AHC: Bulgarian Princes as junior sultan/emperor

So how can the ruler of Bulgaria under the Ottomans be coopted into the upper imperial hierarchy?
Essentially being a junior sultan
 
So how can the ruler of Bulgaria under the Ottomans be coopted into the upper imperial hierarchy?
Essentially being a junior sultan
I imagine you mean the Bulgarian prince having a role in the whole Empire, rather than the rather odd sort-of-enemy-but-still-a-vassal relationship they had between 1878 and 1908?

Maybe they try and make a 'Prince of Bulgaria': a hereditary position similar to the Patriarch? An overtly Christian member of the Ottoman hierarchy, with some sort of temporal, rather than spiritual role in the Empire? I'll be honest, I don't quite know how such an idea would operate in practice. Unfortunately for this idea, the obvious question is why you'd need him when you already have the Patriarch...
 
I imagine you mean the Bulgarian prince having a role in the whole Empire, rather than the rather odd sort-of-enemy-but-still-a-vassal relationship they had between 1878 and 1908?

Yeah. Couldn't think how to word it :D

Maybe they try and make a 'Prince of Bulgaria': a hereditary position similar to the Patriarch? An overtly Christian member of the Ottoman hierarchy, with some sort of temporal, rather than spiritual role in the Empire? I'll be honest, I don't quite know how such an idea would operate in practice. Unfortunately for this idea, the obvious question is why you'd need him when you already have the Patriarch...
Hmmm an intriguing one to start with.
 
Yeah. Couldn't think how to word it :D
Yeah. Good job I managed to do it so elegantly. Oh, wait... :eek:
Hmmm an intriguing one to start with.
Lord knows how such a thing would work, but it might. Almost as a Minister / Prince of all the Christians in the Empire, while still being subservient to the Emperor. At this point, the title 'Prince of Bulgaria' becomes more honorific than geographic, but if he's descended from the ruling house of Bulgaria, it might stick...
 
Lord knows how such a thing would work, but it might. Almost as a Minister / Prince of all the Christians in the Empire, while still being subservient to the Emperor. At this point, the title 'Prince of Bulgaria' becomes more honorific than geographic, but if he's descended from the ruling house of Bulgaria, it might stick...

Why not "Prince of Bulgarians"?
 
Similar constructs would have pretty good consequences for Bulgaria, for the Ottoman empire and for the Central powers in total.

The line Heligoland-Basra would be solid as iron bar... ;)

Possible systems are:

1. Put the Patriarch ( Exarch ) of the independent since 1870 Bulgarian ortodox church in such position. Territorialize Bulgaria as with the 1870th Exarchate map, or EVEN commission almost all ( except the Capital district ) territory of the Ottoman Empire under the administration of such entity. The entity would be tributary ( paying compound tax/fee ) AND vassal one ( contributing with army under common/union command ). The entity could be granted the administration of ( expanded ) Lybia ( and Tunisia? ) as a gift. The exarchate won't be hereditiary but rather conservative-democratic. Similar arrangement, though unfortunatelly shortlived was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Armenian_National_Constitution.2C_1863 -- i.e. there WAS trend for territorialization of the Millet system of the Ottomans.

2. Bulgaria could have the Ottoman Sultan as an emperor, nominal Head of State, but the Head of government to be directly or by-parlament elected, thus becoming de jure monarchy , but de facto presidential republic. Again the Ottomans would have interest to delegate their European territories affairs to this entity from which they'll have lots of positives, given they have the anti-seccession mechanisms in place. ( In fact such talks have been held between PM Stambolov and the Sultan in early 1890es ). Bulgaria would be far better off, too cause it won't be impacted by the international politics while persuading the national unification dreams... and being in very fast pace industrializing nation would enjoy the vastness of the Ottoman market.

... ...
 
Might it be language-based? An earlier official recognition that Greek and Slavic are very different might perhaps lead to this Prince of Bulgaria being responsible to the christians in those areas where the liturgy uses Old Chrurch Slavonic; whereas the Greek areas remain under the oversight of the patriarch?
 
Might it be language-based? An earlier official recognition that Greek and Slavic are very different might perhaps lead to this Prince of Bulgaria being responsible to the christians in those areas where the liturgy uses Old Chrurch Slavonic; whereas the Greek areas remain under the oversight of the patriarch?

Territorialization of the Millet system is clearly impossible if one likes to draw "clean" ethnic lines.

The same way millions of bulgarians have been cut off bulgaria in the real history ( the actual timeline we inhabit ), I see no problem the minorities to remain where they are. Same for all non-bulgarians within *Bulgaria.

Btw, the status of the turks living in this *Bulgaria would be of permanent residents - non-citizens, citizens of the Ottoman Empire but not of its constituent *Bulgaria. Ref.: Hungary in Austria-Hungary. It is not a precedent to have one territory but multiple jurisdictions given seamless intefrace in legal and judicial matters.

Even putting together all the European vilayets except Constantinople/Istanbul the Bulgarians would be absolute majority, which wasn't the case with A-H Hungary/Transleitania...

I think, as I said, Ottomans would be beneficial in such arrangement where the problematic territories ( i.e. these which they are soon to loose ) put under the power ( hot potato thrown to ), of a friendly inner power. Also constitutionality shall be preserved and the southern territories could be retained via institutional evolution already tested and proven to work... Incl. the armenian, assyrian, arab, kurd "problems".
 
Similar constructs would have pretty good consequences for Bulgaria, for the Ottoman empire and for the Central powers in total.

The line Heligoland-Basra would be solid as iron bar... ;)

Possible systems are:

1. Put the Patriarch ( Exarch ) of the independent since 1870 Bulgarian ortodox church in such position. Territorialize Bulgaria as with the 1870th Exarchate map, or EVEN commission almost all ( except the Capital district ) territory of the Ottoman Empire under the administration of such entity. The entity would be tributary ( paying compound tax/fee ) AND vassal one ( contributing with army under common/union command ). The entity could be granted the administration of ( expanded ) Lybia ( and Tunisia? ) as a gift. The exarchate won't be hereditiary but rather conservative-democratic. Similar arrangement, though unfortunatelly shortlived was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Armenian_National_Constitution.2C_1863 -- i.e. there WAS trend for territorialization of the Millet system of the Ottomans.

2. Bulgaria could have the Ottoman Sultan as an emperor, nominal Head of State, but the Head of government to be directly or by-parlament elected, thus becoming de jure monarchy , but de facto presidential republic. Again the Ottomans would have interest to delegate their European territories affairs to this entity from which they'll have lots of positives, given they have the anti-seccession mechanisms in place. ( In fact such talks have been held between PM Stambolov and the Sultan in early 1890es ). Bulgaria would be far better off, too cause it won't be impacted by the international politics while persuading the national unification dreams... and being in very fast pace industrializing nation would enjoy the vastness of the Ottoman market.

... ...

Interesting indeed.
Would there be some way to combine the two?
*Bulgaria in this sense might end up with most of the Balkans sth of Wallachia
 
Interesting indeed.
Would there be some way to combine the two?
*Bulgaria in this sense might end up with most of the Balkans sth of Wallachia

Combination. Of course. Indeed it is the most logical, because anyway ( even territorialized ) the position of the Bulgarian Exarch is of "head of the Bulgarian people" / "bulgar milletbashi" under the Millet system of the Ottoman Empire.

The Exarch is elected for life by the Holy Sinode, consisting of the territorial heads ( Metropolites ) of the Bulgarian Ortodox Church, he is part of the Sinode and presides over it. He also usually heads the Sofia ( capital ) Metropoly. Thus we have naturally deployed territorial structure - the Exarch is Head of (sub)state, vassal of the Emperor (Sultan) - president or monarch. The Exarch could appoint the Prime Minister, who could appoint the Ministers ( state secretaries ), etc. Thus the interface Church - civil authorities could be "secularized". The All Nation Church Assembly, could turn into permanently seating Parliament. All subjects of the Bulgarian Exarchate will be subjects of the Ottoman Empire, too, but only Bulgarians will be subjects of the Exarchate, the rest of the population would be "tolerati" - Ottoman citizens, but not Bulgarian Exarchate ones.

Territory:

rumeliastieler1868.gif


everything here less: Bosnia ( commissioned under the BG Exarhate acc. to special contract/organic law ) & Serbia + Romania - administration of the vassalage under Ottoman Empire passed/commissioned under the BG Exarchate acc. to special contract/ organic laws ).

+ the Ottoman African territories from Algeria to Nile. ( Tunisia, Lybia, Western Egypt ). Thus Ottoman Empire aided by its "internal ally" concentrates on Egypt and the Canal, and later in 1880es takes part via the Exarchate into the Scramble for Africa... Via such "internal ally" Ottomans easily could caputure Etiopia and Somalia -- thus Bulgarian Exarchate playing the role in this universe/timeline of our world's Italy...
 
Top