Personal Union between Romania and Bulgaria

[walmart]

In desperate attempts to prevent Russian occupation of Bulgaria, the throne had been previously offered, before Ferdinand's acceptance, to princes from Denmark to the Caucasus and even to the King of Romania.

Would be possible for Carol I to accept the throne of Bulgaria

What would be the impact if he did

 

[pls don't ban me]

it's a bit difficult. also it wont's last long i suppose. Bulgarians and Romanians except religion have nothing in common:
one is Slav with Cyrillic alphabet the other is more close to Hungarians than Slavs with Latin alphabet.
Romanians aim to take Transylvanian while Bulgarians aim for national reunification with Macedonians...

the best shot would have been Serbia before the Bulgarian liberation, when a Bulgarian independent cell proposed to the Serbian king to create a serbo-Bulgarian country

 

[GauchoBadger]

Romanians aim to take Transylvanian while Bulgarians aim for national reunification with Macedonians...

These regions are rather far from each other and it doesn't seem like either state has any competing territorial claims on each other besides Dobruja. But Dobruja for most of OTL was a peripheral territory compared to other land in the Balkans, and i can see the Bulgarians and Romanians successfully coming to a compromise on it.

 

[The Professor]

one is Slav with Cyrillic alphabet the other is more close to Hungarians than Slavs with Latin alphabet.

Actually the Cyrillic alphabet was in use in the Romanian territories until the mid 1800s.

 

[Tizoc]

it's a bit difficult. also it wont's last long i suppose. Bulgarians and Romanians except religion have nothing in common:
one is Slav with Cyrillic alphabet the other is more close to Hungarians than Slavs with Latin alphabet.[...]

Romanians are more closely related to Bulgarians, being both Indoeuropean, than to Ugrofinnic Hungarians.

 

[pls don't ban me]

Romanians are more closely related to Bulgarians, being both Indoeuropean, than to Ugrofinnic Hungarians.

well...not really.
Romanians are genetically speaking and linguistically more related to the romance nations( italy,vspain etc) originated from the Romanization of the dacians while Bulgarians are Slavs with Turkic roots and some Thracian DNA

 

[Tizoc]

I am not sure what you are trying to say...
Yes, Romanians are romanised Dacians, using Romance language, therefore Indoeuropean.
Yes, (modern) Bulgarians are Slavs with some Turkic and Thracian blood mixed up, therefore Indoeuropean as well. (Btw Slavs don't have Turkic roots).
Hungarians are NOT indoeuropean.

 

[pls don't ban me]

I am not sure what you are trying to say...
Yes, Romanians are romanised Dacians, using Romance language, therefore Indoeuropean.
Yes, (modern) Bulgarians are Slavs with some Turkic and Thracian blood mixed up, therefore Indoeuropean as well. (Btw Slavs don't have Turkic roots).
Hungarians are NOT indoeuropean.

i meant my first point. There are this minimal differences that will not helt the union last long. they need common goals in order to feel like a team. if they don't have this feeling then people will start questioning the point of the union.
as I said, the most plausible one is with the Serbian, they feel more related and have some common goals so it may last longer than a romanian-bulgar union.

 

[Tizoc]

IIRC, there were more wars between Bulgaria and Serbia - before Ottoman conquest as well as after becoming independent - than between Bulgaria and Romania (including Bulgarian-Vallachian conflicts). So it's debatable if Bulgarian-Serbian union could work - too much bad blood.

 

[pls don't ban me]

no doubt on that. if we consider also that the Romanian identity did not exist yet( walacchia was created a bit before the ottomans entered the Balkans). But in the middle ages even the best friends fought wars.
after the independence there was only one war, pushed by Austria on the obrenovic.
Before that both the nation were in great relations.

 

[Wendell]

What prince from the Caucasus was in the running? A Bagrationi?