Could the Commonwealth become a Great Power?

Say, had Poland-Lithuania been a strong state, with it's entire history from the 15 century onwards changed, with, say, the ocean access through friendly Denmark (maybe due to same dynasty), could it aquire colonies in Africa and Asia? What would be it's chances to be a Great Power? At least have it be a Great Power in 19/early 20 century.

I'm asking from purely geopolitical standpoint. There is no need to discuss HOW it precisely became a Great Power, just if it's plausible at all, but any explanations are welcome.
 
It would need to somehow annex the Rus lands so it doesn't have an Eastern border. Then it can become a Great Power on the same basis as Russia did: shed loads of manpower. It pretty much has nothing else going for it.
 
It would need to somehow annex the Rus lands so it doesn't have an Eastern border. Then it can become a Great Power on the same basis as Russia did: shed loads of manpower. It pretty much has nothing else going for it.


What if Russia isn't annexed, but isn't able to westernize? It is basically a backwards country, whereas PLC has quite a modern army, akind to a Prussian one?
 
What if Russia isn't annexed, but isn't able to westernize? It is basically a backwards country, whereas PLC has quite a modern army, akind to a Prussian one?

Where does PLC get a modern army from? It is a backwards, agrarian economy dominated by nobility that fight any attempt of centralization, with a massive land area and long, hard to defend borders.
 
Their number one geopolitical problem is being surrounded by too many enemies which means they need a strong army and can't really focus on the navy. Still, a Sweden or Denmark style navy should be doable assuming they can afford it (which OTL no one was really interested barring one period of time). Ideally a reformed PLC should be that but on steroids since they'd have several times more population than Scandinavia combined.

In addition to Denmark, it could get ocean access through the Black Sea since it's pretty much obligatory for a Great Power PLC to subdue the Yedisan (and probably the rest of the Wild Fields) instead of anyone else. As for how they deal with the Turkish Straits, maybe they'd cut a deal with the Ottomans in exchange for assistance against Austria and leaving the Khanate of Crimea around on the peninsula itself?

Although IMO reformed Poland-Lithuania in its late 16th or most of its 17th century borders is a great power already assuming it industrialises at the same pace as, say, Italy and annexes Prussia and Courland. A more centralised government means they can actually use their manpower and build strong local institutions. While it's not the behemoth OTL Russia was in the 19th century, it's definitely at least Austria-Hungary levels of powerful.

Colonies shouldn't be too hard since TTL Poland-Lithuania should be able to own at least one or two Caribbean islands and can maybe play off Western European powers to hold onto it/get it returned after treaties. Maybe sponser lots of privateering in the Caribbean to boost local naval strength there? Same thing with Africa, OTL Courland grabbed both Tobago and coastal Gambia for a short period of time, so if the Commonwealth throws their weight behind it they should be able to grab a sugar island and a few "slave castles" which can translate into a small colonial empire in both areas.

Early 20th century Poland-Lithuania would have a sizable population, a small colonial empire (an African colony, a Caribbean island or two, and maybe a concession in China), and a global reach economically and militarily. It likely has enough power to keep Germany disunited, or united under favourable terms (gaining Upper Silesia would be very helpful). The main enemy is still Russia which at this point would be stronger than ever and probably allied with one or more of Poland-Lithuania's enemies.
It would need to somehow annex the Rus lands so it doesn't have an Eastern border. Then it can become a Great Power on the same basis as Russia did: shed loads of manpower. It pretty much has nothing else going for it.
Russia is obviously a major threat, but they can keep Russia occupied in plenty of other ways besides totally destroying the Russians. Even though this means they'd need strong diplomacy with the Turks (meaning no Yedisan) since the only other real ally they'd get is Sweden. Sweden is probably their best ally in theory since they can solve overlapping claims on Livonian claims and they both face a major problem in the form of Russia.
Where does PLC get a modern army from? It is a backwards, agrarian economy dominated by nobility that fight any attempt of centralization, with a massive land area and long, hard to defend borders.
Land borders are a mix of rivers and swamps on the east and a decent amount of mountains on the west, so the defensive situation isn't quite as bad as it looks. And the size of the country is another advantage defensively since they can trade land for time to prepare.

It's just there needs to be that centralisation and not letting foreigners interfere in domestic politics. Have it end up something like the Habsburg monarchy or at worst, the Habsburg monarchy of the late 19th century.
 
Nope. It's in too bad of a location.
It isn't like Austria is much better yet it was Hapsburg Austria that became a great power and not Hungary, Bohemia, or Bavaria.

There's plenty of room to cripple Russia and in that time start reforming the Commonwealth so that when Russia actually does rise the PLC has enough breathing room to fight back. The majority of the PLC's problems were self-inflicted by their own governmental structures and said problems could be mitigated.

That's not to minimize the role in outside aggression, but the PLC does make a good ally for any of its neighbors in their own struggles and for Sweden in particular is somewhat of a natural ally (although there is the whole Livonia situation to consider) since Russian aggression threatens them both and of the two, Russia is a far worse enemy long-term. They're arguably also a good ally of the Ottomans since as that empire weakens mainly at the hands of Austria they can back them in exchange for recognizing PLC acquisition of the Jedisan and getting some deal with the Turkish Straits.

As for later development they have plenty of coal (although acquiring Silesia for the huge amount of coal there helps or at the very least keeping it out of Austrian hands), rivers for hydropower, and are a breadbasket of the world.
 
It isn't like Austria is much better yet it was Hapsburg Austria that became a great power and not Hungary, Bohemia, or Bavaria.

There's plenty of room to cripple Russia and in that time start reforming the Commonwealth so that when Russia actually does rise the PLC has enough breathing room to fight back. The majority of the PLC's problems were self-inflicted by their own governmental structures and said problems could be mitigated.

That's not to minimize the role in outside aggression, but the PLC does make a good ally for any of its neighbors in their own struggles and for Sweden in particular is somewhat of a natural ally (although there is the whole Livonia situation to consider) since Russian aggression threatens them both and of the two, Russia is a far worse enemy long-term. They're arguably also a good ally of the Ottomans since as that empire weakens mainly at the hands of Austria they can back them in exchange for recognizing PLC acquisition of the Jedisan and getting some deal with the Turkish Straits.

As for later development they have plenty of coal (although acquiring Silesia for the huge amount of coal there helps or at the very least keeping it out of Austrian hands), rivers for hydropower, and are a breadbasket of the world.
If you give the PLC (European) Russia, it could pull off being a great power, but it would cease being the PLC. Austria worked, to the extent it did because it was protected by mountain rangers. The PLC has the misfortune of being on a vast plain.
 
It would need to somehow annex the Rus lands so it doesn't have an Eastern border. Then it can become a Great Power on the same basis as Russia did: shed loads of manpower. It pretty much has nothing else going for it.
By the time the Russian state “does not have an Eastern border” (arguably, end of the XVII if one ignores border with China), occupation by the PLC is, optimistically, extremely unlikely (Tsardom already got a piece of the PLC territory). OTOH, when such an occupation was possible, “loads of manpower” were not there: serious growth started in the late XVIII.

As far as the term “Great Power” is involved, formally, it was post-Napoleonic, which would make the whole OP ASB. But informally the PLC of the late XVI - early XVII was the “regional power” so perhaps if it manages to maintain this status for a longer time this probably can be an answer. It just does not have to “progress” into the constitutional anarchy and maintain the reasonable military reforms to keep up with the current developments.
 
What if Russia isn't annexed, but isn't able to westernize? It is basically a backwards country, whereas PLC has quite a modern army, akind to a Prussian one?

This could be accompolished by strangling Peter the Great in his cradle, but I think that would've only delayed Westernization. By this time, Russia had already expanded eastwards towards and into Siberia and Peter's reforms weren't the first liberal reforms in Russian history. Feodor III had already implemented some reforms, such as abolishing military appointments by nobility and replacing them with appointments by merit.

Russia feasibly cannot rule the territory that it did in OTL without reforming at least to some degree. Another power has to claim Siberia for itself if Russia is to be completely backwards.

I don't see how the Commonwealth can have a Prussian-style army. The Commonwealth, while it's cavalry were a force to be reckoned with, never had a strong military tradition. It certainly didn't live up to Voltaire's description of Prussia as being 'a army with a state'. Also, as others have said, the nobility are going to be a big problem. The king couldn't go to war without the nobility giving the funds necessary to support said war. The King has to be an absolute monarch, in my opinion, for the Commonwealth to get a shot at being a proper Great Power. Maybe if Poland had performed better earlier in the Thirteen Year War and Casimir IV was able to resist giving powers over to the nobility, though he was a liberal, so he probably would've done it, regardless of how his country performed in the TYW.
 
This could be accompolished by strangling Peter the Great in his cradle, but I think that would've only delayed Westernization. By this time, Russia had already expanded eastwards towards and into Siberia and Peter's reforms weren't the first liberal reforms in Russian history. Feodor III had already implemented some reforms, such as abolishing military appointments by nobility and replacing them with appointments by merit.

Russia feasibly cannot rule the territory that it did in OTL without reforming at least to some degree. Another power has to claim Siberia for itself if Russia is to be completely backwards.

I don't see how the Commonwealth can have a Prussian-style army. The Commonwealth, while it's cavalry were a force to be reckoned with, never had a strong military tradition. It certainly didn't live up to Voltaire's description of Prussia as being 'a army with a state'. Also, as others have said, the nobility are going to be a big problem. The king couldn't go to war without the nobility giving the funds necessary to support said war. The King has to be an absolute monarch, in my opinion, for the Commonwealth to get a shot at being a proper Great Power. Maybe if Poland had performed better earlier

I would not define Peter’s activities as “liberal reforms” but modernization of the Russian army started in 1630 (first “soldier regiments”) and in 1681 there were 33 western-style infantry regiments (61,000) and 25 dragoon and reitar regiments (29,000). Of course, strangling Peter in his cradle would be a major bonus for Russia giving it a chance for the reforms to be continued in a more natural and less wasteful way.

Siberia was under the Russian control by the late XVII (actually, earlier) and the only meaningful competition was with China regarding Far East and settled by Nerchinsk Treaty. It does not look like China was capable/willing to expand into even these territories because by mid-XIX (Aigun Treaty) they remained practically unpopulated.

Creating “Prussian style army” is rather meaningless: which one? Army of the Old Fritz - mid-XVIII is too late because Russia is already an empire (and, with all their deficiencies, Russians are beating Prussians) and the PLC is already a joke. Even an army of the Great Elector (mid-XVII) would be too late for the task: it could accomplish some field victories but not a conquest on a needed scale. The only realistic opening was during the ToT when the Prussian army was not a model of anything. At that time the PLC did not need to modernize its army (but surely needed to do something about its financing) because it lost politically.
 
Last edited:
If you give the PLC (European) Russia, it could pull off being a great power, but it would cease being the PLC. Austria worked, to the extent it did because it was protected by mountain rangers. The PLC has the misfortune of being on a vast plain.
It's protected by large rivers and swamps on the eastern border and has some of those exact same mountains on the southwestern border. There is no need for European Russia, at least not much more than the 16th century borders at absolute most. It isn't the best position, but not one guaranteed to result in disaster assuming they keep the edge over Russia in terms of infrastructure, technology, and simply being able to utilise their own significant manpower. It's also one that requires diplomacy just as much as skilled military.
 
It's protected by large rivers and swamps on the eastern border and has some of those exact same mountains on the southwestern border. There is no need for European Russia, at least not much more than the 16th century borders at absolute most. It isn't the best position, but not one guaranteed to result in disaster assuming they keep the edge over Russia in terms of infrastructure, technology, and simply being able to utilise their own significant manpower. It's also one that requires diplomacy just as much as skilled military.
The eastern border was constantly in flux, and rivers can be crossed. None of those rivers held back the Golden Horde in it heyday, and technology and skill at breaching rivers only got better from there. Suggesting that the PLC having mountains to its south is i anyway comparable to archducal Austria, Bohemia, and classical Hungary having Mountains basically on three sides is ridiculous.
 
Have the Swedish Vasa's take over. Perhaps Gustav Adolph concentrates on PLC instead of interceding in the 30 Years War.
You'd still need to bring the great magnates to heel, but that can be done gradually, under strong centralising leaders.
 
The eastern border was constantly in flux, and rivers can be crossed. None of those rivers held back the Golden Horde in it heyday, and technology and skill at breaching rivers only got better from there. Suggesting that the PLC having mountains to its south is i anyway comparable to archducal Austria, Bohemia, and classical Hungary having Mountains basically on three sides is ridiculous.
And yet those mountains remained borders of Poland for 400 years, then were borders of Galicia, came back in 1918, and are still there to large extent
 
Have the Swedish Vasa's take over. Perhaps Gustav Adolph concentrates on PLC instead of interceding in the 30 Years War.
You'd still need to bring the great magnates to heel, but that can be done gradually, under strong centralising leaders.
I would rather say no Vasas at all. Without them, PLC could have one less enemy
 
I would rather say no Vasas at all. Without them, PLC could have one less enemy
There is other option-Johan III Vasa has not one but two sons with Catherine Jagiellon-one is more-or-less Sigismund III, while other is male version of Anna Vasa, including religious views and relationship with brother-IOTL Sigismund and Anna liked each other despite religious differences. Thus thrones of PLC and Sweden are split peacefully between two branches of Vasas and at least as long as brothers are alive PLC and Sweden are allied.
 
I would rather say no Vasas at all. Without them, PLC could have one less enemy
Agreed. PLC "relations" with the Swedes were always a bit... problematic, best example of course being Charles X Gustavus's incursion during the Second Northern War. I've read that the level of destruction was comparable, proportionately, to that of 1939-1945, if not worse... yikes. And then there was the mercurial Charles XII's adventure through Lithuania, Russia, and the Polish Kresy in the GNW... but, neither of them were Vasas. An early link between the PLC and the Swedes may have been to some advantage, but the problem with a hereditary monarchy linked to a foreign household is always that if there's no direct successor, the throne could pass agnatically to an heir who cares only about the "home country", and not at all about the PLC.
Also, didn't the successive Vasas tend to veer wildly from being fanatical Protestants, to Catholic restorationists, and back? Seems like a bad fit for the generally religiously-tolerant PLC. Could be solved with a religiously-consistent "cadet branch" of the Vasas I suppose, but you'd probably have to invent one...
 

Deleted member 109224

How about they avoid the second and third partitions and proceed to ally with Napoleon?
 
Top