize the ability to viably try an autocoup.

Yeah and totally believing the ruler of the same militaristic Prussia that he is friend of freedoms is solution + if the "freedom" centric system had any chance to survive, the best option would be to abolish monarchy entirely and adopt Roman-style republic or American style-republic as later on Stanisław Szczęsny Potocki and Seweryn Rzewuski wanted to.

a way around sons is to elected childless brotherless kings who swear an oath of celibacy on assuming the throne

Well, in Poland primate (member of the church, archbishop of Gniezno) was interrex so maybe establishment of "permanent interregnum" and making clerical person head of goverment would suffice.

 

[raharris1973]

From 1717, when the protectorate status became factual, to the Republic being destroyed in 1795, Russia had to deploy troops to suppress uprisings (1733-1736, 1768, 1792, 1794) four times.

So, in that period, Russia had to suppress uprising #1, got a 32 year break, uprising #2, got a 24 year break, uprising #3 and got a 1 year break.

That is a faster rate of uprising than when they incorporated it into the Romanov imperium directly

After 1830, they got a 33 year break, after 1864 they got a 41 year break until 1905, then they had successful Polish breakaway in tandem with German invasion, occupation and failure of Soviet-Polish war.

I wonder which set of rebellions were more expensive to crush.

Comparing it with Soviet times, the Soviets and their local allies had initial pacification, 46-47, then disturbance/uprising managed diplomatically in 1956, then uprising 1979-80 suppressed for another decade by proxy crackdown, martial law. Soviet domination didn't last as along as Romanov, but while it lasted, its methods of repression were more efficient in some ways.

Poland and Russia from 1989 to 2024, the last 35 years, resent and oppose each other, and Poland supports Russia's enemy/victim. But rare is the shot in anger directly fired at each other. I wonder if a 35 year stretch of "peace" like this, even a Cold Peace, would have been a pretty long stretch if we compare with comparable periods of time between the first time Poland and Muscovy had a common border in 1389 and the when the PLC became a protectorate in 1717.

III Great Northern War

Which one was this, the one with Charles and Peter I and Poltava? Or was it something later?

What type of partition was discussed then, and along what lines?

during Elizabeth Romanov's reign in Russia

This was more or less 1750-1762, right?

What type of partition was discussed then, and along what lines?

If we keep the butterflies relatively contained, this means that it will need to survive whatever is the alternate equivalent of the Napoleonic Wars - and they're bound to end up involved if they aren't extinguished by 1795. Reformist Polish nobility will jump head over heels to an alliance with Napoleon if it means that they can break out of the Russian protectorate, and even if they don't, Russia will drag them into the war on the opposing side, even if indirectly. France dismantling it, or Russia dismantling it after France is defeated, are both possible options.

Absolutely, a surviving Poland would not escape the effects of Napoleon or any French conquering Army that operates at all close to his geographic scale into Central and Eastern Europe.

Even if somehow there are more butterflies and the range of French operations is more constricted to France's immediate neighborhood and the old legacy lands of Louis XIV's campaigns and Carolingian rule, Poland will still be a line of march and supply magazine for crossing Russian troops as many times as the Russians need to use it.

France dismantling it, or Russia dismantling it after France is defeated, are both possible options.

Alongside an option of it surviving but being forced by the Concert of Powers into the Holy Alliance against liberalism and radicalism, probably with border adjustments in favor of more powerful neighbors.

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Which one was this, the one with Charles and Peter I and Poltava? Or was it something later?

The one with Charles and Peter I.

What type of partition was discussed then, and along what lines?

Prussia was bound to get so-called Royal Prussia (Pomerania with Gdańska/Danzig and Ermland/Warmia) with Russia taking away chunks of eastern lands.

This was more or less 1750-1762, right?

What type of partition was discussed then, and along what lines?

Yes.

Already similar to what happened.