Blobhemia, Sweden OP, Poland Into Space... How farfetched were those scenarios?

[Arizal]

Hi,

While reading a book about Russia history, it made me think about repeating tropes in the EU universe. They used to be super common, but efforts are made to patch them out and to make the game believable. But... how much were things like Poland, Sweden and even Bohemia in Siberia impossible at the time?

Poland came close to dominate Muscovy, Sweden was in a good position until Peter the Great reign... Even Bohemia would (maybe) have stand a chance were the polish state destroyed by the mongols (EUIII used to start in 1399, so it made that far more likely).

I guess my true question is : how much should we offended by those alternate history scenarios and dismiss them as (ugly) anomalies?

I don't have that much to contribute to a discussion on the subject, but I hope some people will be interested in it.

 

[Aethis]

I don't think they are very realistic at all.

European countries in the EU4 timeline very rarely expanded like they do in game, they stuck to their ethnic and religious boundaries - with the exception being Russia and the Ottomans.

For a country with the size, economy and population of Bohemia to conquer and consolidate the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and Russia/Steppes would have been almost impossible without some kind of personal union or inheritance to legitimise their claims.

 

[Arilou]

European countries in the EU4 timeline very rarely expanded like they do in game, they stuck to their ethnic and religious boundaries - with the exception being Russia and the Ottomans.

Not really, it's more like the ethnic and religious borders conformed to state borders.

 

[yerm]

Most of the game's early time period's major European events resulting in dramatic border change were the result of the "chance" element of marriage and inheritance. Bohemia got the heavily short end of the stick there; different ruler legacy might have seen them a major power by the 18th century.

 

[Fishman786]

England or the Dutch getting into Siberia was more likely than a Polish or Bohemian conquest. Poland is blocked from Siberia by Russia, Bohemia is blocked by Poland and Russia. Even if Poland managed to conquer Russia they would probably be more focused on keeping control of the Russians themselves rather than sending Poles out across the east for the sake of it. In fact, piecemeal colonisation and exploration by individual Russian settlers and explorers would probably still take place.

In contrast to that, the Dutch and English had been sniffing around the Arctic sea route for some time. The rumoured northeast passage was still quite enticing (though in reality the Timur Peninsula and undiscovered Severnaya Zemlya block it) and Siberia was jam-packed with valuable resources like fur, and there was intense rivalry for control of the arctic sea trade. A great trading port had grown up at Mangazeya on the Taz river near its confluence with the Ob (with the Yenisei river accessible via portage), trafficking goods from all across northern Asia and engaging in (oft-illicit) trade with English and Dutch merchants. Fearing that the westerners could begin exerting their influence over Siberia the Tsars actually banned the use of the Northern sea route for foreigners, which actually led to the total abandonment of Mangazeya and its almost complete disappearance from the history books.

 

[HuzzButt]

A boring answer would be that Blobhemia, Sweden OP or Poland with intact borders would all be intrinsically different in if all else remains the same: A united Italy becomes Italy not simply Blobardinia.

 

[chepaeff]

As a rule, the more you get into certain history the more it becomes obvious that it was far more complex than its usually thought.

 

[Okcydent]

Some Russian Tzars were candidates to Polish throne. Ivan IV had support of PLC nobility in 1573/1575, Feodor I in 1587. Candidature of Alexis I was under consideration in 1669. In alternative history they might be chosen. That would establish Triple Union in a peaceful way. Union with free trade, freedom of movement, tolerance etc. All in 17th century. But the interests of PLC and Russia were divergent. Everything failed mainly because of religious differences (Catholics vs Orthodox).

 

[BBBD316]

I am not sure if it would have been held long term but if the Swedes had of accepted the generous peace the Russians offered the first time rather that grind their army to dust against the endless waves of peasents it may have held on to superpower status for much longer.

How this affects the Baltic as a whole would have been interesting.

 

[yerm]

Sweden simply did not have the manpower to remain a great power indefinitely. They didn't even have the kind of urbanization and economic clout the Dutch enjoyed. I think Sweden is one of the most commendable displays of doing so much with so little, really milking their military doctrines and monopolies for maximum gain. Some better choices might have helped short term, but in the long run I suspect they really needed a Scandinavian union. I think Sweden had a better chance of holding onto the Delaware than they did of keeping Russia out of the Baltic (both being almost none).