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

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

. . . 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?

None of the above.

The King of Bulgaria marries a Byzantine princess and becomes Emperor. Sacking Constantinople won't work; that would ruin any chance of becoming a great power, and by the time of the Ottomans it's too late. Maybe in the earlier 14th c the Bulgarians could become the heirs of Byzantium, but after the Ottomans cross into Europe it's a little late.

The idea that Bulgaria becoming independent earlier with Greece is preposterous. First of all, the Bulgarians developed national consciousness as a result of resistance to the Greeks, not the Ottomans, and if they'd become independent earlier, they'd be dominated by Greece, not the other way around.

Anyway, 10th c marriage, or 14th c marriage into a Byzantine dynasty. That's the formula.

 

[ironram]

Okay, so it looks like a dynastic marriage is Bulgaria's best bet, since they won't be able to force a conclusion militarily. Thanks, Basilieus for the hypothetical POD, it really got the gears working. I really appreciate it.

About the poll, Abdul, I kind of admit, some of those options were filler. I wanted a medieval POD if possible, preferably with the first Bulgarian empire. The medieval resurgence under Ivan seems more like a brief and fleeting seizure of lost glory than it does anything that seemed anything more than, well, ruler-engineered (that's the problem with most ephemerally powerful medieval states). And the idea of concomitant Bulgarian independence with Greece was always one of those ideas I had in the closet but never really wanted to put an independent thread on it, so I just figured I'd plug it in here just in case. I kind of guessed it was implausible (I remember another thread where we talked about how Bulgaria and Greece were huge rivals in the nineteenth century and how the Bulgarians were actually doing pretty well under the Ottomans, contrary to Victorian propaganda). But I just wanted tosee, I suppose.

But, yes, dynastic marriage. Thanks for the responses, guys, I think I'm going to start diving into research.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Okay, so it looks like a dynastic marriage is Bulgaria's best bet, since they won't be able to force a conclusion militarily. Thanks, Basilieus for the hypothetical POD, it really got the gears working. I really appreciate it.

About the poll, Abdul, I kind of admit, some of those options were filler. I wanted a medieval POD if possible, preferably with the first Bulgarian empire. The medieval resurgence under Ivan seems more like a brief and fleeting seizure of lost glory than it does anything that seemed anything more than, well, ruler-engineered (that's the problem with most ephemerally powerful medieval states). And the idea of concomitant Bulgarian independence with Greece was always one of those ideas I had in the closet but never really wanted to put an independent thread on it, so I just figured I'd plug it in here just in case. I kind of guessed it was implausible (I remember another thread where we talked about how Bulgaria and Greece were huge rivals in the nineteenth century and how the Bulgarians were actually doing pretty well under the Ottomans, contrary to Victorian propaganda). But I just wanted tosee, I suppose.

But, yes, dynastic marriage. Thanks for the responses, guys, I think I'm going to start diving into research.

Well, beyond the difficultly of achieving Greco-Bulgarian cooperation (the Greeks will just pretend the Bulgarians are all Greek), that's really too late to achieve super-power status. A San Stefano Bulgaria could certainly be a dominant regional power, but not a superpower. If you go with the first Bulgaria, you're increasing your scope - if they can... I don't even know what the word would be. Bulgarify?... the Roman Empire, well, there you are.

If you could find a way to get the Volga Bulgars to wander on down, the reinforcement would help.

 

[ironram]

Well, beyond the difficultly of achieving Greco-Bulgarian cooperation (the Greeks will just pretend the Bulgarians are all Greek), that's really too late to achieve super-power status. A San Stefano Bulgaria could certainly be a dominant regional power, but not a superpower. If you go with the first Bulgaria, you're increasing your scope - if they can... I don't even know what the word would be. Bulgarify?... the Roman Empire, well, there you are.

If you could find a way to get the Volga Bulgars to wander on down, the reinforcement would help.

Is there a history of a strong relationship between the Volga Bulgars and Bulgaria proper? I can recall reading something to the effect of them having a strong trade network with everyone in the area, including the Khazars, so maybe they could encourage the Khazars to fight alongside the Bulgarians too. Unless I'm mistaken, a few hundred years before Bulgaria was formed, the Bulgars and Khazars were from the same stock.

But I was under the impression that the Volga Bulgars were predominantly Muslim. Would the Bulgarians be willing to put aside their religious differences to fight an enemy that shares their faith? I'm just asking because I'm intrigued--the idea of Volga Bulgars coming down to help the Bulgarians sounds great.

 

[rcduggan]

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.

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

First, it's Sviatoslav (IIRC). Interestingly enough, he planned on bringing all of his fellow Rus' men south, relocating their culture around a new capital established at Pereyaslavets. While it isn't relevant to this WI, technically, it's an interesting possibility. If the Rus' overtook the Bulgarian Empire to found a Rus' state along the Danube, perhaps the Volgar Bulgars would become the dominant force in OTL Russia. So we would eventually have a Bulgarian superpower, only encompassing Russia and not Bulgaria.

As to your post, a few things. I think it would be better for this TL if the Byzantines were forced to focus on the east because things are going worse for them. Say the Arabs succeed in raiding Asia Minor in the second half of the ninth century (in OTL they tried and failed). Have the Paulicians revolt too, just for good measure. This leads to a collapse in the Byzantine east, and subsequent emperors have to spend decades just gaining back what they had c. 850. During this period the Bulgars are advancing, and the Byzantines decide to cut a deal similar to your proposal so that they can hold the east against the encroaching Saracens.