Nineteenth century Balkans question

Unite is not the correct term, he planned to annex Bulgaria and assimilate the Bulgarians - the Serbian propaganda that all non-Mongoloid Bulgarians (ie all of them) are actually Serbs dates from this period.

Really? I'm not doubting you, but can you clear that up? According to what I've read on the subject he managed to reach an agreement with a group of Bulgarian emigres in Bucharest, so they must have found his plan, whatever it exactly was, acceptable. Of course, he could have just lied to everybody, but if he told no one and left no records, how would we know he planned to assimilate the Bulgarians in the first place?

And I also don't remember any Serbian propaganda from the period saying Bulgarians are Serbs...except Crazy Milosh Milojevic, considered crazy for some very good reasons, and not just in Bulgaria either.
And finally, such a codification would destroy the connection between Serbian and Croatian, which would obviously hurt the creation of an united Serbo-Croatian state, an even stronger desire of the Serbian nationalists.

That's the smallest of all problems involved, the desire for an unified Serbo-Croatian state was only codified in the 1840s, during the reign of the rival Karadjordjevic dynasty.
 
Really? I'm not doubting you, but can you clear that up? According to what I've read on the subject he managed to reach an agreement with a group of Bulgarian emigres in Bucharest, so they must have found his plan, whatever it exactly was, acceptable. Of course, he could have just lied to everybody, but if he told no one and left no records, how would we know he planned to assimilate the Bulgarians in the first place?
Obviously they didn't reveal all of their plans, but even so the behavior of the Serbian government (for example, claiming Sofia and Vidin) was enough to turn off the Bulgarian revolutionaries from further cooperation with the Serbs. Of course dissolving the Bulgarian Legion in Belgrade didn't help either.
As for the plans in question, there is for example Garašanin's Načertanije - though it's couched in terms of providing education and expanding the Serbian church, but the end aims are quite clear.

And I also don't remember any Serbian propaganda from the period saying Bulgarians are Serbs...except Crazy Milosh Milojevic, considered crazy for some very good reasons, and not just in Bulgaria either.
Did Milosh make this map as well? And there are plenty of more modest Serbian claims (modest here meaning a demand for a border on the Iskar), but generally only after the Bulgarian state already existed. For example, as late as the turn of the century, a Serb textbook claimed that Sofia was inhabited by Serbs, oppressed by the Bulgarians. And let's not start about Macedonia. And the claim that the Bulgarians were divided between "real" Bulgarians (meaning Tatars) and Bulgarised Serbs seems also to date from this period (this is the ultimate source of the "Bugari-Tatari" chant).

That's the smallest of all problems involved, the desire for an unified Serbo-Croatian state was only codified in the 1840s, during the reign of the rival Karadjordjevic dynasty.
And the Obrenovic dynasty opposed the creation of Yugoslavia?
 
Last edited:
Obviously they didn't reveal all of their plans, but even so the behavior of the Serbian government (for example, claiming Sofia and Vidin) was enough to turn off the Bulgarian revolutionaries from further cooperation with the Serbs. Of course dissolving the Bulgarian Legion in Belgrade didn't help either.
As for the plans in question, there is for example Garašanin's Načertanije - though it's couched in terms of providing education and expanding the Serbian church, but the end aims are quite clear.

The Načertanije does not contain any plans to assimilate the Bulgarian nation...it defines 4 basic points for the policy of Serbia regarding the Bulgarians: chiefly to provide education and printing facilities for Bulgarian emigres and work to replace the Greek clergy working in Bulgaria with ethnic Bulgarian priests friendly to Serbia.

I know that Serbia claimed Vidin in its maximum demands in 1878, but they did not claim Sofia, at least not on that occasion.

Did Milosh make this map as well?

I don't know anything about that map...other than that it's obviously French; also, its depiction of the "limites de l'Empire de Douchan" suggests it was most likely inspired by an old pseudo-heraldic work such as the Foynich or Berlin Armorial, which erroneously depict the Coat of Arms of Tsar Dushan as covering all the historical lands of the South Slavs. Or maybe Mavro Orbini's "Kingdom of the Slavs", I don't know.

And there are plenty of more modest Serbian claims (modest here meaning a demand for a border on the Iskar), but generally only after the Bulgarian state already existed. For example, as late as the turn of the century, a Serb textbook claimed that Sofia was inhabited by Serbs, oppressed by the Bulgarians. And let's not start about Macedonia. And the claim that the Bulgarians were divided between "real" Bulgarians (meaning Tatars) and Bulgarised Serbs seems also to date from this period (this is the ultimate source of the "Bugari-Tatari" chant).

And the Obrenovic dynasty opposed the creation of Yugoslavia?

Yes, the Obrenovic dynasty was generally opposed to expanding into Austrian-held lands. Milan Obrenovic even brought this Austrophile policy to the extreme by promising in a secret pact with Austria-Hungary in 1881 not to attempt to expand Serbia to the north, west, or southwest, no matter what.
 
The Načertanije does not contain any plans to assimilate the Bulgarian nation...it defines 4 basic points for the policy of Serbia regarding the Bulgarians: chiefly to provide education and printing facilities for Bulgarian emigres and work to replace the Greek clergy working in Bulgaria with ethnic Bulgarian priests friendly to Serbia.
This is what I said as well. However, the intention of eventually absorbing Bulgaria was also obviously implied.

I know that Serbia claimed Vidin in its maximum demands in 1878, but they did not claim Sofia, at least not on that occasion.
Rakovski, one of the leading Bulgarian revolutionaries specifically mentioned the Serbia trying to expand its borders to Sofia and Vidin as one of the reasons for their distrust of the Serbian plans.


I don't know anything about that map...other than that it's obviously French; also, its depiction of the "limites de l'Empire de Douchan" suggests it was most likely inspired by an old pseudo-heraldic work such as the Foynich or Berlin Armorial, which erroneously depict the Coat of Arms of Tsar Dushan as covering all the historical lands of the South Slavs. Or maybe Mavro Orbini's "Kingdom of the Slavs", I don't know.
That the book was published in France doesn't neccesary mean that it wasn't made by Serbs. Balkan nationalists often published material abroad, sometimes anonymously or under a pseudonym. And I don't quite see how the works you mentioned would lead the authors to decide that all Slavs in the Balkans (except some "Greko-Serbs") were Serbs.

Yes, the Obrenovic dynasty was generally opposed to expanding into Austrian-held lands. Milan Obrenovic even brought this Austrophile policy to the extreme by promising in a secret pact with Austria-Hungary in 1881 not to attempt to expand Serbia to the north, west, or southwest, no matter what.
Which explains why Serbia focused on expansion to the south and southeast, ie partly against Bulgaria.
 
This is what I said as well. However, the intention of eventually absorbing Bulgaria was also obviously implied.

In what way? I'm reading the 'Bulgarian' section of Načertanije right now just to double-check, and despite being titled as "To define our bearing towards Bulgaria", it's ironically made of 8 paragraphs of complaining about Russian foreign policy followed by the aforementioned four points, none of which appear to be geared towards assimilating Bulgaria, or annexing it for that matter.
Rakovski, one of the leading Bulgarian revolutionaries specifically mentioned the Serbia trying to expand its borders to Sofia and Vidin as one of the reasons for their distrust of the Serbian plans.

That's possible, although in 1878 Serbia did not present a claim to Sofia.
That the book was published in France doesn't neccesary mean that it wasn't made by Serbs. Balkan nationalists often published material abroad, sometimes anonymously or under a pseudonym. And I don't quite see how the works you mentioned would lead the authors to decide that all Slavs in the Balkans (except some "Greko-Serbs") were Serbs.

The works I mentioned (even though they weren't actually created by Serbs) promoted the historically inaccurate idea that the state of Dushan Nemanjic controlled territory from the Black Sea to the Slovenian Alps, leading me to believe they were at least in part the inspiration for the map you posted, since it has the same historical inaccuracy.
Which explains why Serbia focused on expansion to the south and southeast, ie partly against Bulgaria.

At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that - while Serbia may have presented some...questionable, to say the least, territorial claims at certain points in its history - no one was batshit insane enough to suggest annexing Bulgaria and assimilating the whole Bulgarian ethnicity into Serbdom. That would be megalomaniac on an unprecedented level.
 
In what way? I'm reading the 'Bulgarian' section of Načertanije right now just to double-check, and despite being titled as "To define our bearing towards Bulgaria", it's ironically made of 8 paragraphs of complaining about Russian foreign policy followed by the aforementioned four points, none of which appear to be geared towards assimilating Bulgaria, or annexing it for that matter.
The purpose of the Načertanije was to set out how to achieve an unification of the South Slavic peoples under Serbian domination. In the case of Bulgaria, the plan also intended to place Serbs or people friendly to Serbs in control of education and the church. Whether this was intended to be a way of assimilating Bulgaria is a matter of interpretation.


That's possible, although in 1878 Serbia did not present a claim to Sofia.
Probably too late for such a demand at this point. Rakovski was writing before 1867 when there wasn't any Bulgaria to object to such an expansion.

At any rate, the point I was trying to make is that - while Serbia may have presented some...questionable, to say the least, territorial claims at certain points in its history - no one was batshit insane enough to suggest annexing Bulgaria and assimilating the whole Bulgarian ethnicity into Serbdom. That would be megalomaniac on an unprecedented level.
I'm not saying that this was a popular opinion (and it seems to have vanished after 1878, except in claims that Bulgaria actually speak "bad Serbian"), but all is too strong a word - there are the maps in question, plus the aforementioned Načertanije which might or might not have wanted to do these things. And megalomania was rather popular among Balkan nationalists at the time...
 
Last edited:
The purpose of the Načertanije was to set out how to achieve an unification of the South Slavic peoples under Serbian domination. In the case of Bulgaria, the plan also intended to place Serbs or people friendly to Serbs in control of education and the church. Whether this was intended to be a way of assimilating Bulgaria is a matter of interpretation.

The Načertanije contains a completely different set of basic instructions for dealing with Bulgarians and other south Slavs. It also consistently refers to Bulgarians and other South Slavs outside the country (Serbian or not) in completely different ways - the Bulgarians are acknowledged as a people on their own, while the inhabitants of Bosnia and the Austrian provinces are more then once called "our people", even the Catholics and Muslims who definitely did not, except for a small few, share the Serbian national identity. All in all, I think we can make a reasonable estimate that Načertanije does not contain a plan to assimilate, or most likely even annex Bulgaria.
(The instruction to help Bulgarians take over the Orthodox priesthood in their lands especially makes me doubt the existence of such a plan...we know how important the clergy can be in spreading and preserving ethnic identity, so establishing a native clergy sounds to me like a death knell to any prospects of large-scale assimilation.)
Probably too late for such a demand at this point. Rakovski was writing before 1867 when there wasn't any Bulgaria to object to such an expansion.

I'm not saying that this was a popular opinion (and it seems to have vanished after 1878, except in claims that Bulgaria actually speak "bad Serbian"), but all is too strong a word - there are the maps in question, plus the aforementioned Načertanije which might or might not have wanted to do these things. And megalomania was rather popular among Balkan nationalists at the time...

Unless I missed something, we have two such maps - one by Crazy Miloš Milojević, and the one in French, which was apparently from the 1862 book "La Serbie: Son Passé et Son Avenir", by Henri Thiers, an actual Frenchman.

Yes, there was no shortage of megalomania...but I think some ideas were still a bit too out there to be seriously considered by statesmen.
 
About the thread topic itself:
Serbia probably had a native Dynasty because the Serbian core was liberated under considerably different circumstances. Greece, Bulgaria and Romania were liberated with a lot of help from certain Great Powers, who were then able to make one of their candidates the monarch of the newly liberated state, due to their own role and the relative lack of existing native candidates.
The Serbian uprising of 1804-1813 had the vague support of Russia until 1812, but it was eventually crushed. The uprising of 1815-1817 lacked serious foreign support, which is especially important because that uprising was successful - it ended in negotiations that allowed Serbia autonomy and Obrenović to retain his power; over the next 15 years, this autonomy would be de jure formalized in a series of negotiations, with the help of Obrenović's talent for bribery and subversion. Russian pressure would also be a significant factor in these negotiations, but in this case, a native strongman - Miloš Obrenović - was already in place, so they couldn't just put a foreign dynasty on the throne in exchange for their help and call it a day.
 
I don't quite see what is the relevance of a Croatian descended Catholic noble family that fled from Bulgaria in the 17th century to events in the 19th.

They would have Bulgarian ancestry, and, given that German Catholics (or Protestants?) were enthroned in Bulgaria in our timeline, I see not what the issue is, other than a lack of foreign support or even interest.

About the thread topic itself:
Serbia probably had a native Dynasty because the Serbian core was liberated under considerably different circumstances. Greece, Bulgaria and Romania were liberated with a lot of help from certain Great Powers, who were then able to make one of their candidates the monarch of the newly liberated state, due to their own role and the relative lack of existing native candidates.
The Serbian uprising of 1804-1813 had the vague support of Russia until 1812, but it was eventually crushed. The uprising of 1815-1817 lacked serious foreign support, which is especially important because that uprising was successful - it ended in negotiations that allowed Serbia autonomy and Obrenović to retain his power; over the next 15 years, this autonomy would be de jure formalized in a series of negotiations, with the help of Obrenović's talent for bribery and subversion. Russian pressure would also be a significant factor in these negotiations, but in this case, a native strongman - Miloš Obrenović - was already in place, so they couldn't just put a foreign dynasty on the throne in exchange for their help and call it a day.

Then why exactly were things different in Romania, where a native strongman did rule for a time?
 
Last edited:
Then why exactly were things different in Romania, where a native strongman did rule for a time?

Perhaps a key factor is that Serbian independence was developed as a consequence of two uprisings with different leaders, thus both of their families could claim to be descendants of "national heroes" - so we had two credible native dynasties. And when the Obrenovics were toppled in Serbia in 1842 (1903 too), there was another native dynasty to present itself as the obvious alternative.

However, Cuza had no such obvious alternative, did he? He was the strongman, and when he fell, there was no other individual or dynasty in Romania that could present itself as the natural choice. I don't know if someone like Catargiu would have ever tried to make himself Prince but I can't see it working. The fact that Cuza was toppled not by a single movement but by a coalition of natural enemies temporarily working together could have only made any native's grab at the throne even harder.
 
Top