Possibility of a Turkish state in part of OTL Bulgaria?

Abdul said 10 to 15 percent of the Turks who entered Asia Minor converted to Christianity.

Furthermore, the population exchanges accompanying the end of the Greco-Turkish War were done by religion, not ethnicity or language, so chances are the Christian Turks ended up in Greece and the Greek Muslims ended up in Turkey.
 
More realistically, wouldn't the Turkish territory simply remain part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey rather than forming an independent Turkish state?
 
More realistically, wouldn't the Turkish territory simply remain part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey rather than forming an independent Turkish state?

Yes, it likely would remain part of the Ottoman Empire though push comes to shove (worse case scenario) , they could break off if the Ottomans couldn't help them I suppose. Is that not what happened with the Albanians?
 

Kosta

Banned
Yes, it likely would remain part of the Ottoman Empire though push comes to shove (worse case scenario) , they could break off if the Ottomans couldn't help them I suppose. Is that not what happened with the Albanians?

I think Albania's reasoning was that the Ottomans couldn't protect it being so far away and all, whereas Dobruja would be just right a country away from the Ottoman Empire. But, then again, this state would be awfully close to Russia and Austria, too.
 
I think Albania's reasoning was that the Ottomans couldn't protect it being so far away and all, whereas Dobruja would be just right a country away from the Ottoman Empire. But, then again, this state would be awfully close to Russia and Austria, too.

Albania have also a strong national feeling it seems - they resisted the ottomans, after all.. and so, since they seemed the ottomans weakened, well.. they went THEIR way.
 
Albania have also a strong national feeling it seems - they resisted the ottomans, after all.. and so, since they seemed the ottomans weakened, well.. they went THEIR way.

Was it so? I came with the impression that the Albanians were very much tied to the Ottoman state and it was only the failure of such that made them decide if the big Islamic empire couldn't save them from being divided by ....pretty much everyone in the region that it was better to go their own way.
 

HeWhoIsMe

Banned
More realistically, wouldn't the Turkish territory simply remain part of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey rather than forming an independent Turkish state?

No.

I don't know what you guys been reading on the period but that's impossible. The very fact that modern Turkey has managed to retain even Eastern Thrace, with it's huge Muslim population, is to the greatest extent a by-product of discord between the Balkan allies(Greece-Serbia-Bulgaria) during the Balkan Wars.

Turkey(the Ottoman Empire more accurately) was destined to be severely dissected and there was no chance it would be allowed to retain such territory on the Balkans, even if such territory held subtsantial muslim population.

For instance, some 8-12% of modern Bulgarians are Muslim and only a very small portion of those identify themselves as Turkic. Though they're not all concentrated on the northern part and they live closer to the Turkish border. The Muslim/Turkic Party used to be a
force to reckoned with in Bulgarian national elections. They never harbored, and still don't harbor any aspirations of autonomy or, God frobid, independence...

On another note, as far as the Pomaks are concerned, what I know from personal contact with them, is that they identify themseleves as a Bulgarian-Slavic people...they've just been devout Sunnis ever since they first converted into the religion under the Ottomans.

They maintain the closest ties with their co-religionists north of the border, in Bulgaria, rather than with the Turks.
The modern Pomaks want mostly nothing to do with Turkey, and only play the "Turkey-card" in local politics whenever the Greek/Christian majority is giving them a hard time. Which used to be more than often unfortunately, but not anymore...the Pomaks are increasingly identifying themselves as Greek. That is especially true ever since Greece became a full fledged Euro-member and a signee to the Schengen Treaty, which allows for the unrestricted transport of people and goods between EU countries...

Bottom line is, no sort of Turkic/Islamic state could have emerged as a successor to the OE, in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars, since one or all of the Christian allies would have gobbled it up in no time.

And later on when the belligerence ceased in the Balkans, the local muslim majorities, were content to have their rights respected within an already established state, rather than go for their own.

Of course whenever they felt slighted they rebelled against the local authorities, and thus you get Bosnia Herzegovina today. Which still is a dual-religion state rather than a muslim one.

(^Hope any of that helps)
 
Was it so? I came with the impression that the Albanians were very much tied to the Ottoman state and it was only the failure of such that made them decide if the big Islamic empire couldn't save them from being divided by ....pretty much everyone in the region that it was better to go their own way.

They have had a national hero who resisted the ottomans for years, and if profited of the Empire, it was because also there was no windows of opportunity to be free again, and while they were at it, better make the best of the situation.

A bit like my ancestors, who prefered to remains british subjects for now since it served more our interests.
 
There can be little question of a independent Turkish state. It would be part of the Ottoman Empire. However, even that is unlikely as Russia insisted most strongly on Bulgaria controlling the cost. And not only them, for that matter. I believe that during the negotiations preceding the conference of Berlin in 1878 the initial plan was for this territory (along with the southern Bulgarian coast) to remain part of the Ottoman Empire, while Macedonia was to be joined with Eastern Rumelia. Austria-Hungary however insisted strongly on Macedonia not being joined to Bulgaria, so Bulgaria received the coast instead.
And anyway, the territory would certainly not be as big as the one on the map.

Yeah, Volga Bulgaria and Danube Bulgaria were two Bulgar states to begin with.
There is surprisingly little evidence for this theory and much to contradict it, but it has the weight of tradition behind it. Some modern historians have suggested that the Bulgars might have been Iranian.
In any case, the Bulgars had been assimilated long before the 19th century.

Weren't the Gagauz originally descended from Seljuk Turks who migrated into the Balkans and converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity? They'd be like the Kerasem Tatars in Russia though, Tatars who converted from Islam to Orthodox Christianity. Also, a Gagauz state would theoretically be located in Tsarist Russia by 1878 world maps, not in Ottoman Turkey.
There are many theories about the Gagauz and their origin remains unclear. Considering that they often identified as Bulgarians and their similar culture suggests that they are likely be the descendants of Bulgarians who lost their language.

Anyways a Turkish state in OTL Bulgaria isn't going to happen. Expect them to be ethnically cleansed and deported out of their homeland.
This didn't happen in OTL.

There are many problems with this map, but there's no need to go into them here. The map is not fine enough to show local majorities. For example, the Turkish majority area certainly didn't extend that far west.
And the Ottoman Empire could retain the territory only if it retained all of Bulgaria.

No.
For instance, some 8-12% of modern Bulgarians are Muslim and only a very small portion of those identify themselves as Turkic. Though they're not all concentrated on the northern part and they live closer to the Turkish border.
That's not exactly true. Most Muslims in Bulgaria identify as Turks, even many who are not actually Turkish by ethnicity. See the latest figures from 2001.

The Turks mainly in two regions, one in the northeast, and another in the southeast, though the latter is not adjacent to the Turkish border. Here's a
map.

The Muslim/Turkic Party used to be a
force to reckoned with in Bulgarian national elections. They never harbored, and still don't harbor any aspirations of autonomy or, God frobid, independence...
It still is influential, controlling local power in places where the Turks are the majority. That they are not currently part of the government is due to the ruling party having a majority.
And apart from some fringe elements there is no real desire for autonomy or independence. It would be impractical anyway, what with them split into two regions and not being next to Turkey.

On another note, as far as the Pomaks are concerned, what I know from personal contact with them, is that they identify themseleves as a Bulgarian-Slavic people...they've just been devout Sunnis ever since they first converted into the religion under the Ottomans.

They maintain the closest ties with their co-religionists north of the border, in Bulgaria, rather than with the Turks.
The modern Pomaks want mostly nothing to do with Turkey, and only play the "Turkey-card" in local politics whenever the Greek/Christian majority is giving them a hard time. Which used to be more than often unfortunately, but not anymore...the Pomaks are increasingly identifying themselves as Greek. That is especially true ever since Greece became a full fledged Euro-member and a signee to the Schengen Treaty, which allows for the unrestricted transport of people and goods between EU countries...
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Pomaks in Greece, but my impression was that many did identify as Turks. But perhaps this is not a very deep conviction. And it's quite surprising to me that Pomaks in Greece still think of themselves as Bulgarian in some sense, when one considers their long isolation and the effort Greece has undertaken to prevent this.

Regarding the Pomaks in Bulgaria, with which I'M more familiar, they're not very homogeneous. Most identify as Bulgarians and many are not especially religious, but many don't really have an higher identity than being Muslims. And some identify as Turks (for example the green municipality in western Bulgaria on the above map is Pomak)


Bottom line is, no sort of Turkic/Islamic state could have emerged as a successor to the OE, in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars, since one or all of the Christian allies would have gobbled it up in no time.
Well, there is Albania, but that was created under Italian and Austrian pressure. No Great power which would want this area to remain independent.
 
Turkey(the Ottoman Empire more accurately) was destined to be severely dissected and there was no chance it would be allowed to retain such territory on the Balkans, even if such territory held subtsantial muslim population.

No, it was'nt.

The collapse and dissolution fo the Ottoman Empire itself was do to very specific circumstances; a Sultan coming to power who wanted to re-take the powers previously being devolved to a Parliament, the Balkan wars and finally being on the losing side in WWI, however if any one of those things had'nt happened things would have devloped very differently.

Now, by 1880 the OE was basically going to lose some of its territory, namely parts of Arabia and the Greek majority areas bordering Greece itself, but beyond that any other losses would be the result of the events after that.
 
No, it was'nt.

The collapse and dissolution fo the Ottoman Empire itself was do to very specific circumstances; a Sultan coming to power who wanted to re-take the powers previously being devolved to a Parliament, the Balkan wars and finally being on the losing side in WWI, however if any one of those things had'nt happened things would have devloped very differently.

Now, by 1880 the OE was basically going to lose some of its territory, namely parts of Arabia and the Greek majority areas bordering Greece itself, but beyond that any other losses would be the result of the events after that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if those specific events don't occur, that events that do not play to the advantage of the Ottomans will seems likely - although even that is still trimming the Ottoman Empire back to the areas it is most firmly supported in ("most firmly controls" has negative connotations) rather than it being chopped to bits.

Still sturdy enough for four years of war (WWI) without being torn up until the treaties starting dictating terms, which is rather telling.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if those specific events don't occur, that events that do not play to the advantage of the Ottomans will seems likely - although even that is still trimming the Ottoman Empire back to the areas it is most firmly supported in ("most firmly controls" has negative connotations) rather than it being chopped to bits.

If the Sultan had been different, or been somehow caged or whatever and the Parliament allowed to continue and political reforms enacted their would be far less internal issues for the Ottomans, especially when one considers that a true Ottoman identity that was more important than/replaced ehtnic identites was starting to form in the late 19th century, but because of the events that happened was slowed and eventually killed.


Still sturdy enough for four years of war (WWI) without being torn up until the treaties starting dictating terms, which is rather telling.

Their's no real reason for the Empire to even participate in the war, indeed that was one of its greatest mistakes, I mean even with the stuff happening before hand the OE would have continued on if it had remained Neutral, and if you both have the political reforms continuing and staying neutral the OE would be well on its way to becoming a a very powerful world power (what with controlling ALOT of oil and having a diversifed economy, plus alot of people).
 
No.

I don't know what you guys been reading on the period but that's impossible. The very fact that modern Turkey has managed to retain even Eastern Thrace, with it's huge Muslim population, is to the greatest extent a by-product of discord between the Balkan allies(Greece-Serbia-Bulgaria) during the Balkan Wars.

Turkey(the Ottoman Empire more accurately) was destined to be severely dissected and there was no chance it would be allowed to retain such territory on the Balkans, even if such territory held subtsantial muslim population.

For instance, some 8-12% of modern Bulgarians are Muslim and only a very small portion of those identify themselves as Turkic. Though they're not all concentrated on the northern part and they live closer to the Turkish border. The Muslim/Turkic Party used to be a
force to reckoned with in Bulgarian national elections. They never harbored, and still don't harbor any aspirations of autonomy or, God frobid, independence...

On another note, as far as the Pomaks are concerned, what I know from personal contact with them, is that they identify themseleves as a Bulgarian-Slavic people...they've just been devout Sunnis ever since they first converted into the religion under the Ottomans.

They maintain the closest ties with their co-religionists north of the border, in Bulgaria, rather than with the Turks.
The modern Pomaks want mostly nothing to do with Turkey, and only play the "Turkey-card" in local politics whenever the Greek/Christian majority is giving them a hard time. Which used to be more than often unfortunately, but not anymore...the Pomaks are increasingly identifying themselves as Greek. That is especially true ever since Greece became a full fledged Euro-member and a signee to the Schengen Treaty, which allows for the unrestricted transport of people and goods between EU countries...

Bottom line is, no sort of Turkic/Islamic state could have emerged as a successor to the OE, in the aftermath of the Balkan Wars, since one or all of the Christian allies would have gobbled it up in no time.

And later on when the belligerence ceased in the Balkans, the local muslim majorities, were content to have their rights respected within an already established state, rather than go for their own.

Of course whenever they felt slighted they rebelled against the local authorities, and thus you get Bosnia Herzegovina today. Which still is a dual-religion state rather than a muslim one.

(^Hope any of that helps)

Nope. The Ottoman Empire was not destined to be dissected. Ever since the 1830s, the Empire was well on its way to recovery. But I'll take Abdul's word for it then your own.
 

HeWhoIsMe

Banned
That's not exactly true. Most Muslims in Bulgaria identify as Turks, even many who are not actually Turkish by ethnicity. See the latest figures from 2001.

The Turks mainly in two regions, one in the northeast, and another in the southeast, though the latter is not adjacent to the Turkish border. Here's a
map.

I stand corrected on both points.

Though I have to say that the Bulgarian muslims must have only recently remembered of their Turkish descent. And mostly because Bulgarian-Turkish relations gradually normalised and being Turko-Bulgarian wasn't considered a marginalising factor for them, anymore.
Of course that serves to prove your point since it suggests that they already thought themselves Turks in the first place.


I'm not very knowledgeable about the Pomaks in Greece, but my impression was that many did identify as Turks. But perhaps this is not a very deep conviction. And it's quite surprising to me that Pomaks in Greece still think of themselves as Bulgarian in some sense, when one considers their long isolation and the effort Greece has undertaken to prevent this.

They still, occasionally, identify as Turks and also sometimes form closer ties to various, Turkish-sponsored, religious and cultural institutions in Western Thrace. But only as a form of reaction when the Greek state is trying to initiate discriminatory policies against them. Now until very recently that was consistent national policy on behalf of the Greek state, but not so anymore.

I spent my student years in Western Thrace(Komotini)...and I can tell you that within the 90's-00's the figure of muslim students increased almost 3-fold in the local university. Not a decade ago, most of them, would have preferred to go pursue their degrees in Istanbul, rather than in one of the Greek faculties.

Also I served in the army, posted in the Evros border region. Not many years ago, muslim conscripts in the Greek army would serve in a sort of penal battalions or companies. They were treated awfully, and the worst possible chores were reserved for them, while they also had to suffer personal humiliations. Luckily, when i served (February 2007-February 2008), conditions were a far cry from what I had heard. The muslim conscripts served in the same regular army units as the rest of us did and they were treated as Greek citizens doing their duty for their country, as they should be.

I dare say the muslim guys even had it better than us because their homes and familes were nearby, while the rest of us came from the Greek-dominated mainland. So they got to be home every other day, while I had to settle for once every couple of months! :p


Well, there is Albania, but that was created under Italian and Austrian pressure. No Great power which would want this area to remain independent.

I don't know why but I'd never consider Albania a muslim state. Maybe this misconception of mine has more to do with the recent Enver Hoxha period rather than the immediate post-independence period, but even then Albania was dominated by greater powers than itself, as you said.

The albanian muslims, who are the majority, are very secular themselves and the Christian minorities(both catholic and Orthodox) are probably the ones possesing the strongest religious sentiment, in modern Albania.

The collapse and dissolution fo the Ottoman Empire itself was do to very specific circumstances; a Sultan coming to power who wanted to re-take the powers previously being devolved to a Parliament, the Balkan wars and finally being on the losing side in WWI, however if any one of those things had'nt happened things would have devloped very differently.

Now, by 1880 the OE was basically going to lose some of its territory, namely parts of Arabia and the Greek majority areas bordering Greece itself, but beyond that any other losses would be the result of the events after that.

Indeed you are absolutely right. I got carried away and forgot we were still in the 1880's.
Indeed the OE would have never suffered the territorial contraction of the early 1900's, back in the 1880's. The conditions weren't ripe. Yet.
 
If the Sultan had been different, or been somehow caged or whatever and the Parliament allowed to continue and political reforms enacted their would be far less internal issues for the Ottomans, especially when one considers that a true Ottoman identity that was more important than/replaced ehtnic identites was starting to form in the late 19th century, but because of the events that happened was slowed and eventually killed.

That would have to not happen (the death of an "Ottoman identity"), I think, for any realistic chance of the empire losing only a few more (than its already lost by 1880) slivers of territory - if it doesn't exist, sooner or latter something will see things break down, if probably not as badly as OTL.

I'm just speculating here, I admit, but that's my understanding.

But that the concept existed is very promising, given the whole "multi-ethnic empires were ungovernable, yada yada" cliche.

Their's no real reason for the Empire to even participate in the war, indeed that was one of its greatest mistakes, I mean even with the stuff happening before hand the OE would have continued on if it had remained Neutral, and if you both have the political reforms continuing and staying neutral the OE would be well on its way to becoming a a very powerful world power (what with controlling ALOT of oil and having a diversifed economy, plus alot of people).

I don't know if it would be anything close to a super power, but I suspect it would outweigh post-Empire Britain or France if it could take full advantage of that.

Would be hillarious and awesome to see the Ottomanites (if I may use the term in absence of a better one for Ottoman subjects) be the ones who control Britain's economic future, as opposed to Britain pushing around the Ottomans. :D
 
Possibly a different situation playing out, Post-Stefano? I know Bulgaria was reduced to her rump borders, with Prince Alexander remaining on the throne refusing to serve as Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia; like all the Balkan States, Bulgaria (minus the comical farce of uger Bulgaria which just made the Balkans a blobby mess). One interesting POD could be Alexander not being made Governor General; it was his son who ordered that the two regions were merged... ofc, Turkey might be in issues down in the line, but perhaps she can maintain Eastern Rumelia with it's Turkish inhabits... a sort of promised lands for Turks and Muslims displaced in the 1880s: Turkey welcomes them and promptly settles them into Rumelia. Perhaps you could get enough of a plurality with significant rights for Bulgarian "minority" and Perhaps Turkey could also choose Bulgaria for the Circassians and the like deported from the 1850s. That's more 20th century, but some primitive rights did exist. Perhaps we see the Bulgarian Exarch recognize/reerected despite Greek displeasure, amongst other things that

This also needs some foreign support, most likely Britain as Battenburg had British ties. I think Britain especially would support Rumelia fully in Turkish hands to counter balance Bulgaria. Bulgaria still had sympathetic support on it's side, and if Alexander is deposed in favor of Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, it's over. Get more Muslim inhabitants in Eastern Rumelia, keep Alexander as a pliable sovereign who begins to lean more on the west post 1888
 

HeWhoIsMe

Banned
If the Sultan had been different, or been somehow caged or whatever and the Parliament allowed to continue and political reforms enacted their would be far less internal issues for the Ottomans, especially when one considers that a true Ottoman identity that was more important than/replaced ehtnic identites was starting to form in the late 19th century, but because of the events that happened was slowed and eventually killed.

Αnd that's where in your own words, lies proof that the OE was destined to be fragmented. Even if, I admit, it could have realistically retained more territory both in the Balkans but also in the Middle East, than it did OTL.

It was a close race and the OE simply lost it. The parliamentary and political reforms you have mentioned which would have, ideally, led to the formation of an Ottoman national identity, just came too late to precede the formation of separate ethnic identities among the subjugated people.

If the Ottoman establishment had initiated those reforms just a mere century and a half earlier there is chance things could have been a whole lot different though.

But even that wouldn't be plausible since a century and a half before the period we're talking about any concept of "national idenity" would be an anachronism.
 
Possibly a different situation playing out, Post-Stefano? I know Bulgaria was reduced to her rump borders, with Prince Alexander remaining on the throne refusing to serve as Governor-General of Eastern Rumelia; like all the Balkan States, Bulgaria (minus the comical farce of uger Bulgaria which just made the Balkans a blobby mess). One interesting POD could be Alexander not being made Governor General; it was his son who ordered that the two regions were merged... ofc, Turkey might be in issues down in the line, but perhaps she can maintain Eastern Rumelia with it's Turkish inhabits... a sort of promised lands for Turks and Muslims displaced in the 1880s: Turkey welcomes them and promptly settles them into Rumelia. Perhaps you could get enough of a plurality with significant rights for Bulgarian "minority" and Perhaps Turkey could also choose Bulgaria for the Circassians and the like deported from the 1850s. That's more 20th century, but some primitive rights did exist. Perhaps we see the Bulgarian Exarch recognize/reerected despite Greek displeasure, amongst other things that

This also needs some foreign support, most likely Britain as Battenburg had British ties. I think Britain especially would support Rumelia fully in Turkish hands to counter balance Bulgaria. Bulgaria still had sympathetic support on it's side, and if Alexander is deposed in favor of Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, it's over. Get more Muslim inhabitants in Eastern Rumelia, keep Alexander as a pliable sovereign who begins to lean more on the west post 1888
I'm afraid that you have some misconceptions about the history of the region. Alexander became prince only after the Berlin treaty. After Eastern Rumelia unified with Bulgaria in 1885, Alexander was made governor-general of the province as a kind of compromise between it rejoining Bulgaria and remaining part of the Ottoman Empire. Not only did he not refuse the position of governor-general, but he was very anxious to assure that the position would be inherited by his heir. As for the final unification, that wasn't done by his son but by Ferdinand, (who took the Bulgarian throne after Alexander abdicated) when he declared Bulgaria independent in 1908. At this point Bulgaria was unified de-jure, though Eastern Rumelia had been de-facto part of Bulgaria since 1885.

As for your proposal of Eastern Rumelia being swamped with Muslim immigrants, that's not really plausible. Even before the unification, Eastern Rumelia had no Ottoman troops and was ruled by a local government, dominated by the Bulgarian majority. Settling of Muslims under these circumstances would be very difficult, especially as few Muslims would want to settle in a state that was not really under the control of the Ottomans. The unification not happening for some reason would not change this and Alexander would be overthrown if he refused to agree to Eastern Rumelia rejoining Bulgaria. Regarding Britain, it actually supported the unification. In any case, the Great powers seem to have decided at this point that keeping Eastern Rumelia separate was not feasible any longer.

If the Sultan had been different, or been somehow caged or whatever and the Parliament allowed to continue and political reforms enacted their would be far less internal issues for the Ottomans, especially when one considers that a true Ottoman identity that was more important than/replaced ehtnic identites was starting to form in the late 19th century, but because of the events that happened was slowed and eventually killed.
The trouble with that is that identity extended almost entirely to Muslims and not even all Muslims. Most Christians were already committed to their own ethnic identities.

I stand corrected on both points.

Though I have to say that the Bulgarian muslims must have only recently remembered of their Turkish descent. And mostly because Bulgarian-Turkish relations gradually normalised and being Turko-Bulgarian wasn't considered a marginalising factor for them, anymore.
Of course that serves to prove your point since it suggests that they already thought themselves Turks in the first place.
That's true to an extent, but I would say that two factors were more important. The first was a reaction against the assimilation campaigns which the Bulgarian government attempted in the 70s and 80s and the second a desire to be part of a minority that had support of the strongest country in the region, not to mention being able to immigrate there (as over 200 thousands have done since 1989).

Also I served in the army, posted in the Evros border region. Not many years ago, muslim conscripts in the Greek army would serve in a sort of penal battalions or companies. They were treated awfully, and the worst possible chores were reserved for them, while they also had to suffer personal humiliations.
Sounds similar to how most Turks and Gypsies in Bulgaria had to carry out their military service in labor battalions during Communist rule.
 
Top