The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wins the Polish-Muscovite War of 1609-1618

[WolfBear]

What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wins the Polish-Muscovite War of 1609-1618? For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_(1609%E2%80%931618)

Sigismund's son, the Prince Władysław of Poland, was elected tsar by the Seven Boyars in September 1610, but Sigismund refused to allow his son to become the new tsar unless the Muscovites agreed to convert to Catholicism, with the pro-Polish boyars ending their support for the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. In 1611, Kuzma Minin and Prince Dmitry Pozharsky formed a new army to launch a popular revolt against the Polish occupation. The Poles captured Smolensk in June 1611 but began to retreat after they were ousted from Moscow in September 1612.[8] Michael Romanov, the son of Patriarch Filaret of Moscow, was elected Tsar of Russia in 1613, beginning the Romanov dynasty and ending the Time of Troubles. With little military action between 1612 and 1617, the war finally ended in 1618 with the Truce of Deulino, which granted the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth certain territorial concessions but preserved Russia's independence.

What if the Polish King instead decides that there does not need to be a single religion throughout his entire realm and thus allows his son to acquire the Russian throne?

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Not sure how the PLC would be able to digest a huge behemoth like Muscovy. Keep in mind that Muscovy would have also included lands that are dominated by the Tatar minority as well (Volga Tatars in this case).

I do recall seeing someone write a comment about the fears that Sigismund III Had if Wladyslaw had acquired the Russian throne. Need a refresher on that.

 

[WolfBear]

I do recall seeing someone write a comment about the fears that Sigismund III Had if Wladyslaw had acquired the Russian throne. Need a refresher on that.

Was it on this forum? Possibly @ATP?

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

Was it on this forum? Possibly @ATP?

Might have been Buba. We definitely need the Polish or Lithuanian members here to refresh our minds on Sigismund III.

 

[ATP]

Was it on this forum? Possibly @ATP?

Maybe.Sigismund III feared rightly - moscovite boyars pledget loyalty to Borys Godunow tsar son,and killed him later.
Sisigmund was good father,do not wanted his son dead.

 

[Batrix2070]

What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth wins the Polish-Muscovite War of 1609-1618? For reference:

The problem is that the question is badly posed from the beginning. The PLC won the war, it got everything it wanted.

The idea with Władisław IV Vasa on the throne of Moscow came from the Boyars and was cemented by Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, who exceeded his diplomatic powers. He did not have permission for the latter.
That's why Sigismund III was not interested ((because he got back what he wanted which was Smolensk and the surrounding area), unlike his then very young son, in the Moscow throne, and if anything he preferred that he take over the stool and not his son, with whom God only knows what the Boyars would do. And Sigismund was a good father, his sons headed by Władysław beloved by the nobility. Władysław IV Vasa is the only king in Commowealth history accepted by acclamation.
The last Tsar who tried to modernize in Western style and be in alliance with Poland was the Boyars who assassinated him.
To achieve more, no less, it is enough that Hetman Żółkiewski receive real troops in sufficient numbers to suppress the rebellion of the people of Moscow, then the Grand Duchy of Moscow will become a sham and its territory will simply break up into pieces which Poland (And others too, of course, such as Sweden) will be able to occupy one by one without much effort, which should give such Władisław IV a place where he can be a general without unnecessarily heating up the atmosphere for war with Turkey.

 

[ATP]

The problem is that the question is badly posed from the beginning. The PLC won the war, it got everything it wanted.

The idea with Władisław IV Vasa on the throne of Moscow came from the Boyars and was cemented by Hetman Stanisław Żółkiewski, who exceeded his diplomatic powers. He did not have permission for the latter.
That's why Sigismund III was not interested ((because he got back what he wanted which was Smolensk and the surrounding area), unlike his then very young son, in the Moscow throne, and if anything he preferred that he take over the stool and not his son, with whom God only knows what the Boyars would do. And Sigismund was a good father, his sons headed by Władysław beloved by the nobility. Władysław IV Vasa is the only king in Commowealth history accepted by acclamation.
The last Tsar who tried to modernize in Western style and be in alliance with Poland was the Boyars who assassinated him.
To achieve more, no less, it is enough that Hetman Żółkiewski receive real troops in sufficient numbers to suppress the rebellion of the people of Moscow, then the Grand Duchy of Moscow will become a sham and its territory will simply break up into pieces which Poland (And others too, of course, such as Sweden) will be able to occupy one by one without much effort, which should give such Władisław IV a place where he can be a general without unnecessarily heating up the atmosphere for war with Turkey.

True.Moscov was hold by cruelty or rulers,with good ruler it either kill him or cease to exist.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

So we're basically saying that Zolkiewski basically 'went above his pay grade' and conducted diplomatic overtures without the King's approval? Did he get punished for this?

 

[Batrix2070]

Did he get punished for this?

Aside from the fact that he didn't get enough troops to relieve the Polish Kremlin garrison in Moscow (And these defended themselves very long and stubbornly from the attackers), nothing happened to Żołkiewski.
It was a physical impossibility, in addition to the fact that he was reprimanded in practice there was no law forbidding him from these actions, it was impossible to pull him from the office of Hetman because a) he was a good Hetman b) in the PLC it is impossible without solid evidence of treason to pull anyone from his position. Once appointed by the King to a position, he remains in that position until his death or he resigns himself.
And given that he did not betray the Rzeczypospolita, he merely made an agreement without prior agreement with the King as to whether he agreed to send his son, and signed a deal on behalf of the King that was not favorable to Poland.
Hence, Zygmnut's further actions were to wriggle out of this deal, which became easier after the fall of the Polish garrison in the Kremlin and the election of a new tsar.