Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
1910 - Map of Lithuania-Poland by GTD-Orion 1910 - Map of Lithuania-Poland by GTD-Orion
The Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania was, historically, inefficient and unequal. That brought its demise in 1795, after the third partition of Poland-Lithuania.

This map, however, shows a slightly different/alternate Commonwealth of Two Nations. In it, the Commonwealth started out entirely equally- Poland was not the superior member of the commonwealth, but instead all of its states ( as shown in the map ) had a saying in governing matters. There was no fixed capital ( the temporary ruling states kept shifting the capitals between each other; for example, for 4 years the capital would be Vilnius, then Warsaw for the next 4 years, then Kiev, and etc. ), and the ruler of the nation was usually elected from one of the commonwealth's states, and not some foreign nation. Due to its government's increased efficiency and general content among its people, the Commonwealth of Both Nations managed to survive up until modern day ( or at least 1910, as the map shows ), and preserve its borders relatively unchanged.

In this alternate timeline, the cultures of the Commonwealth's component states were generally preserved in their own territories, and population was the largest in Europe throughout most of the commonwealth's existance.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner Mar 26, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I think the Commonwealth could only have survived intact if it saved the Poles in Silesia from the Austrians...The Austrians do remember that they have claims to Auschwitz, Siewierz and Zator as well as the parts of Slovakia so some partition of Poland is inevitable, I think Poland would have lost Krakow to Austrians that is if it does not annex back a majority of Silesia, for me for the Commonwealth to Survive it needs to get back both Silesia and Prussia which would only happen if PLC allied with Russia not Austria.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
If we only created Republic of Three nations with Ukraine too... Things would be much different. -.-
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013
Polska nigdy nie była republiką. To była Rzeczpospolita i to zasadnicza różnica (po ang. Commonwealth). To był właściwie nasz i niepowtarzalny twór, coś na wzór republiki, ale z królem na czele. Rebuliki tego czasu miały władców bez takiego tytułu, chociażby Republika Wenecji z Dożą na czele.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Polska miała ustrój mieszany republiki i monarchii. Zwłaszcza po Nihil Novi.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
No, a właśnie ten ustrój nazywano Rzeczpospolitą. Coś podobnego było w Anglii za czasów Cromwela "The Commonwealth". Jako wspólne państwo Anglii, Szkocji i Irlandii. Co nie zmienia faktu ze Rzeczpospolita nie była republiką.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wytłumacz fakt że aż do dwudziestolecia międzywojennego słowo rzeczpospolita używano zamiennie do republika np: Rzeczpospolita Francuska etc.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013
Nie? Republika Francuska, nie Rzeczpospolita. Rzeczpospolitą jedynie jak wspomniałem nazywano jeszcze Anglię za czasów Cormwella, nic więcej.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Nie chcę cię zanudzać ale nawet łacina o tym świadczy. Rzecz pospolita to dosłowne tłumaczenie słów res publica. Poczytaj może też trochę Jasienicy.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2013
Nie, Rzeczpospolita była kreowana jak republika, ale była zupełnie czymś innym, republiki powstawały i upadały dlatego po łacinie Rzeczpospolitą nazywano Res Publica Serenissima. Nie tłumacz rzeczy dosłownie, a zwłaszcza rzeczy dotyczących historii. To bardziej skomplikowane niż nam obydwu się wydaje. Dobrze wiem, że to tak brzmi w tłumaczeniu, ale dlatego nazywano ją Rzeczpospolitą, anie Republiką, bo władcą, był Król i nie miała to być "Republika" jak inne, w których i tak władcy robili co chcieli, tylko na prawdę miała być dla ludu, szlachty, wszystkich religii i narodów. Co z nią potem się stało to już inna sprawa. Ale warto uszanować twórców Rzeczpospolitej.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner May 7, 2012  Professional Digital Artist
I think Lithuania and Poland should had not been under Personal union, I believe had that not happened Poland would had been a part of an Austria-Hungary or it's equivalent instead.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013
Poland wasn't a part of Austria-Hungary. After the participation of the Commonwealth they've stolen olny a small part of Poland: Galicia and Cracow.
Reply
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
What I was telling is if Poland never entered into a union with Lithuania, a union with Hungary is most likely.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
Hm? Did you hear about Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Only in Medieval age Poland was in ally with Hungary, in later times we was with lituania a personal union and in later times we was a one country (without mentioning the fact, that every nobleman was polish-blood, and the lithuanian speaking noblemans were in a very small group).
Reply
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Many Lithuanian nobles got Polonized so in modern times that is why the Lithuanians hate it and aside from that the fact is that the Jagiellonians nor the ones elected by the Szlachta were not the rightful heirs of Casimir III and Wladyslaw the Elbowhigh and their rightful heirs are the Hohenzollerns and that was the reason why the Hohenzollern seized Silesia and partitioned the PLC when they got the opportunity, the Hohenzollerns just wanted to get back and rule what the Szlachta and the Habsburgs denied them but at that time they became too german minded.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013
Silesia was the other story. Lithuanian had nothing to do with it. When Poland after the rule of Bolesław Krzywousty was participated between his sons the son, who ruled Silesia didn't want to accept the rule of other brother in Cracow, so he joined the Holy Empire of German Nation, it was before Jagiellons on Polish throne...
Reply
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I forgot to say when the Silesian Piasts ruled Poland, Poland was allied with Germany ruled by the Hohenstauffen and Kievan Rus.
Reply
:iconkryszak77:
kryszak77 Featured By Owner Mar 10, 2013
Poland conquered Kievian Rus and since the the rule of Bolesław Chrobry we hated each other till Kievian Rus fully was anihilated by Poland, then they become poles speaking rus language, and the rest of their "nobility" became cossacs, guardians of southern-east borders of Poland. In XVII cenutry they stood up in arms becouse Szlachta didn't want to tolerate their rights.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconkazumikikuchi:
kazumikikuchi Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Silesia joined the HRE on 1335, because the dukes there supported the Luxembourgs in their claims to the Polish crown, actually Silesia would have been likely returned in the same way as Mazovia if Jogaila did not have a fight with Wladyslaw Opolczyk.
Reply
:iconhiddenlordghost:
HiddenLordGhost Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2011
Uhm , 'liberum veto' is a worst idea ever.
When it started , started end of Commonwealth.
And it's idea of all nobles in CW.

About sweden flood i say only one - Radziwił was a traitor and coward.
BTW
You do a nice map.
Bye.
Reply
:iconfestine:
festine Featured By Owner Mar 3, 2015
Actually Liberum Veto was good idea at first. It just didn't evolved when it stopped making sense. This was a mean to stop despotic king from abusing their subjects. Also it meant a lot in situation when members of parliament got no mandate to make any decisions by themselves but were only relying the will of their electors. Later on when Polish parliament got more power and role of the king was only to name few officials the real despot was like in modern times the parliament. And without proper executive or justice legs of government it was prone for abuse of power. And that's what happened. Nevertheless here is first true democratic government with some flaws indeed but democracy cannot stand without support against despotic opposition and the partition of commonwealth is just the example of it.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Actually if there were no Liberum Veto but there was Nihil Novi that would mean that CW is de facto democracy.
Reply
:iconretartacus:
Retartacus Featured By Owner May 27, 2011  Hobbyist Artist
I like you you see poland is a bunch of BSers and Lithuanians should be top not poland and the other Baltic 'states' should bepart of the Lithuania.
Reply
Flagged as Spam
:icongtd-orion:
GTD-Orion Featured By Owner Jan 21, 2011
No, it IS Poland's fault. And the fault of Liberum Veto, and polish noble's incompetence on electing foreign royalty as kings of the commonwealth. The partitions were done by three surrounding neighboring nations that Warsaw didn't manage to ally with or do anything decent enough to prevent the partitions. Lastly, the partitions happened in the later half of the XVIII century.

And although LEGALLY the grand duchy was equal to Poland, in practice it was not. Poland always abused Lithuania, barely helped, if at all helped, during various wars that ravaged through the nation. We beat back the swedes and russians from our territories on our own, while the polish half of the commonwealth was too busy stealing credit for the commonwealth's and lithuania's achievements.

Such bullshit is popular today in Poland- stealing credit for everything Lithuania did.

This map was, however, meant to be an utopian alternate version of the commonwealth, in which the nations were equal in practice, and thus such people like you, who want the commonwealth to be one-sided, are frowned upon.
Reply
:icontobiasvontobiasov:
TobiasVonTobiasov Featured By Owner Oct 14, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Polish nobels? All magnateria (rich noblemans) were from Lithuania. Also Poland was more modern country than Lithuania. And at least if there were no Poles, Lithuania would easyly be partitioned betwen Russia and Teutonic Order.
Reply
:iconcrimson033:
Crimson033 Featured By Owner Oct 12, 2011
OK, not to argue about the history 9tto much ;) ), but there is some bias in your fantasies: where are Belarussians? Oh, I forgot, 10 milion people vanished and became lithuanians. Just like that! what a glorious union. Shame, that such a wonderfull country couldn't maintain its borders alone in reality. I wonder what would happen to it if it didn't allied itself with Poland? Today how big it is? 3 milion vis a vis 38? Do you need so much lebensraum? :P

If you want to badmouth the noble republic you should know that it was destroyed in 1604 when last rokosz of middle class noblity failed to crush magnateria. And last chance of not deteriorating was lost in 1592 when Sigismund III wasn't "impeached". If not for this Commonwealth had chance to evolve into true republic, especially if you realize that till 1630 highest offices were held by superb statesmans - also of lithuanian origin. Check "De otimo senatore", which was read by Locke and Founding Fathers. And don't pretend that lithuanian nobility didn't took part in destroying Commonwealth.
Reply
:icongtd-orion:
GTD-Orion Featured By Owner Oct 13, 2011
...what the hell are you talking about? I'm too tired to argue over this anymore...

Firstly, the original Lithuania was that- of Lithuanians. In the late Commonwealth era most "Lithuanian" nobles there were Belarusian, so it's the Belarusian nobles that are to blame. And ESPECIALLY the poles, who had dominant power despite what the Union of Lublin and so on stated.

Secondly, the 10 million Belarusians you know today weren't 10 million back then, and Lithuanians lived in a way larger territory than they do now. I'm pretty certain that during the era of Nationalism, that was in the 19th century when the Commonwealth was already gone, Lithuanians would have expanded into dominating the Grand Duchy of Lithuania territory, while the Ruthenians, as the people in most of the modern day Belarus were called, would move to the Ruthenian dominated Ukraine of this map ( should have named it Ruthenia, or Rus, but whatever... ), and have their own domain within the Commonwealth, as would all the nations shown on this map.

Thirdly, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was a failed project from the start. It shouldn't have ever existed, and has, frankly, done more harm than good for us, while you Poles started getting weird ideas how Vilnius and the like are SUPPOSEDLY yours... We could have survived on our own. It's a pity that the rising Belarusian nobility, blinded by Polish lies and glitter, decided to create the commonwealth. End of story.

Lastly, this is a rather old map, compared to my newer ones. But if you really want to get annoyed by more of the things I made, do check the "Wilno wilno wilno...", "Chickenzpospolita Polska" and "Presidential Palace" images in my gallery - AND take them seriously ( even though they're just for fun/jokes ), like all the other Poles managed to...
Reply
:iconcrimson033:
Crimson033 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2011
Ah, last thing my friend: it's just comical how you are able to justify your vision and put it on the map. Lithuania takes biggest chunk of country (becuase belarussians weren't able to become belarussians), then there is Ukriane and little Poland somehwere on west, being like half of what it is today, just a little bigger than Latvia/Livonia :D It shows so much of your attiutde towards this nation.
Reply
:iconcrimson033:
Crimson033 Featured By Owner Oct 24, 2011
It's funny. I argued about something and I happened not to agree with your point of view. So OBVIOUSLY I have to be Pole, because only this can explain this. Have you checked term "prejudice" in dictionary?

You know what, believe it or not but Poles are regretting having union with you too. You now why? Because, as they view it, instead of taking care of their state within its natural geopolitical environment, they were constantly involved on east defending the territory which didn't belonged to them, whereas lithuanians were kicking them in their balls (and yes, they aknowledge the fact that the union was not particularly fortunate for other nations). In result the lands which were polish before were lost and nothing was gained. And general attitude is more or less like this "next time-leave them (lithuanians) alone, let the russians, swedes or whatever eat the bastards".

Anyway its typicall for minor and lesser nations to have illusions of great destiny which was taken away from them. Lithuanians, Poles, Hungarians, Serbs and Albanians are the most notorious in that regard. "If only X didn't happen if only we didn't listen to Y then we would be power!". No you wouldn't. Get. Over. It.

But maps indeed nice you have.
Reply
:icongtd-orion:
GTD-Orion Featured By Owner Oct 25, 2011
No, I haven't checked the term "prejudice" in a dictionary, because I know what it means. However, I have checked your profile, and it's written there that you're from Poland. That's why you're a Pole.

It's typical polish behavior too, though, that says that you're a Pole. Because only Poles can either praise the Commonwealth, or hate it entirely. And, in both cases, for irrational reasons, like you wrote now.

Your semi-last paragraph is typical for a chauvinist, by the way. You can look that up in a dictionary. The increase of chauvinism in Poland is almost frightening...

P.S. Your "little Poland" is composed of its historical lands, minus Galicia, which is a part of today's Ukraine. As for Ukraine, it's exactly as it was during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth era, just not a part of the Crown of Poland. I'm afraid you misunderstood this map entirely.
Reply
:iconcrimson033:
Crimson033 Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
Yeah well I LIVE in Poland, I'm NOT Pole. That's a small yet significant difference, 'cause I'm German by nationality. So...yeah.

You constantly try to view my comments as agressive or whatever, but I assure you they are not. I just find your replies funny and want to respond equally funny, that's all.

First of all you lithuanize belarussians (ruthenians) and claim that it is good, but later you are accusing Poles of polonizing others and ruthenizing lithuanians (or something like that?). Then you try to build map for alternative history in which you are relying on todays nation/state divisons-for instance you claim that Galicia isn't polish because well... now it isn't (whereas over century ago around 2/3 of population there was polish). By the same token my country could claim that Silesia or Pozen is German! Oh, yeah-and give us back Memel :)

I know that this is licencia poetica of your alternative history, but that with connection to your reactions, comments and so on... it's just bugs me. This lack of consistency is hillarious.

Just look at your justification for borders of Poland-OK, that sounds reasonable to some degree and just. But how about using the same principles to your precious Lithuania? As far as I know "historically" your country was where it is today (wiki tells truth, right? Or maybe some Poles have put lies there too?). The Duchy of Lithuania resided where Lithuania is in contemporary Europe. As far as I know you basically counquered the rest of the territories. So... yeah. Maybe that's your intention and view-that the problem wasn't in mistreatment of other nations or lack of stable government or army, but in growth of Poland beyond its core provinces, strangling other nationalities. And you fixed that with your map. However as I said - this in connection with your comments rather shows a need for compensation for "unjsut" history rather than attempt at creating a "good" Commonwealth, becuase you are not implementing this rule to Lithuania.

Basically you didn't checked what is "historicall" for other nations, you just arbitrally assumed that using this map: [link] from wiki. You compared contemporary and previous borders and just drow couple of new lines. Maybe if your research was a little bigger you would see, that "historicall" borders for Prussia were different, as well as for Ukraine. Also Poland was a little bit different looking. The only country which didn't changed its borders much from its medieval times is...well, yours. I wonder why? Perhaps if instead of "ruthenization" of belarussians a "lithuanization" was more successfull this would end up differently, huh?

Oh you nationalist bigots, you never cease to amaze me. And of course it is me that is chaunvinist, who is pointing out that you just eliminated belarussians for no reason from your glorious Commonwealth. My comment about "illusions of greater destiny" was against your worldview. You think that it was wrong that X happened and you are compensating for that creating maps of your dreamland which is as unjust as previous Commonwealth. It is an effect of being abused by other nations in past, but it still is pathethic and wrong. Such a sad thing in united Europe.

And as for "chauvinism in Poland"-again it is hillarious. Because you see, Poles think that Germans have become more chauvnistic after unification. Where are proofs of that they cannot tell however. Yet in the same time in newspapers I can read about discriminatory practicies against russian minority in Lithuania. Oh, yeah-and against Poles too. I heard that case can be pursued against you in european courts. But I cannot find similar accusations against Poland. If they are chauvinists, they should mistreat their minorities too right? Yet no one comnplains.

From my perspective it is Lithuania who has problems with tollerance and acceptance of reality, hence my comment against prejudices and nationalism of minor nations. Get. Over. It. Otherwise there is no place for you in united Europe. But then maybe that's what you want.
Reply
:iconcrimson033:
Crimson033 Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2011
w8, now I get it why Poles are chauvinists and Lithuanians not. You wrote: "I have checked your profile, and it's written there that you're from Poland. That's why you're a Pole." So living in a country named X makes your nationality X. Hence for you it is normal to name Belarus Lithuania and claim that belarussians are Lithuanians and you cannot fathom why Russians and Poles in contemporary Lithuania do not want to aknowledge that. Therefore you perceive as chauvinist those countries which are doing exact opposite-allowing minorities to coexist. Very clever sir!
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download PNG 1280 × 1007




Details

Submitted on
January 18, 2011
Image Size
929 KB
Resolution
1280×1007
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
4,915 (2 today)
Favourites
52 (who?)
Comments
41
Downloads
75

License

Creative Commons License
Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
×