A Bulgarian Superpower? In the Name of All That is Holy, You're MAD!

. . . Well, maybe. As the resident Bulgarophile of AH.com (well, I guess--no one else has claimed the title--I don't want to usurp such a coveted position), I've always wondered how this could happen. Granted, it's fairly unlikely, but if you recall, Bulgaria was a regional superpower at least two times in its history, hundreds of years apart. The potential has always been there, but it never really has been monopolized on. So, thoughts? What, in your opinion, would be the best opportunity for Bulgaria to become a lasting power to be reckoned with in Europe?

ironram said:

. . . Well, maybe. As the resident Bulgarophile of AH.com (well, I guess--no one else has claimed the title--I don't want to usurp such a coveted position), I've always wondered how this could happen. Granted, it's fairly unlikely, but if you recall, Bulgaria was a regional superpower at least two times in its history, hundreds of years apart. The potential has always been there, but it never really has been monopolized on. So, thoughts? What, in your opinion, would be the best opportunity for Bulgaria to become a lasting power to be reckoned with in Europe?

Click to expand...

I would say have one of the Bulgarian tsars have the capability to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire but then again it would just be a Byzantine-wank.

'Regional superpower' is a contradiction in terms.

I'd agree with Fridge: "regional hegemon" or "regional power" or even "great power", but "regional superpower?"

Now, if we're talking about the TL where the Volga Bulgars ended up conquering early Varangian Russia and the Slavic nation extending from the Bug to the Pacific is called Bulgaria ....

Bruce

ironram said:

As the resident Bulgarophile of AH.com

Click to expand...

EWWWWWWWWWWWWw get away from me creep!

just jokes, be whomever you like. If you want to widen the audience for your material though can I suggest you make really awesome maps? I mean, not everyone is willing to read 10,000 words time lines of obscure nation history, but a map will sum it up and get more results faster.

I'm more into lentils...

No really, I think a Bulgaria able to fend off the Ottomans would be really interesting.

The way to get the First Bulgarian Empire to survive is to have tenth century Byzantium continue concentrating on her Eastern front, so keeping out Svistoslav (I can never spell his name!) of Kiev is probably for the best. Have the Emperors continue squabbling with the Fatimids and rump Abbasids, conquering instead of Bulgaria swathes of Mesopotamia and Palestine. When the Muslims fight back, which with Romans in Jerusalem, they will do, and Constantinople is forced to focus her attention on them, she may finally become more amenable to the idea of a peaceful Bulgaria to "guard her back". Bulgaria can then expand to the Adriatic, and maybe be granted control over Byzantine fortresses there in exchange for millitary support, as Venice was. With Adriatic ports, Bulgaria can gain from Italian wealth. This done, the Bulgars should expand north into Wallachia. By 1300, you have a Byzantine Empire that reaches almost to Baghdad and Gaza in the East, but is reduced to only the coastal regions on the Balkans. Bulgaria meanwhile controls much of old Yugoslavia, plus Bulgaria and Romania. Unashamed Orthodox-wank.

Sacking Constantinople, even under such a ruler as Symeon the Great, is entirely out of the question by the way.

I voted for Bulgaria manages to fend off the Ottomans in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although I think an earlier POD might have a stronger Bulgaria, it would probably also fall at some point, while this POD gives it a sufficient amount of time to become a superpower.

Basileus Giorgios said:

Sacking Constantinople, even under such a ruler as Symeon the Great, is entirely out of the question by the way.

Click to expand...

Your last sentence says it all- Bulgarians never had great interest in expanding north and east- their center of interest always was Constantinople at all pre-conquer-times, all other nations beeing barbarians to them and of no political and whatsoever interest (the idea of the fascist "room to live"-ideology would have been ridicolous even to mention at that time).
When referring to it they called it always "Tsarigrad", "King-City"- which tells much about their cultural picture of the world- it was almost the center of the world for them, beeing the orthodox center of christianity and the most powerful orthodox power at all. The Byzantians on the other hand saw the Bulgarians as the greatest threat to their security, so attacking them over and over again was a political and also cultural necessity for them... so Bulgaria would have to change its culture entirely to produce that outcome you suggested...

Sorry, my mistake, Fridge. I made a semantic error; more specifically, what I meant was a relatively powerful state in Europe, a lasting one, without the frills and trappings of the other European states at the time. A sizeable Balkan power would be concentrated on Asia Minor and the Black Sea, I'd imagine, so perhaps Bulgarian colonies in the Crimea or Caucasus? It obviously wouldn't go over too well with the Russians (or Kiev, depending when we're talking).

But is sacking Constantinople really that far out of the question? I'm sorry if it's a naiive thing to ask, but unless I'm mistaken, the Byzantines had been completely routed after Anchialus and there was nothing standing between Simeon and the capital. They even gave him the honorific of Byzantine emperor to placate him instead of choosing the other option (him sacking the city). And, while the Bulgarians probably wouldn't have sacked Constantinople after the Gates of Trajan, if Basil had been killed (or better, captured, which he nearly was), then wouldn't the Bulgarians be in a prime position of force the Byzantines to terms?

As far as maps go, mmmeee0, that's kind of dependent on which scenario ends up being the most plausible.

ironram said:

But is sacking Constantinople really that far out of the question? I'm sorry if it's a naiive thing to ask, but unless I'm mistaken, the Byzantines had been completely routed after Anchialus and there was nothing standing between Simeon and the capital. They even gave him the honorific of Byzantine emperor to placate him instead of choosing the other option (him sacking the city). And, while the Bulgarians probably wouldn't have sacked Constantinople after the Gates of Trajan, if Basil had been killed (or better, captured, which he nearly was), then wouldn't the Bulgarians be in a prime position of force the Byzantines to terms?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. If the Arabs couldn't do it to a Byzantium at the very nadir of her power at the beginning of the eighth century, then no-one could. And note that Symeon was called "Basileus" by the Byzantines, but never "Basileus ton Rhomaion", that would've been a step too far. Symeon of course called himself "Emperor of the Romans and the Bulgarians", but Constantinople saw this as a joke. The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus for example commented that Symeon could call himself Caliph of Baghdad if he wanted to, to express how lurdicrous he found the Tsar's aims.

Only because it's been said twice, my name isn't Fridge, it's Frige.

Okay, while I concede that Constantinople has never really had a reputation for being a pushover, regardless of her circumstances, I think the comparison of the Arab siege is a tad misleading. The Arabs (much like any siege of the city that ever took place via Asia Minor) had to cross the Bosphorus before they could besiege the city proper. And if you're talking about the Arab siege in 717, then you have to remember the Bulgarians were Byzantine allies during that siege. The Bulgarians had the Byzantine flank covered and provided the coup de grace to the Arab army. The Arabs had the distinct disadvantage of being so far from their bases of power, projecting their forces so far and spreading their supply lines so thin. That's never really good if you're planning on besieging a city for a considerable length of time. Simeon would have a distinct geopolitical advantage at the time of attacking Constantinople, having controlled the city's environs and surrounding areas, cutting it off from resupply from anywhere save by sea. Not to mention he had managed to vassalize most of the Peloponnessus by this time, giving him useful allies.

Even though, like I've said, if Bulgaroktonos is killed or captured after Trajan's Gates, I think the Bulgarian's chances at the bargaining table go up considerably.

And yet, the fact that Symeon didn't manage to get into Constantinople at any time when he definitely dominated the Balkans during the early tenth century to me says something. The city is simply far too well defended to be at all vulnerable to attack, even from a power as strong as Bulgaria is. Symeon has no fleet to speak of, so the Byzantines can continue resupplying themselves from the Aegean and Anatolia, and moreover, the Arabs at this stage are in headlong retreat before the Imperial armies, so the Emperor can raise army after army out of Anatolia to fight off Symeon. Alternatively, he can do what numerous rulers did before him, and invite various steppe peoples to attack the Bulgars from behind- I'm sure the Pechenegs, Magyars or Rus would be only too happy to get Preslav, which was nearly as rich as Constantinople, but nowhere near so well defended.

None of this is to knock the First Bulgarian Empire in this period of course, it was undeniably a very powerful state, and far more "civilised" than most other areas in contemporary Europe. Unfortunately, it faced the one Christian state that was more powerful and sophisticated than it was, and that state was fundamentally opposed to Bulgaria's existence. In the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, for example, the Emperor discusses all of the Empire's friends and enemies in foreign policy, but simply leaves Bulgaria off the map. Until you force the Byzantines to accept Bulgaria as a permanent presence, then this won't happen- and this can't be done by millitary means at any point during the tenth or eleventh centuries.

Okay, I'm finally starting to understand. I just don't understand how Bulgaria could possibly make it known to the Byzantines that they're here to stay--and back it up as well. Goodness knows they never stopped thrashing the Byzantine army back in the tenth century, so I can't imagine any military conquest (except Constantinople, of course) that would coerce them into recognizing the Bulgarian state as more than just a marauding collective of barbarian brigands. Maybe Simeon (or any competent Bulgarian tsar) succeeds in his designs to marry a Byzantine princess? Maybe have a stronger and more belligerent Serbian, Magyar, or Rus state that compels the Bulgarian to ally with the Byzantines out of mutual benefit? Maybe?

Stronger Rus could maybe do the trick, since with their ships, they're going to be able to directly menace the Byzantine heartlands. Magyars probably won't be much use, Constantinople will be quite happy to allow them to attack the Bulgars, and then move in to clear up the mess (as she did in OTL following the Russian invasion of Bulgaria in 971). If, perhaps, John Tzimiskes never becomes Emperor in 969, and something happens to Nicephorus Phocas, leaving a weak regency over the ten year old Basil II, then a Bulgar/Byzantine alliance could form. Maybe young Basil could be married to one of the little Bulgar princesses? Basil II, the Bulgar Lover?

Basil II marrying a Bulgar princess would be positively wonderful for so many reasons. Of course, something happening to Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimiskes has huge ramifications for the Byzantine empire. If Nicephorus falls while campaigning in the middle east, for instance, what does that spell for the Byzantines? This period of Byzantine history in the middle east between the last Arab siege of Constantinople and Manzikert has always been fuzzy for me. Does it give the Arabs a foothold in the Levant and doom Cilicia to perpetural Arab incursions? With a weak regent on the throne, that could be bad for the Byzantines in Anatolia--although, it does help Bulgaria's case, with an encroaching enemy force steadily moving inward toward its object of Constantinople.

Byzantine strength in Anatolia is at its absolute apogee in the 10th and 11th centuries, and will be regardless of whatever happens to Nicephorus Phocas and John Tzimiskes. The Byzantines have forced most of the Muslim states of modern Syria and northern Iraq into vassalage, and have destroyed the Arab rulers of Crete, Cilicia and Antioch. They won't be challenged in this dominance of the Middle East until the Seljuk Turks arrive in a century's time. As the Fatimids commented at the time- "the field is left open to her (the Roman Empire). She has been able to seize what was previously close to her, and to nurture ambitions that until recently would have been unthinkable".

So, in this context, here's a potential POD for you, if you are considering writing a "Bulgaria survives" TL.

969- Nicephorus Phocas discovers the plot to have him killed by John Tzimiskes. He orders the execution of Tzimiskes, and his co-conspirators, including the Empress Theophano. Nicephorus, who was deeply in love with Theophano, goes mad with grief.
970- Showing his customary lack of diplomatic ability, Phocas angers his ally Sviatoslav of Kiev, who has occupied Bulgaria, and holds Tsar Boris and his daughters hostage.
971- Phocas, faced with outright revolt, retires to a monastery (he was always threatening to do this in OTL), and a council of regency is set up for the child Emperor Basil II. The Byzantines bribe the Pechenegs to attack Russia, forcing Sviatoslav to turn north. In his absence, Boris and his daughters to escape to Constantinople, where one is married to young Basil.

980ish- Teenage Basil II leads Imperial troops into Bulgaria and occupies the country, defeating the Rus utterly, and driving them back across the Danube.

1020ish- Basil II dies, and civil war breaks out between his two sons, one of whom is in Bulgaria at the time of his father's death, the other is in Constantinople. The Constantinopolitan son eventually wins out, but he is forced to concentrate on Anatolia, to protect it from the Fatimids, and soon, the Turks. The Bulgarian brother meanwhile gains sovereignty peacefully over most of the Empire's Balkan territories, aside from Thrace, Macedonia, Greece and Epirus.

11th Century- Frequent intermarriages allow Byzantium and Bulgaria to become allies, though there are also dynastic conflicts. This breathing space allows Bulgaria to expand and flourish, controlling East-West trade from the Black Sea to the Adriatic.

12th Century- Maximal, perhaps implausible, Bulgarwank. Bulgaria rules modern Romania and Hungary, and the Tsar is recognised as the overlord of many Italian city states such as Venice.

A dynastic marriage, then an opportunistic strike against weakened Byzantium empire during one of the declines, before they can restablize making Byzantium and Bulgaria merge as a new empire. That way you could have Bulgaria controlling Greece and Constantinople.

Maybe expanding into Anatolia once the Mongols ravage thee Turks as they did OTL.