Bulgarian "Byzantine" Empire

[Mirza Khan]

IOTL, after the Latin conquest in 1204, Constantinople was eventually recovered in 1261. But lets say somehow (maybe Tsar Kaloyan is more stable and lives to 50-60), Bulgaria, rather than Nicea, eventually surrounds and takes Constantinople.

Some years back I wrote a TL with this very premise, and at the time the consensus of the board seemed to be that Grecophone Byzantine culture would have dominated this state. Thinking about it now, though, I'm...not so sure. If mega-Bulgaria also conquers Serbia at some point, it will control a fairly sizable Slavic-dominated area in the Balkans, larger and more populous than the Greek-speaking areas in the south. Especially if Constantinople is half-surrounded by the Bulgarians and becomes depopulated (like before its capture by the Ottomans IOTL), I can see a large influx of Bulgarian and Serbian speaking settlers becoming the demographic majority in the city. Likewise, OTL Greece is likely to be a mix of Greeks, Albanians, and slavs, and I can see Bulgarian becoming the lingua franca.

Thus, by the present, we might have:

Tsardom of the Romans
Language: Bulgarian
Capital: Tsargrad
Population ~70 million or so.
Area: OTL Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, and western and central Turkey. Possibly Romania-this is likely to be fought over between the Roman Tsardom and whoever controls Hungary. Since Hungary is almost certain to be Catholic ruled, the Romanians are likely to support the Tsardom and might become Slavicized.

Croatia (includes most of OTL Bosnia) would likely stay Catholic and become a haven for opponents of the Tsardom with the support of Austria (or whoever the main central European power is). There would also likely be a Catholic population in Albania, which periodically rises against the Tsardom with Austrian and Italian support. Might become independent if the Tsardom's 20th century goes badly enough.

Thoughts?

 

[Aluma]

Reminds me of this scenario I've seen forever ago
The thought of a Bulgarian-Roman Empire is fascinating, though I dont have much to say other than whats in the video

 

[Evil Crusader]

The biggest hurdle is that by 1204, Bulgarian culture is in a bit of a pickle. It has spent almost two centuries under Greek rule, vanished from its old lands beyond the Danube, and while far from a goner, it's not in a great shape over all; Kalojan himself was "born Greek", and there's a lot of Greeks everywhere that will only welcome the Emperor if he's the only alternative to Latin rule - or if he becomes a lot more palatable. And while the Sack of Constantinople had *a lot* of looting, not as much killing occurred.
The events in the Ottoman Empire between Mehmed and Suleyman's reigns give a good example of just how much Greek culture could impact the Turkish Islamic Emperors, who had far less incentive and kinship for pandering; and even after a lot more devastation, a far grander rebuild program, and three centuries of domination, still Constantinople was 25% Greek circa 1850. This not to be a naysayer, but to explain the challenges a more successful Second Bulgarian Empire would have to face before it becomes a "true" Bulgarian Empire.

And as always, "very distant future" scenarios are so specific they probably sabotage themselves once the TL gets written.

 

[GenghisKhanfan]

I do have a question about this scenario
How would this "Bulgarized" Byzantium deal with the raids of the Mongols in the 1230s and 1240s?
OTL Bulgaria was divided three ways between contenders and they couldn't maintain any alliance they forged against the Mongols because none of them were willing to sacrifice their sovereignty even for common defense. Byzantium itself was enduring the Latin Occupation and unable to assist.

 

[Mirza Khan]

I do have a question about this scenario
How would this "Bulgarized" Byzantium deal with the raids of the Mongols in the 1230s and 1240s?
OTL Bulgaria was divided three ways between contenders and they couldn't maintain any alliance they forged against the Mongols because none of them were willing to sacrifice their sovereignty even for common defense. Byzantium itself was enduring the Latin Occupation and unable to assist.

I mean, one imagines better than OTL divided Bulgaria. A victory (or perceived victory) against the Mongols might be what helps solidify Bulgarian rule.

Also, part of my thinking on the language situation ITTL was inspired by the OTL relationship between the Turkic languages and Persian in Iran and Central Asia. After the early Middle Ages, Persianate Central Asia was taken over and ruled by ethnic Turks-but because of the cultural prestige of Persian, the Turkish rulers learned it as well-leading to a situation where the military and nobility spoke Turkic, but the civilian administration spoke Persian. This lasted for several centuries, but as the language of the nobility, Turkic gradually gained ground, and thus today Uzbekistan largely speaks a Turkic language where it would have been Persian in 1600.

ITTL...with Bulgaria being better protected from Mongol raids, and the Imperial family being Bulgarian, one imagines that by 1300 the majority of the Empire's nobility and general population will be of Slavic (Bulgarian and possibly Macedonian/Serbian) origin, and that, considering the closeness of Slavic languages, a sort of south Slavic koine might evolve which all of the Slavic nobles would have in common. For some time, the empire would be bilingual, with Greek being the "educated" but most of the nobility speaking Slavic and funding a Slavic high culture as well. IOTL, Bulgaria and Serbia both had fairly extensive literary traditions by this time, IRRC in Church Slavonic. (I think its highly likely that if the "Bulgarian" dynasty survives, it conquers Serbia at some point.)

Eventually, Demotic Greek evolves further and further away from "educated" Greek, and more and more Slavic settlers move into Thessalaniki and Constantinople. Almost as importantly, the empire crushes the nascent Ottomans and enjoys great success against the divided beyliks of Anatolia-and these lands are extensively repopulated by Slavic settlers as well. Gradually, although Katharevousa Greek is very much learned and used in the monasteries, universities, church, and the upper end of the nobility, the common "street language" of the Empire, and especially of its merchants, burghers, and lower nobility, is a Slavic koine, developed largely by Bulgarian and Serbian speakers and essentially a simplified, modernized form of Church Slavonic with lots of Greek influence. Sometimes its called Bulgarian, sometimes Roman, sometimes Slavonic, and gradually it grows to be more identified with the Empire. The word "Greek" exclusively applies to Katharevousa, and "Demotic" is a separate language, whose speakers have to learn Slavonic (and, if aspiring to a church or higher-level administration career, Katharevousa) to talk to anyone in Constantinople.

 

[Enigmajones]

IOTL, after the Latin conquest in 1204, Constantinople was eventually recovered in 1261. But lets say somehow (maybe Tsar Kaloyan is more stable and lives to 50-60), Bulgaria, rather than Nicea, eventually surrounds and takes Constantinople.

Some years back I wrote a TL with this very premise, and at the time the consensus of the board seemed to be that Grecophone Byzantine culture would have dominated this state. Thinking about it now, though, I'm...not so sure. If mega-Bulgaria also conquers Serbia at some point, it will control a fairly sizable Slavic-dominated area in the Balkans, larger and more populous than the Greek-speaking areas in the south. Especially if Constantinople is half-surrounded by the Bulgarians and becomes depopulated (like before its capture by the Ottomans IOTL), I can see a large influx of Bulgarian and Serbian speaking settlers becoming the demographic majority in the city. Likewise, OTL Greece is likely to be a mix of Greeks, Albanians, and slavs, and I can see Bulgarian becoming the lingua franca.

Thus, by the present, we might have:

Tsardom of the Romans
Language: Bulgarian
Capital: Tsargrad
Population ~70 million or so.
Area: OTL Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, and western and central Turkey. Possibly Romania-this is likely to be fought over between the Roman Tsardom and whoever controls Hungary. Since Hungary is almost certain to be Catholic ruled, the Romanians are likely to support the Tsardom and might become Slavicized.

Croatia (includes most of OTL Bosnia) would likely stay Catholic and become a haven for opponents of the Tsardom with the support of Austria (or whoever the main central European power is). There would also likely be a Catholic population in Albania, which periodically rises against the Tsardom with Austrian and Italian support. Might become independent if the Tsardom's 20th century goes badly enough.

Thoughts?

You call the capital Tsargrad, do you mean Tarnovo? It was called the city of Tsars but not Tsargrad IIRC.

 

[Mirza Khan]

You call the capital Tsargrad, do you mean Tarnovo? It was called the city of Tsars but not Tsargrad IIRC.

I meant Constantinople-I'm assuming they'd move the capital there once they conquered it. Tsargrad was a common Slavic name for Constantinople pre-1453

 

[Zygmunt Stary]

Croatia (includes most of OTL Bosnia) would likely stay Catholic and become a haven for opponents of the Tsardom with the support of Austria (or whoever the main central European power is).

At that time Croatia is part of Hungary, firmly controlled by it, also said Hungary is #1 Central European power - with close #2 being Bohemia, but it's not really likely they would get involved in Balkan affairs, tho they were at odds with Hungarians and Premysl Ottokar II warred with them, maybe we could see Bulgarian-Bohemian alliance and partition of Hungary between them post Mohacs-style, which means that Czechs will keep Austria and there could Western Slavic Empire led by Premyslids - Austria (Premyslids briefly controlled it IOTL), Bohemia and Moravia, Lusatia, Meissen/Miśnia - area which became nucleus of electorate of Saxony OTL, but wasn't actual Saxony, western Hungary proper, Slovakia - that one is important because it had lots of gold, if Czechs seize that area, they're #1 producent of gold and silver in Europe, Poland - if Hungary is not there to support Piast pretendents, Bohemia would take it over, even bishop of Kraków (the most important Polish city in that period) Jan Prandota, practically begged Premysl Ottokar to come and unify the Kingdom, since no one of Piast princes was considered capable of doing so by him, and Czechs were regarded as co-linguists by Poles at that time (Slavic languages were a lot closer to each other back than, especially ones which were neighbouring) with the possibility of further eastern expansion - Premysl Ottokar II was interested in crusade against Lithuanians, even Konigsberg is named after him, if that empire bordered Lithuania, the crusading incentive would be a lot bigger.
Bulgaria would take Transylvania and eastern proper Hungary (and Transylvania was still populated by lots of population speaking language close to Bulgarian, which was main source of Slavic influence in Romanian IOTL), which would also provide them with gold mines, albeit there would be lesser amount than in Slovakia.

 

[MagicalPhantom345]

Just wondering but how would Eastern Europe develop with an Orthodox power ruling Tsargrad?

 

[Mirza Khan]

At that time Croatia is part of Hungary, firmly controlled by it, also said Hungary is #1 Central European power - with close #2 being Bohemia, but it's not really likely they would get involved in Balkan affairs, tho they were at odds with Hungarians and Premysl Ottokar II warred with them, maybe we could see Bulgarian-Bohemian alliance and partition of Hungary between them post Mohacs-style, which means that Czechs will keep Austria and there could Western Slavic Empire led by Premyslids - Austria (Premyslids briefly controlled it IOTL), Bohemia and Moravia, Lusatia, Meissen/Miśnia - area which became nucleus of electorate of Saxony OTL, but wasn't actual Saxony, western Hungary proper, Slovakia - that one is important because it had lots of gold, if Czechs seize that area, they're #1 producent of gold and silver in Europe, Poland - if Hungary is not there to support Piast pretendents, Bohemia would take it over, even bishop of Kraków (the most important Polish city in that period) Jan Prandota, practically begged Premysl Ottokar to come and unify the Kingdom, since no one of Piast princes was considered capable of doing so by him, and Czechs were regarded as co-linguists by Poles at that time (Slavic languages were a lot closer to each other back than, especially ones which were neighbouring) with the possibility of further eastern expansion - Premysl Ottokar II was interested in crusade against Lithuanians, even Konigsberg is named after him, if that empire bordered Lithuania, the crusading incentive would be a lot bigger.
Bulgaria would take Transylvania and eastern proper Hungary (and Transylvania was still populated by lots of population speaking language close to Bulgarian, which was main source of Slavic influence in Romanian IOTL), which would also provide them with gold mines, albeit there would be lesser amount than in Slovakia.

Hmm, I wasn't thinking about the fact that the Habsburg presence in Austria postdates my POD, and that my POD (by means of a Bulgarian/Byzantine alliance with Ottokar II) might plausibly butterfly it. It's one of the great ironies of history that almost all of Cisleithian Austria was Slavic speaking in AD 900, and yet when it became the center of a major world power its language was...German. Perhaps in this TL, the Austria-analogue will be led by Bohemia, and it will be the great Catholic Slavic rival to Slavic Byzantium.

The position of Russia ITTL will be interesting. Much of the OTL Russian worldview was a response to its position as the only surviving Orthodox and (later) Slavic power-but obviously this won't be the case ITTL, with Kiev (or Moscow, or...whatever the capital of the Rus successor state is) perpetually the junior brother of Tsargrad...at least from Tsargrad's point of view. But the Rus lands are vast, and such a position of subservience will ultimately be unsatisfying...perhaps they rebel by becoming Catholic? Or by adopting some equivalent of Old-Believerism? Maybe Russia spends the Early Modern period as an arena where Roman and Bohemian influences compete with one another, with the winner ultimately determining which of the two Slavic Great Powers emerges victorious from their struggle?

 

[Nuraghe]

I mean, one imagines better than OTL divided Bulgaria. A victory (or perceived victory) against the Mongols might be what helps solidify Bulgarian rule.

Also, part of my thinking on the language situation ITTL was inspired by the OTL relationship between the Turkic languages and Persian in Iran and Central Asia. After the early Middle Ages, Persianate Central Asia was taken over and ruled by ethnic Turks-but because of the cultural prestige of Persian, the Turkish rulers learned it as well-leading to a situation where the military and nobility spoke Turkic, but the civilian administration spoke Persian. This lasted for several centuries, but as the language of the nobility, Turkic gradually gained ground, and thus today Uzbekistan largely speaks a Turkic language where it would have been Persian in 1600.

ITTL...with Bulgaria being better protected from Mongol raids, and the Imperial family being Bulgarian, one imagines that by 1300 the majority of the Empire's nobility and general population will be of Slavic (Bulgarian and possibly Macedonian/Serbian) origin, and that, considering the closeness of Slavic languages, a sort of south Slavic koine might evolve which all of the Slavic nobles would have in common. For some time, the empire would be bilingual, with Greek being the "educated" but most of the nobility speaking Slavic and funding a Slavic high culture as well. IOTL, Bulgaria and Serbia both had fairly extensive literary traditions by this time, IRRC in Church Slavonic. (I think its highly likely that if the "Bulgarian" dynasty survives, it conquers Serbia at some point.)

Eventually, Demotic Greek evolves further and further away from "educated" Greek, and more and more Slavic settlers move into Thessalaniki and Constantinople. Almost as importantly, the empire crushes the nascent Ottomans and enjoys great success against the divided beyliks of Anatolia-and these lands are extensively repopulated by Slavic settlers as well. Gradually, although Katharevousa Greek is very much learned and used in the monasteries, universities, church, and the upper end of the nobility, the common "street language" of the Empire, and especially of its merchants, burghers, and lower nobility, is a Slavic koine, developed largely by Bulgarian and Serbian speakers and essentially a simplified, modernized form of Church Slavonic with lots of Greek influence. Sometimes its called Bulgarian, sometimes Roman, sometimes Slavonic, and gradually it grows to be more identified with the Empire. The word "Greek" exclusively applies to Katharevousa, and "Demotic" is a separate language, whose speakers have to learn Slavonic (and, if aspiring to a church or higher-level administration career, Katharevousa) to talk to anyone in Constantinople.

I would not be so sure that Bulgarian becomes so prestigious as to match Greek, because Otl Bulgaria was also very close to being Hellenized (only the revolts against the Angelois regime that we see a greater opposition that disappeared after Basil conquered the region, then the Bulgarian tsars also called themselves Basileus of the Rhomanoi ) also I believe that Bulgaria/Rome can only keep the orthodox parts of the Balkans so from Serbia down (I hardly see Hungary giving Croatia, even after a devastating Mongol invasion , instead for Bosnia we need to see how much damage the bogomil movement has done ) but I see a greater grip of western Anatolia ( given the extra manpower ) and perhaps some campaign against the kingdom of Sicily