I think there were 3 or 4 Emperors of Bulgarians and Vlachs. If I remember correctly, it was Ivan Asen II who dropped this title and took the "Emperor of Bulgarians and Greeks" title. The first part of your post I didn't understood ... are you saying it's completely implausible, or what ? I have specified that's a long shot, but I've seen lots of even more crazy personal unions on this forum ...
I need a Bulgarian point of view
- Thread starter Paraipan
- Start date
I think there were 3 or 4 Emperors of Bulgarians and Vlachs. If I remember correctly, it was Ivan Asen II who dropped this title and took the "Emperor of Bulgarians and Greeks" title. The first part of your post I didn't understood ... are you saying it's completely implausible, or what ? I have specified that's a long shot, but I've seen lots of even more crazy personal unions on this forum ...
Yes, the problem is that the main reason for Carol refusing the crown - Alexander's petulance - was the reason the Bulgarian throne was vacant in the first place...
Sweden-Norway lasted for 90 years, so I don't see why a similar union couldn't exist for a while. But it's true that the different aspirations of the countries would probably pull apart the union in case of serious conflict.
As for the medieval title, those titles were self declared and often (if not usually) made in boast and greatly exaggerating actual level of control. About this particular case, there are two alternate theories: that the Bulgarian tsars also controlled today's Romania or that Vlachs were a name for the Bulgarians living in Moesia, in contrast to those in Macedonia.
A big problem indeed.
We all know how medieval titles worked. I never said the title of the first Asens would mean a lot. It would just provide a precedent and a great opportunity for propaganda.
Oddball
Monthly Donor
Sweden-Norway was imposed by the powers and held together by Swedish bayonets
No it was not.
It was imposed by Swedish bayonets, confirmed by the powers and held together for 90 years by the constitution.
There are controversies over Ivan II, but he at least initialy was viewed by other governments as King of the Bulgarians and Vlachs. However, you are correct to read the first part of my post as suggesting that a relatively modern personal union between Romania and Bulgaria is an impossibility. The two states cannot even agree on the ethnicity and composition of the Second Bulgarian Empire, but they are supposed to share a single monarch?
This post is odd because you've essentially explained why the personal union cannot happen. Bulgaria and Romania are separate countries with distinct cultures and history that cannot agree on whether or not a Vlach was always a Vlach or a Bulgarian was always a Bulgarian. In Norway and Sweden you have two historical states with strong links of being bound together that share similar legal and belief systems traditionally, and communicate in quite similar languages.
Last edited:
Are you sure this controversy existed in the late XIX century ? I agree that today Romanians and Bulgarians have their differences, (I even hated the Bulgarians for one week after they equalized from 2-0 against Romania, in Constanta) but I don't think there were many arguments back then (except Dobrogea maybe).
Same as the first part of my post. I don't think what you describe here was completely true in the XIX century. Yes, Romania and Bulgaria are separate countries with separate cultures, no one argues that, but so are Norway and Sweden. Also the history of the two countries in the past five centuries, although distinct, had some common points. I agree the links are not so strong as the links between Norway and Sweden, but it's not like were talking about Egypt and Brazil here.
Once again, I have to specify, I'm not stating that such an union would be bullet proof and would last 1000 years, but it's definetely not impossible.
Except that, it is. There is a reason why the Balkans are known for chaos and instability. Generally in our timeline, it's been more confined to the western Balkans, but the notion applies to every state on the peninsula. There is no reason why, in the age of nationalism that was the XIXth century, such a personal union would emerge. Not only are there stateless princes roaming around, but the last thing these states wabt is any suggestion of foreign domination or rule.
Probably not - the "official" histories of the two countries were not completed until the 20th century.
As for arguments - yes, Dobrudzha was a (moderately) sore point for the Bulgarians and there were Romanian minorities, there were some in Bulgaria as well.
I don't see why it's so impossible, considering that an offer was made and by the weaker country and the main reason for the Romanian refusal was probably the Russian opposition. Of course no one's arguing that it would be an inherently unstable arrangement. Meanwhile, most of the princes were unwilling to risk Russia's anger.
I am interested about the Romanian reaction of the offer. Was it actually considered or was it rejected out of hand?
Last edited: