In this thread I suggested a Romania-Bulgaria Union under a Bourbon King of Romania. From my knowlenge it was a possibility even in OTL, under Carol I of Romania. I want to know how would such a union be viewed by Bulgarians and if it could stand any chance of surviving World War I. Please note that it's not necessarily to be under a Bourbon or a Hohenzollern, it could be under any Royal House.
I need a Bulgarian point of view
- Thread starter Paraipan
- Start date
On the Great Powers thing, you're absolutely right ... no one would see this union in a good light. But given the right context it could happen. As for the Romanians and Bulgarians, it could work, with some concessions made by both sides. The Union would even have some kind of a historical precedent as the first rulers of the Asen Dynasty styled themselves "Tsar of the Bulgarians and Vlachs". Other than that, the two countries share the same faith, so it's not like the Serbia-Croatia thing. The language would be the main problem but it's not a huge obstacle.
archaeogeek
Banned
Era of nationalism - religion was a quite secondary thing in most of Europe, to a point. Rulers swapped religions for new crowns all the time. Wars of religion were things from a bygone era in Europe until the fuck-ups that are Franco-British middle eastern policy and British ethno-confessional divide et impera in India and Ireland happened.
The root of the serb-croat divide may have been religious, but at the time Yugoslavia broke up, it was over "great serbia" nationalism, not religious factors.
Well, please remember we are talking about Eastern Europe here ... Although the upper class is trying to catch up with Western Europe, the majority of the population is living in the Middle Ages. Sorry if it sounds offensive ...
Alex Richards
Donor
Don't go pinning India on Britain. It was Jinnah and Nehru who did that (Britain would have preferred to have a united India).
Ireland is more debatable, but that was essentially a product of the IRA and extemist Irish irredentalism. Sinn Fein adopted the banner of Irish nationalism, and when that didn't work the IRA and others coopted the Catholic-Protestant divide and made it into a nationalist-unionist one.
archaeogeek
Banned
The protestants produced Wolfe Tone. As for India, the attempts at confessional divides started much before Nehru and Jinnah with the splitting of Bengal according to religious lines.
OK, thank for clearing that up, let's just hope this doesn't turn into one of those flame wars.
Talking about Romania and Bulgaria here ... not India and Ireland.
archaeogeek
Banned
The powers are still not going to go around building multinational states if they can help it, and considering the recent establishment of the bulgarian exarchate apart from the greek and serbian churches, with overwhelming support, I very much doubt saddling themselves to the romanian church will make anyone happy.
Alex Richards
Donor
Wolfe Tone kinda proves my point, that Irish republicanism hadn't been a strictly Catholic affair, but that the divide was coopted in Northern Ireland by the militants. Tone may not have personally liked the Catholic faith, but he still felt that the catholics in Ireland needed emancipation.
The Bengal split was reversed within 5 years because they decided it was a bad idea. Following that, every single bill, act and discussion up until the Second World War (including for example the Government of India act of 1935) considered India as a single entity, and attempts were made to bring on board both Hindus and Muslims in the centre-ground.
I Blame Communism
Banned
The whole thing is bloody murky.
So you have a CoI lawyer from Dublin and his pals from the prosperous town of Belfast saying one thing, but what to the Presbyterian peasants think? They're deadly suspicious of their Catholic neighbours, even when the said neighbours were apparently stringing up priests who had been too enthusiastic about the Militia Act. And that nonsense all went back to folk memories of the Confederate Wars, but before those people in Ulster had actually been getting along reasonably well and then wham, a lot of political scheming by a circle of nobles who feel that they're emulating, of all people, the Covenanters and everything's gone to hell and people are being chucked over cliffs. And of course William III didn't even much like Presbyterians.
But they fought on his side anyway, and a hundred years after that there was the Orange Order and the UI and more stupid fighting, and another hundred years after that there was Churchill's political dynamite was ready to be detonated. And at the same time the Catholic church, despite having been chummy with the government, is inventing the narrative of faith-and-fatherland rebellion...
When you're part Ulsterman, the history of Ulster pisses you off, one way or another. I get pissed off for the following reasons:
1) Everybody is constantly getting killed pointlessly.
2) Nobody much cares about it, as long as it can be proven that it was the fault of either a) the British or b) the Irish.
Dementor
Banned
Well, I think I can provide a Bulgaria perspective, though I don't claim it's the only possible one 
Basically, it's not that implausible, under certain conditions. At the time Bulgarians had a mostly positive opinion of Romania, due to the Romanians helping liberate Bulgaria in the 1877-1878 war. So it could be done, especially as Romania was seen as a bulwark against Russia. This is of course why the Russophobic Bulgarian government at the time offered the crown to Carol.
As for the conditions, any attempt to dissolve the Bulgarian church and the Bulgarian government would be the best way to end this union really quickly. The only way it would work would be if Bulgaria retained most power over its internal affairs - something like Sweden-Norway.
And like the latter state, it would probably collapse when Romania would inevitably try to turn the Union into a centralized state.
As for why it didn't happen in OTL, it wasn't due to the opposition of the Great Powers, but due to the opposition of a Great Power - Russia. At the time, Alexander III was determined to have control of Bulgaria, one way or another, and the Romanians didn't want to antagonize Russia. That's of course also why Ferdinand got chosen in the first place - nobody else wanted to risk the anger of Russia. There is possibly apocryphal story that the Bulgarian regent Stambolov was so desperate to get a prince that when he heard that there were some rather unsavory rumors about Ferdinand, he replied: "Bring him even if he has horns on his head!"
Basically, it's not that implausible, under certain conditions. At the time Bulgarians had a mostly positive opinion of Romania, due to the Romanians helping liberate Bulgaria in the 1877-1878 war. So it could be done, especially as Romania was seen as a bulwark against Russia. This is of course why the Russophobic Bulgarian government at the time offered the crown to Carol.
As for the conditions, any attempt to dissolve the Bulgarian church and the Bulgarian government would be the best way to end this union really quickly. The only way it would work would be if Bulgaria retained most power over its internal affairs - something like Sweden-Norway.
And like the latter state, it would probably collapse when Romania would inevitably try to turn the Union into a centralized state.
As for why it didn't happen in OTL, it wasn't due to the opposition of the Great Powers, but due to the opposition of a Great Power - Russia. At the time, Alexander III was determined to have control of Bulgaria, one way or another, and the Romanians didn't want to antagonize Russia. That's of course also why Ferdinand got chosen in the first place - nobody else wanted to risk the anger of Russia. There is possibly apocryphal story that the Bulgarian regent Stambolov was so desperate to get a prince that when he heard that there were some rather unsavory rumors about Ferdinand, he replied: "Bring him even if he has horns on his head!"
It's worth remembering that up to the Great Reform of 1860, Romanian was written in Cyrillic (and kept being written privately for some while after). So there was some prior common ground.
Small nitpick, and possibly an OT annoyance.
Bulgaria wasn't "liberated" from the Ottoman Empire, it was carved out from the Ottoman Empire.
Bulgaria wasn't "liberated" from the Ottoman Empire, it was carved out from the Ottoman Empire.
Dementor
Banned
That's how the Bulgarians at the time (and today, for that matter) regarded it. And the original poster did ask for a Bulgarian point of view
Well, I think I can provide a Bulgaria perspective, though I don't claim it's the only possible one
Basically, it's not that implausible, under certain conditions. At the time Bulgarians had a mostly positive opinion of Romania, due to the Romanians helping liberate Bulgaria in the 1877-1878 war. So it could be done, especially as Romania was seen as a bulwark against Russia. This is of course why the Russophobic Bulgarian government at the time offered the crown to Carol.
As for the conditions, any attempt to dissolve the Bulgarian church and the Bulgarian government would be the best way to end this union really quickly. The only way it would work would be if Bulgaria retained most power over its internal affairs - something like Sweden-Norway.
And like the latter state, it would probably collapse when Romania would inevitably try to turn the Union into a centralized state.
As for why it didn't happen in OTL, it wasn't due to the opposition of the Great Powers, but due to the opposition of a Great Power - Russia. At the time, Alexander III was determined to have control of Bulgaria, one way or another, and the Romanians didn't want to antagonize Russia. That's of course also why Ferdinand got chosen in the first place - nobody else wanted to risk the anger of Russia. There is possibly apocryphal story that the Bulgarian regent Stambolov was so desperate to get a prince that when he heard that there were some rather unsavory rumors about Ferdinand, he replied: "Bring him even if he has horns on his head!"
Well, yes, I never said anything about absorbing Bulgaria into Romania. I think any smart enough king would not try to do that, if he wants to keep his crowns. But as you say, a reckless king could ruin the union trying to centralize the state. I think the union would survive it's first king. When he dies, it depends on what kind of character is his heir.
Obviously all of this is conditioned by the union being formed in the first place ...