What if Romania attacked Bulgarian Dobruja in 1885?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
In OTL's 20th century Second Balkan War, Romania conquered Bulgarian ruled Dobruja, and retained it until WWII when Bulgaria won it back permanently.

What if Romania sought this territory in the 19th century.

You can choose any time for the Romanians to make this move (for instance, perhaps Romania could have claimed it in the Russo-Turkish War or at Congress of Berlin), but it seems to me that a more interesting scenario would be if Romania attacks to seize the territory in 1885, using the Bulgarian unification with Eastern Rumelia as the excuse for seeking territorial "compensation". This could be either before, or after, the Serbians attacked Bulgaria.

How would the situation play out from this point? Could Bulgaria hold all its old and new territory in the circumstances of the time? Could a Serbo-Romanian coalition win border-lands from Bulgaria? Or perhaps a Serbo-Romanian-Ottoman coalition?

How would great powers react and intervene in this situation?
 
OTL, Romania did not really want the entire Southern Dobrudja (the Bulgarian ruled) as it was too full of Bulgarians and Turks and other minorities... They wanted the fortress of Silistra which they demanded to Bulgaria as compensation. The got the entire region out of greed after invading Bulgaria and won an un-worked, an underserved and a very cheap victory (Bulgaria collapsed after the announcement they were attacked by Romania after being exhausted in their wars with Greece, Serbia and Turkey, even if was not as unexpected as it was portraited. The Romanian army did not fight at all.) So, with a crushed Bulgaria at a table of negotiation in Bucharest, and with all spirits inflamed by the "greatness of the Romanian army" which "only needed to show it up" the Romanians got greedy and wanted a bigger part of the pie. The great powers accepted as they considered a big Bulgaria as a threat to the "equilibrium of power" in the Balkans.

Of course, it could happen it before but a lot of circumstances need to be different:

-1: Nobody feared Bulgaria in its 1885 borders, but a lot feared it in it's 1911's borders.
-2: The Bulgarian-Romanian relations were excellent in 1885. The Bulgarians were grateful for the Romanian involvement in the war of 1877-1878, they didn't perceive the Romanian acquisition of Dobrudja as Romanian expansionism as it was imposed by the Great Powers to Romania in order to cede the Budjac region to Russia. The region was very poor and still devastated by war.
-3: On the other hand, Romanians saw Bulgarians with sympathy, as fellow Christians oppressed by the same hated "heathen" power - the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, they consider the Bulgarian annexation of Rumelia as legit unification (the division was artificially made by the Great Powers out of fear of too big Russian influence). All these have gone by 1910-1911.
-4: The Bulgarian diaspora in Bucharest was strong and influencing in 1885
-5: The Serbo-Romanian relations were neither cold nor warm. Serbia fluctuated from Austrian puppet to Russian one and neither power was loved in Romania.
-6: The Romanian nationalism was back then focused on helping the Aromanians (Romance population in the Balkans, speaking a language extremely close with Romanian) to gain cultural, social and political power on their original lands. Both Bulgaria and Greece didn't show any particular opposition to it in 1880-1890 but all changed after. The Aromanians become very oppressed and subject of forced assimilation in both countries, while Romania decided to colonize all wiling Aromanians in Dobrudja.
-7: The Romanian independence was hard won and expensive both financially, in terms of human lives lost and politically - it lost Romanian lands to Russia which transferred to it its spoils of war (Dobrudja), even if they guaranteed its territorial integrity. This act pushed the Romanians into the triple alliance (even if they hated Austria-Hungary with passion). The country felt betrayed by the great Powers and didn't trust them and no war could happen if there was not at least a Great Power backing it. Nobody had interest in strenghtening Romania at Bulgarian expense.
-8: Romania still resented economically, it was in the rebuilding phase and there was no mood for expansion. The national aspiration of Romanians was to North (to Transilvania and Bukovina) and to East (to Bessarabia) not to South.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
In OTL's 20th century Second Balkan War, Romania conquered Bulgarian ruled Dobruja, and retained it until WWII when Bulgaria won it back permanently.

What if Romania sought this territory in the 19th century.

You can choose any time for the Romanians to make this move (for instance, perhaps Romania could have claimed it in the Russo-Turkish War or at Congress of Berlin), but it seems to me that a more interesting scenario would be if Romania attacks to seize the territory in 1885, using the Bulgarian unification with Eastern Rumelia as the excuse for seeking territorial "compensation". This could be either before, or after, the Serbians attacked Bulgaria.

How would the situation play out from this point? Could Bulgaria hold all its old and new territory in the circumstances of the time? Could a Serbo-Romanian coalition win border-lands from Bulgaria? Or perhaps a Serbo-Romanian-Ottoman coalition?

How would great powers react and intervene in this situation?
Extremely unlikely. Romania had no expansionist ambition against Bulgaria at this point, and they were strongly anti-Russian, so they had every reason to support Bulgaria after Russia had turned against it.

OTL, Romania did not really want the entire Southern Dobrudja (the Bulgarian ruled) as it was too full of Bulgarians and Turks and other minorities...
They wanted the fortress of Silistra which they demanded to Bulgaria as compensation. The got the entire region out of greed after invading Bulgaria and won an un-worked, an underserved and a very cheap victory (Bulgaria collapsed after the announcement they were attacked by Romania after being exhausted in their wars with Greece, Serbia and Turkey, even if was not as unexpected as it was portraited. The Romanian army did not fight at all.) So, with a crushed Bulgaria at a table of negotiation in Bucharest, and with all spirits inflamed by the "greatness of the Romanian army" which "only needed to show it up" the Romanians got greedy and wanted a bigger part of the pie. The great powers accepted as they considered a big Bulgaria as a threat to the "equilibrium of power" in the Balkans.
You are forgetting that Bulgaria surrendered Silistra even before the Second Balkan war started and Romania still declared unsatisfied. They outright demanded the whole of Southern Dobruja at the start of the war.
Also, the Ottomans entered the war after Romania.

-1: Nobody feared Bulgaria in its 1885 borders, but a lot feared it in it's 1911's borders.
I doubt that the Romanians actually feared Bulgaria in its post-first Balkan War borders, since it still had a substantially larger population and Bulgaria had far too many other enemies to be a threat to Romania.

-3: On the other hand, Romanians saw Bulgarians with sympathy, as fellow Christians oppressed by the same hated "heathen" power - the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, they consider the Bulgarian annexation of Rumelia as legit unification (the division was artificially made by the Great Powers out of fear of too big Russian influence). All these have gone by 1910-1911.
Also by 1912 the Romanians did not see Dobruja as a foreign territory whose acquisition

-6: The Romanian nationalism was back then focused on helping the Aromanians (Romance population in the Balkans, speaking a language extremely close with Romanian) to gain cultural, social and political power on their original lands. Both Bulgaria and Greece didn't show any particular opposition to it in 1880-1890 but all changed after. The Aromanians become very oppressed and subject of forced assimilation in both countries, while Romania decided to colonize all wiling Aromanians in Dobrudja.
There were hardly any Aromanians in Bulgaria or Greece before the Balkan Wars (and there weren't many more in the former after the wars). And oppression and forced assimilation did not happen until after WWI, provoked to a large extent by the Romanian takeover of Southern Dobruja and the mistreatment of the Bulgarians there.
 
Extremely unlikely. Romania had no expansionist ambition against Bulgaria at this point, and they were strongly anti-Russian, so they had every reason to support Bulgaria after Russia had turned against it.
We both agree that Romania had no expansionist intentions against Bulgaria at this point. :)

You are forgetting that Bulgaria surrendered Silistra even before the Second Balkan war started and Romania still declared unsatisfied. They outright demanded the whole of Southern Dobruja at the start of the war.
Also, the Ottomans entered the war after Romania.
Indeed, the Turks entered in war after Romania. Concerning Silistra and S Dobrudja... I think you are right about the demands of the Southern Dobrudja as compensation before the war.... but nowhere I found about Silistra being already surrendered. I need to recheck my sources. Two years ago I've read an extensive treaty about the Romanian involvement in this war... sadly it's in Romanian not in English.

I doubt that the Romanians actually feared Bulgaria in its post-first Balkan War borders, since it still had a substantially larger population and Bulgaria had far too many other enemies to be a threat to Romania.
Sory, I wanted to say that "everybody (among Bulgarian neighbors) feared Bulgaria in its post first war borders... so after 1912... There was a theme in Romanian press in 1913 that Bulgaria, if not checked, "will create a Dobrudjan question/issue as it created a Macedonian one". This wasn't a fake theme, as Bulgaria indeed threaten Dobrudja as part of "Greater Bulgaria, still un-liberated" and the Bulgarian army had plans for action in this direction.

Also by 1912 the Romanians did not see Dobruja as a foreign territory whose acquisition
I don't understand what you want to say.... By 1912, Dobrudja was an integral part of Romania, of course, it wasn't seen foreign anymore. Do you refer to Southern Part (called Cadrilater by Romanians)? If yes, then it was seen as territorial compensation. The nationalist propaganda tried as hard to paint the acquisition as "legit unification of the old principality of Dobrudja once held by Mircea the great in 14 century"... (for few years). Sadly... many (not a majority, thanks God!) still believe it today.

There were hardly any Aromanians in Bulgaria or Greece before the Balkan Wars (and there weren't many more in the former after the wars). And oppression and forced assimilation did not happen until after WWI, provoked to a large extent by the Romanian takeover of Southern Dobruja and the mistreatment of the Bulgarians there.

I think you are very wrong here.... there were a lot of Aromanians in both countries previous to the Balkans wars. @Zagan might give you a better and more detailed answer about their numbers and their fate.


Sources (in Romanian):
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/ge...-succesului-diplomatic-si-militar-al-romaniei
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/ge...c-mai-spectaculos-in-presa-decat-in-realitate

EDIT:
Sources in English :
http://ionutcojocaru.ro/2013/05/03/...ticipation-of-certain-future-prime-ministers/
http://cis01.central.ucv.ro/revista...ounding of the Balkan Crisis... pp. 76-88.pdf
 
Last edited:
Indeed, the Turks entered in war after Romania. Concerning Silistra and S Dobrudja... I think you are right about the demands of the Southern Dobrudja as compensation before the war.... but nowhere I found about Silistra being already surrendered. I need to recheck my sources. Two years ago I've read an extensive treaty about the Romanian involvement in this war... sadly it's in Romanian not in English.
Bulgaria signed an agreement to cede Silistra on 9 May 1913, though it's true that the city was not ceded before the Second Balkan War started.

Sory, I wanted to say that "everybody (among Bulgarian neighbors) feared Bulgaria in its post first war borders... so after 1912... There was a theme in Romanian press in 1913 that Bulgaria, if not checked, "will create a Dobrudjan question/issue as it created a Macedonian one". This wasn't a fake theme, as Bulgaria indeed threaten Dobrudja as part of "Greater Bulgaria, still un-liberated" and the Bulgarian army had plans for action in this direction.
I don't doubt that the press was instructed to incite anti-Bulgarian feelings by inventing a Bulgarian threat to Dobruja, but I doubt the Romanian government actually believed this propaganda since it was obvious that Bulgaria would be far too pre-occupied with its southern borders to threaten Romania. Your assertion that Bulgaria theatened Dobruja before 1913 is false - almost nobody of any influence in Bulgaria called for taking northern Dobruja before 1913. As for plans, there may have been plans (though a source would be nice) since a good army makes plans for any possible situation, but I doubt that Romania knew about this at the time.

I don't understand what you want to say.... By 1912, Dobrudja was an integral part of Romania, of course, it wasn't seen foreign anymore. Do you refer to Southern Part (called Cadrilater by Romanians)? If yes, then it was seen as territorial compensation. The nationalist propaganda tried as hard to paint the acquisition as "legit unification of the old principality of Dobrudja once held by Mircea the great in 14 century"... (for few years). Sadly... many (not a majority, thanks God!) still believe it today.
I forgot to finish this part before posting. I wanted to say that unlike in 1878 when many saw Dobruja as a foreign land that should not be taken (partly to avoid a future conflict with Bulgaria), by 1912 it was seen as an integral Romanian territory with many considering it not big enough.



I think you are very wrong here.... there were a lot of Aromanians in both countries previous to the Balkans wars. @Zagan might give you a better and more detailed answer about their numbers and their fate.

Sources (in Romanian):
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/ge...-succesului-diplomatic-si-militar-al-romaniei
https://www.historia.ro/sectiune/ge...c-mai-spectaculos-in-presa-decat-in-realitate
I presume that you're also including as Aromanians not only the Aromanian speaking ethnic groups but also the Vlachs of the Danube valley which speak Romanian? Yes, there certainly were (and still are) a lot of the latter, especially north of Vidin. It's also true that they were mistreated in the interwar period, especially after far-right nationalists took power in 1934. But while this is not an excuse, it shouldn't be forgotten that it only happened after the takeover of southern Dobruja and the mistreatment of the Bulgarians there. Also regarding assimilation, I don't think most of them ever identified as Romanians. Few of them chose to emigrate to Romania in 1940 (unlike the Aromanians) and today nearly all of them declare their ethnicity as Bulgarian in censuses.
 
Top