WI/PC No independent Bulgaria, Ottoman frontier at the Balkan Mountains?

[EnvarKadri]

I was looking at this map of the mountains of the eastern balkans:

and I thought if it could be a stable frontier for the Ottoman Empire if the Russo-Turkish Was went different. They would still lost territory but russian troops wouldn't pass the Balkan Mountains into Eastern Rumelia so the region would remain 40% muslim ("According to a British report before the 1877–1878 war, the non-Muslim population (which were mostly Bulgarians) of Eastern Rumelia, was about 60% which proportion grew due to the flight and emigration of Muslims during and after the war." Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essay, Kemal H. Karpat, p.370). And so the region would remain ottoman ruled and the Empire keeps a region with a good natural frontier and a good % of muslims in the area, the number can be raised quite easily throught "population exchanges" (aka mutual ethnic cleansing) and by settling the region with the millions of ottoman muslim refugees they have from all those regions in the balkans (and also tatars and caucasus peoples) they allready lost. So they would keep Eastern Rumelia plus the region around Sofía (in the ottoman side of the Balkan mountains).
Now the most problematic part of my proposal. With the russian failure to advance south of the Balkan M. ttl Principality of Bulgaria would be a rump state that doesnt even control what shoul be it's capital region or most of the bulgarians. So without posible unification with the territories south of the Balkan insight, instead of proclaiming independence as the Kingdom of Bulgaria like in otl, they instead join the Romanian united principalities as a "fellow orthodox principality" in some sort of christian orthodox peoples Balkan Federation against the ottomans. I am not shure how plausible it would be in the age of Balkan nationalism for romanians and bulgarians to federate togheter out of fear of the "return of the turk", if rump bulgaria would join a majority romanian union even if their situation difficult, maybe they just deside to just wait for a better chance while remaining a pseudo vassall of the Ottomans. Or if the romanians would even want that sort of union, maybe the time is too late for an "orthodox pan-nationalism" in the balkans or maybe they see the chance to use the bulgarians as a hammer against the ottomans and for their own objectives.
Honestly I made this because I think this mountain range has never being used as an international border for long and I kinda thought that dividing Bulgaria between Romania and Ottoman Empire/Turkey at this range would look good on a map. So, any thoughts?

 

[Gloss]

I find weird the Danube was more of a border than the Balkan mountains, in any case I think an East vs West division would make more sense in terms of demographics, maybe Serbia annexes the Western half of Bulgaria and Macedonia and creates an Orthodox South Slavic state while the Ottomans keep the coast up to Romania?

 

[EnvarKadri]

I summon ye, ottoman expert @Koprulu Mustafa Pasha !

 

[haider najib]

@EnvarKadri make a late ottoman tl with these bordish. This would be cool.

 

[EnvarKadri]

@EnvarKadri make a late ottoman tl with these bordish. This would be cool.

When I finish my tesis I may think about doing enough research and work to actually write a tl but not now.

 

[fraa Jad]

The treaty of Constantinople of 1776, which was supposed to split ethnically Bulgarian territories of the Ottoman Empire into two autonomous Bulgarian provinces (eastern and western, with capitals in Sofia and Tarnovo), was rejected by the Ottoman Empire. It might have had something to do with the strong Greek lobby in the Ottoman government; it excluded territories where Greeks were just a the plurality of Christians, and some times even not that; and more importantly had voted in the referendum of 1870-1872 to become part of the Bulgarian Exharchy; it gave the Ottoman Empire (without thetwo autonomous Bulgarian provinces) more territory north of the Aegean than the referendum suggested. The eastern half was supposed to be under Russian influence, and the western one under Austro-Hungarian.

Bulgarians at that time were fighting mostly against the Patriarch in Constantinople; Bulgarians didn't have that much against the Ottoman empire itself, rather than against the Constantinople church that the Empire was promoting or at least neglectful of. There had been book burnings in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by Greek priests of Bulgarian books in Tarnovo and Ohrid.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

I was looking at this map of the mountains of the eastern balkans:

and I thought if it could be a stable frontier for the Ottoman Empire if the Russo-Turkish Was went different. They would still lost territory but russian troops wouldn't pass the Balkan Mountains into Eastern Rumelia so the region would remain 40% muslim ("According to a British report before the 1877–1878 war, the non-Muslim population (which were mostly Bulgarians) of Eastern Rumelia, was about 60% which proportion grew due to the flight and emigration of Muslims during and after the war." Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essay, Kemal H. Karpat, p.370). And so the region would remain ottoman ruled and the Empire keeps a region with a good natural frontier and a good % of muslims in the area, the number can be raised quite easily throught "population exchanges" (aka mutual ethnic cleansing) and by settling the region with the millions of ottoman muslim refugees they have from all those regions in the balkans (and also tatars and caucasus peoples) they allready lost. So they would keep Eastern Rumelia plus the region around Sofía (in the ottoman side of the Balkan mountains).
Now the most problematic part of my proposal. With the russian failure to advance south of the Balkan M. ttl Principality of Bulgaria would be a rump state that doesnt even control what shoul be it's capital region or most of the bulgarians. So without posible unification with the territories south of the Balkan insight, instead of proclaiming independence as the Kingdom of Bulgaria like in otl, they instead join the Romanian united principalities as a "fellow orthodox principality" in some sort of christian orthodox peoples Balkan Federation against the ottomans. I am not shure how plausible it would be in the age of Balkan nationalism for romanians and bulgarians to federate togheter out of fear of the "return of the turk", if rump bulgaria would join a majority romanian union even if their situation difficult, maybe they just deside to just wait for a better chance while remaining a pseudo vassall of the Ottomans. Or if the romanians would even want that sort of union, maybe the time is too late for an "orthodox pan-nationalism" in the balkans or maybe they see the chance to use the bulgarians as a hammer against the ottomans and for their own objectives.
Honestly I made this because I think this mountain range has never being used as an international border for long and I kinda thought that dividing Bulgaria between Romania and Ottoman Empire/Turkey at this range would look good on a map. So, any thoughts?

A union between Romania and Bulgaria is unlikely. Mostly as the Bulgarians end up in a non-Bulgarian state from a non-Bulgarian state. Being Orthodox doesn't really help much. To get such scenario parts of Bulgaria mist be added to Romania rather than the entire thing. But this butterflies away the 1877-78 war.

Maybe... maybe if Russia had a free hand in the region they might rearrange things. Free hand as in, UK, Germany and Austria-Hungary distracted.

Another issue is that parts of Eastern Bulgaria given to Bulgaria was Muslim Majority. I'd see Romania populating those parts with Romanians. Not much of a Romano-Bulgarian union.

The natural borders will help the Ottomans as well as the Romanians. No extra Bulgarians for Romania, better defensive lines in the Balkans rather than what the Ottomans had post-1908

 

[fraa Jad]

In the mid-19th century:
1) a) the population exchanges between The Ottoman and Russian Empires started; and Bulgarians were sort of forcefully (to some of them they promised more land in Russia, but they were made unto serfs upon arrival) settled in Ukraine, and Circassians in Southern Dobrija. Northern Dobruja remained Bulgarian-speaking;
1) b) what after the war became Romania was very angry, initially, at Russia, that they took Bessarabia (mostly Romanian-speaking) and gave Romania a Bulgarian-speaking region in exchange: but it was part of Russia's "crawl towards the straits" strategy.
2) The Wallachian and Moldavian principalities, after their unity, decided to promote as an official language the peasant language, but purged of Bulgarian influences, (that happened in 2-3 stages, including several intermediary alphabets between Cyrillic and Latin) and borrowed a lot etymologycally from Italian and French -- until then the language of the educated people, and especially the church, was the same archaic Bulgarian as was south of the Danube.

 

[kasumigenx]

The Timoc region of Bulgaria is Romanian speaking FYI.

 

[fraa Jad]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? I just said that Romania was angry that Russia took Bessarabia (around Timoc), a mostly Romanian-speaking region, and instead gave them northern Dobruja, after the 1877-1878 war. I just said the same thing?

"The Timoc region of Bulgaria" -- I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[kasumigenx]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? I just said that Romania was angry that Russia took Bessarabia (around Timoc), a mostly Romanian-speaking region, and instead gave them northern Dobruja, after the 1877-1878 war. I just said the same thing?

"The Timoc region of Bulgaria" -- I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Basarabia is Moldova, Timoc is a region shared by Serbia and Bulgaria that has Romanian speakers, so no doubt the new country will be predominantly Romanian.

 

[fraa Jad]

Oh, THAT. Sorry, since I was talking about the northwest Black Sea coast I couldn't figure out what Timoc had anything to do with it, and I was desperately googling for a Timoc there and maybe it was a false positive. It didn't even occur to me you were talking about the Timoc that came to my mind initially. You might want to quote what you're replying to. I should also probably do that. Timoc means "dark", BTW, common name for a river. So you were talking about the Timoc on the Morava, right.

 

[kasumigenx]

Oh, THAT. Sorry, since I was talking about the northwest Black Sea coast I couldn't figure out what Timoc had anything to do with it, and I was desperately googling for a Timoc there and maybe it was a false positive. It didn't even occur to me you were talking about the Timoc that came to my mind initially. You might want to quote what you're replying to. I should also probably do that. Timoc means "dark", BTW, common name for a river. So you were talking about the Timoc on the Morava, right.

Yes, that is what I mean.

 

[yulzari]

It may be telling that modern Eastern Roumelia has a Turkish element but a bit short on Greeks. Don't ask how that happened.

 

[EnvarKadri]

It may be telling that modern Eastern Roumelia has a Turkish element but a bit short on Greeks. Don't ask how that happened.

In reality most of northern greece was strong in bulgarian minorities if not mayorities but the greeks did "balkan things" to those regions and nobody cared because Bulgaria was a communist country at the time and the bulgarians were suspected of communism. Is logical that there weren’t that many greeks in southern Bulgaria when even northern greece wasn't that greek.

 

[kasumigenx]

Greece has both Bulgarian and Albanian populations.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

In reality most of northern greece was strong in bulgarian minorities if not mayorities but the greeks did "balkan things" to those regions and nobody cared because Bulgaria was a communist country at the time and the bulgarians were suspected of communism. Is logical that there weren’t that many greeks in southern Bulgaria when even northern greece wasn't that greek.

The thing is, everybody did unholy things. Varna had a large Greek population but today, many are gone.

 

[Dementor]

I was looking at this map of the mountains of the eastern balkans:

and I thought if it could be a stable frontier for the Ottoman Empire if the Russo-Turkish Was went different. They would still lost territory but russian troops wouldn't pass the Balkan Mountains into Eastern Rumelia so the region would remain 40% muslim ("According to a British report before the 1877–1878 war, the non-Muslim population (which were mostly Bulgarians) of Eastern Rumelia, was about 60% which proportion grew due to the flight and emigration of Muslims during and after the war." Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essay, Kemal H. Karpat, p.370).

These particular reports should be considered in the context of the British sympathies towards the Ottomans. They considerably underestimate the Christian population of Eastern Rumelia, when compared to the first census after 1878, perhaps by a third or more. The Christian population was likely more than 70%

And so the region would remain ottoman ruled and the Empire keeps a region with a good natural frontier and a good % of muslims in the area, the number can be raised quite easily throught "population exchanges" (aka mutual ethnic cleansing) and by settling the region with the millions of ottoman muslim refugees they have from all those regions in the balkans (and also tatars and caucasus peoples) they allready lost. So they would keep Eastern Rumelia plus the region around Sofía (in the ottoman side of the Balkan mountains).

The Sofia region had few Muslims even before the 1877-78 war. You'd be looking at over 75% Christian population. Not that of course this would stop the Ottomans (they partially implemented such ethnic cleansing during the war) but the scale would be considerable, comparable to the ethnic cleansing carried out after the Greek-Turkish war.

Now the most problematic part of my proposal. With the russian failure to advance south of the Balkan M. ttl Principality of Bulgaria would be a rump state that doesnt even control what shoul be it's capital region or most of the bulgarians. So without posible unification with the territories south of the Balkan insight, instead of proclaiming independence as the Kingdom of Bulgaria like in otl, they instead join the Romanian united principalities as a "fellow orthodox principality" in some sort of christian orthodox peoples Balkan Federation against the ottomans. I am not shure how plausible it would be in the age of Balkan nationalism for romanians and bulgarians to federate togheter out of fear of the "return of the turk", if rump bulgaria would join a majority romanian union even if their situation difficult, maybe they just deside to just wait for a better chance while remaining a pseudo vassall of the Ottomans. Or if the romanians would even want that sort of union, maybe the time is too late for an "orthodox pan-nationalism" in the balkans or maybe they see the chance to use the bulgarians as a hammer against the ottomans and for their own objectives.

I don't see anything like this working. Mainly because of differing national objectives. Romania is interested in territorial expansions against Russia and Austria, while the paramount objective of Bulgaria would be to gain back the Thracian lands.

Honestly I made this because I think this mountain range has never being used as an international border for long and I kinda thought that dividing Bulgaria between Romania and Ottoman Empire/Turkey at this range would look good on a map. So, any thoughts?

It should be pointed out that while this range makes sense from a geogrpahic point of view, ethnologically the Balkan mountains are more a connection than a border. Not only is there little difference in the ethnic composition, but the Bulgarians share a very close culture. Economically northern and southern Bulgaria have always been tightly connected. Add the fact that the Thrace region and especially the sub Balkan valley region was part of the heartland of Bulgaria's revival and it's clear that no plausible Bulgarian state would settle for such a loss.

The treaty of Constantinople of 1776, which was supposed to split ethnically Bulgarian territories of the Ottoman Empire into two autonomous Bulgarian provinces (eastern and western, with capitals in Sofia and Tarnovo), was rejected by the Ottoman Empire. It might have had something to do with the strong Greek lobby in the Ottoman government; it excluded territories where Greeks were just a the plurality of Christians, and some times even not that; and more importantly had voted in the referendum of 1870-1872 to become part of the Bulgarian Exharchy; it gave the Ottoman Empire (without thetwo autonomous Bulgarian provinces) more territory north of the Aegean than the referendum suggested. The eastern half was supposed to be under Russian influence, and the western one under Austro-Hungarian.

This is a novel theory which I don't see as especially plausible. By taking away most of the Bulgarian population, Greek influence would be strengthened, not weakened (as happened in OTL after 1878) and the borders were much more favorable than anything corresponding to the borders of the Bulgarian Exarchate would have been. The Ottomans had plenty of reasons of their own to oppose any autonomy, most importantly their (justified) fear that they would eventually lose any such autonomous territory.

Bulgarians at that time were fighting mostly against the Patriarch in Constantinople; Bulgarians didn't have that much against the Ottoman empire itself, rather than against the Constantinople church that the Empire was promoting or at least neglectful of. There had been book burnings in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by Greek priests of Bulgarian books in Tarnovo and Ohrid.

The two are not exclusive. By 1876 the public opinion against the Ottomans was overwhelmingly negative even among the trading classes, which had the most to gain from cooperation with the Ottoman authorities.

Maybe... maybe if Russia had a free hand in the region they might rearrange things. Free hand as in, UK, Germany and Austria-Hungary distracted.

With a free hand, Russia would certainly implement a solution approximating the San Stefano treaty, if not an even more favorable one.

Another issue is that parts of Eastern Bulgaria given to Bulgaria was Muslim Majority. I'd see Romania populating those parts with Romanians. Not much of a Romano-Bulgarian union.

There would likely be considerable Bulgarian emigration from Thrace which seems a more likely source for settlers.

The Timoc region of Bulgaria is Romanian speaking FYI.

Depends on what you consider the Timok region. If you mean the area corresponding to the present day Vidin Province, only about 20% were Romanian speakers at the time.

The thing is, everybody did unholy things. Varna had a large Greek population but today, many are gone.

This is largely the result of a population exchange, carried out mostly on the insistence of Greece. At the time it was convenient for Greece to get rid of their large Bulgarian minority and replace it with a loyal Greek population (even if many of those "Greeks" spoke Greeks no better than the Bulgarians they replaced).