Poland-Lithuania had a lot of similarities with the HRE; an elected monarch, a powerful nobility, and a weak central power. So why did the HRE produce powerful players like Brandenburg, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Savoy etc, while the nobility in PL outside Prussia and Livonia failed to make their estates into statelets and later state in their full right. It was not like there wasn’t potential for it, the duchy of Masovia came halfway there and Silesia did better but ended up absorbed as result.
Why did Poland-Lithuania not splinter in a similar way to the HRE
- Thread starter Jürgen
- Start date
Remember that Silesia and Masovia's periods of greater autonomy largely came before the union between Poland and Lithuania, in a context of general frgamentation of the Polish lands.
Last edited:
The comparisons between HRE and the Republic (Poland-Lithuania) are superficial. Probably the biggest difference is that Polish and Lithuanian magnates did not rule through titles (like "Duke of X", "Count of X", etc.) that encouraged consolidation of lands into quasi-state structures and then real state structures. The only such titles held by magnates were those awarded by foreign states for service, and domestic landed titles never arose because the fundamental idea of nobility was that all nobles, at least theoretically, are equal - landed or unlanded, wealthy or poor, they all, in principle, had the same rights and duties before the crown. The Imperial Diet represented titled landholders, but the Sejm represented all nobility, including the unlanded.
Granted, to an extent there was fragmentation. Magnates would go to war with each other within Republic territory and even independently waged foreign wars (the Polish invasion of Russia in support of False Dmitry in 1605, most famously). They often had private armies that overwhelmed central armies and used these armies to force their will, extract concessions, or refuse to pay taxes.
But I've always kind of liked the daimyo comparison more than the Holy Roman Empire comparison. Szlachta and samurai have some pretty interesting similarities, or at least szlachta is more alike samurai than any other European nobility (from their large number, to the vast number of impoverished nobles who essentially lived as peasants or as soldiers for their more powerful peers, to fragmentation that is more based on the hereditary lands of families rather than inheritance of titles...)
Granted, to an extent there was fragmentation. Magnates would go to war with each other within Republic territory and even independently waged foreign wars (the Polish invasion of Russia in support of False Dmitry in 1605, most famously). They often had private armies that overwhelmed central armies and used these armies to force their will, extract concessions, or refuse to pay taxes.
But I've always kind of liked the daimyo comparison more than the Holy Roman Empire comparison. Szlachta and samurai have some pretty interesting similarities, or at least szlachta is more alike samurai than any other European nobility (from their large number, to the vast number of impoverished nobles who essentially lived as peasants or as soldiers for their more powerful peers, to fragmentation that is more based on the hereditary lands of families rather than inheritance of titles...)
Vassal ducal dynasties mostly died out before creation of PLC-Piasts of Mazovia and Bełz died out, Gediminid Duke of Volhynia (Švitrigaila, Jogaila's brother) left no surviving issue, while in Livonia and Prussia ducal families were German and Lutheran.
Prussia and Livonia were made top down by the King and former Grand Masters of Teutonic Order. Although if Prussians Hohenzollerns survived and took Polish throne at some point (thanks to their Jagiellon blood) then at some point they could use Ducal Prussia as leverage.
Technically there were the "internal" titles of prince among the polish-lithuanian noblemen, reserved for the descendants of either Gediminids or Rurikids. But yeah, these were rather honourable titles. At some point prince Bogusław Radziwiłł tried to form his country during the Swedish Deluge, but that was rather a singular exception.
Well, at times Grand Duchy of Lithuania was dominated by single magnate family (Pac during Sobieski's reign, then Sapieha).
Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702) - Wikipedia
True, I just meant the official secessions.Well, at times Grand Duchy of Lithuania was dominated by single magnate family (Pac during Sobieski's reign, then Sapieha).
Lithuanian Civil War (1697–1702) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
My understanding was that the magnates didn't have the ability to field substantial private armies indefinitely because they lacked the ability/authority to tax which rested with the Sejm. Whereas the princes in the HRE, especially after Westphalia had the ability to tax, even without needing the approval of the territorial/local estates as they could raise troops in the name of 'Imperial defense' and levy taxes accordingly.
Yes, but they still had enough power to essentially ignore royal authority and wage wars and foreign expeditions.
Still its an important distinction, no? If the question is about fragmentation in one state but not another. Where as in Poland the magnates operated more on the basis of clientalism in raising troops which were then put into national service (at least nominally to allow them to be paid by taxes set by the Sejm) and the military office was national in character (the Hetmans) even if often acting at cross purposes to the King, in the HRE the princes were specifically territorial rulers with significant authority to raise and fund their own armies. There was no national Imperial army or significant Imperial military office (the death of Wallenstein and the Peace of Prague essentially ended the hope of an Imperial army and discredited the idea of a powerful Imperial army commander). The armies were either raised and commanded by individual princes or amalgamated from smaller units by the Kreise.
Well... yes. Like I said in my first post, the different approach to nobility and the relationship between crown and nobility in the Republic meant that the land holdings of magnates did not transform into titled quasi-state and then state structures, which could then replicate the HRE in becoming a patchwork of essentially independent states with their own laws, taxes, armies, etc. When Poland and Lithuania both still had titled vassals (the aforementioned Mazovia, or the various duchies/principalities in Lithuania before they were disbanded by Vytautas and his successors), they too were territorial rulers with their own taxation and armies.
Volhynia could remain vassal duchy of GDL if Švitrigaila' s son survived. Still, existence of his line would likely butterfly away formation of PLC.
Yes, but there was difference between them which is crucial - PLC was operating on basis that nobility is in theory equal to each other and even biggest magnates didn't really want to change it post Union of Lublin, which in turn prevented magnates from openly flaunting their regional supremacy.
The Holy Roman Empire Of the German Nation. While we like to think of HRE as some kind of failed nation, modern historians have done much to remove such ideas.
While we like to think of HRE as some kind of failed nation, modern historians have done much to remove such ideas.
On the other hand, for sometime quite powerful, the commonwealth was at first simply the union of two crowns, and even after becoming united, it remained as such.
The magnates of the commonwealth had made the kingship of the kingdom quite hallow and without much power, nor was it respected.
Meanwhile, while the empire had conflict, most of it was handled in court, and the position of the emperorship had a great deal of respect.
Another thing was the fact that empire lasted for almost thousands of years only to be destroyed by its own emperor rather than let Napoleon be crowned.
The land of the commonwealth was also mostly that of the Russian principalities that Lithuania had conquered, and with the rise of Russia, they had a strong contender with the goal of annexing their territory.
The land of the commonwealth was also mostly that of the Russian principalities that Lithuania had conquered, and with the rise of Russia, they had a strong contender with the goal of annexing their territory.
While we like to think of HRE as some kind of failed nation, modern historians have done much to remove such ideas.
On the other hand, for sometime quite powerful, the commonwealth was at first simply the union of two crowns, and even after becoming united, it remained as such.
The magnates of the commonwealth had made the kingship of the kingdom quite hallow and without much power, nor was it respected.
Meanwhile, while the empire had conflict, most of it was handled in court, and the position of the emperorship had a great deal of respect.
Another thing was the fact that empire lasted for almost thousands of years only to be destroyed by its own emperor rather than let Napoleon be crowned.
The land of the commonwealth was also mostly that of the Russian principalities that Lithuania had conquered, and with the rise of Russia, they had a strong contender with the goal of annexing their territory.
The land of the commonwealth was also mostly that of the Russian principalities that Lithuania had conquered, and with the rise of Russia, they had a strong contender with the goal of annexing their territory.
In the Crown-yes, in GDL magnates were far stronger and single magnate family (Radziwiłł, Pac, Sapieha) could dominate the Duchy to degree unimaginable for even strongest families of Polish part of PLC.
They still needed to pretend that they believe in Crown ideology of all nobles are equal, and anwyays that could give only Poland-GDL split, not full HRE style split.
Just like modern dictators need to pretend, that they love democracy. Ideology alone means nothing against naked power.
Still doesn't change the fact that it could only make GDL separate state once again, not full HRE style split.