Bulgaria as part of the Ottoman state

N. Dmitriev-Orenburgsky. "Entry of the Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich to Tarnovo on June 30, 1877". 1885 g.

Today we will continue our story about the Balkan subjects of the Ottoman Empire. In this article we will talk about the Bulgarians in Turkey and the Turks in Bulgaria, and in the next one, we will talk about the military operation "Attila" on the island of Cyprus, which alarmed the leadership of socialist Bulgaria, and the "Revival Process" campaign.

Bulgaria: the first Balkan country conquered by the Ottomans

The Turks never trusted the subjects of the European provinces because of their proximity to hostile Christian countries. At first, the tolerant Ottomans, after a series of defeats and setbacks, began to encourage the population of these Sanjaks to convert to Islam. In Bulgaria, which was conquered by the Turks at the end of the XNUMXth century, the first of the Balkan countries, at the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, about a third of the country's population professed Islam. Most of these Muslims were ethnic Turks, but there were also many Pomaks - Turkish Slavs who professed Islam, but spoke Bulgarian (and they used the Latin alphabet, not the Cyrillic alphabet).

Bulgarians-pomaks, photograph of the early XX century

The word “pomaks” (the Bulgarians pronounce it as “pomatsi”) translated into Russian means “helpers” (of the Turks): this is how the Orthodox Bulgarians called them. Until the twentieth century they called themselves “Muslims”.

Among the Orthodox Bulgarians, Islamization did not have much success, but the Bogomils adopted Islam en masse. This heretical teaching allowed the "hypocritical" confession of someone else's faith in the event of persecution or oppression. However, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the Bogomils almost forgot about their old faith. The same picture was in Bosnia, where local Bogomils also converted to Islam earlier than people who professed Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but this will be discussed in another article.

The majority of ethnic Turks live in northeastern Bulgaria, to a lesser extent in the center of the country, while the Bulgarian Pomaks live mainly in the economically depressed region of the Rhodope Mountains south of Plovdiv.

Rhodope Mountains on the map of Bulgaria:

On this map, the area of ​​the settlement of the Pomaks in Bulgaria is marked in green:

The Islamization of the Bulgarian Roma was also quite successful.

However, there was also a reverse process of adoption of Orthodoxy by ethnic Turks. Christian Turks are called "Gagauz".

Some historians consider them to be the descendants of the Seljuk Turks who settled on the territory of Bulgaria, Romania and Moldavia even before the Ottoman conquest. Others believe that this people traces its origin from the Uzy tribe, who previously roamed the shores of the Aral Sea and came to the Danube in the XNUMXth century.

The Bulgarian nobility, regardless of confessional affiliation, and the inhabitants of the cities (the townspeople were mainly Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Albanians) spoke Turkish. The Bulgarian language, which was considered the language of the mob and common people, could be heard only in the villages.

The best lands in Bulgaria accounted for the share of the sultan - khass. The rest of the land was divided into timars - plots, the owners of which were required to serve in the Ottoman army as spahi cavalrymen.

Spahs

The sizes of the timars were not the same, since they were calculated not according to the area, but according to the estimated income (which was influenced, for example, by the presence of a mill, a ferry for the crossing, on which it was possible to take money, etc.): money received from the site should have been enough to equip a heavily armed equestrian warrior and his servants. Timars could not be sold or inherited, but part of the land was given to eternal possession of especially distinguished high-ranking officers (such plots were called mulks), mosques, madrasahs or charitable institutions (vakfs).

At the same time, the peasant of any timar or mulka was not a serf and could sell his land - the obligations to pay taxes and fees passed to the new owner. The house, outbuildings, livestock and tools of labor were also the personal property of the peasant, which he could dispose of at his own discretion. The main thing was to pay taxes and taxes on time.

The inhabitants of the cities united in esnafs - corporations of artisans and merchants belonging to the same confession. These communities had common property (workshops, warehouses, shops, etc.), and the Ottoman authorities controlled the volume of production, the quality of goods and set prices.

During the Ottoman period, the Bulgarian Church lost its independence and was subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

One can get an idea of ​​the position of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire by getting acquainted with the dishes of the national cuisine of this country and comparing it, for example, with the Czech one. In Bulgarian recipes, there are a lot of vegetables, cheeses and dairy products, flour and cereals are used, wine is almost always served, but there are few meat dishes that were considered festive in this country and were not prepared every day.

In addition to economic inequality (additional taxes imposed on the non-Muslim population were discussed in the article The crisis of the Ottoman Empire and the evolution of the situation of the Gentiles) and the infamous "blood tax" (devshirme), there were other restrictions and manifestations of inequality. Orthodox Christians in Bulgaria had to demonstrate "signs of respect" when communicating with the Turks, and the testimony of three kafirs ("infidels") in court could be refuted by the testimony of one Muslim.

Path to freedom

Bulgaria received autonomy as a result of the Russian-Turkish war - in 1878, during which the "White General" (Ak Pasha - Ak-Pasha) - M. D. Skobelev became famous.

Bas-relief on General Skobelev Boulevard, Sofia, Bulgaria

Soldiers of the Russian army at the Uch-Tapa battery

Turkish soldiers, engraving 1878

Under the terms of the San Stefano Peace Treaty, Bulgaria was to receive the territory from the Danube to the Aegean Sea, and from the Black Sea to Lake Ohrid. However, Russian diplomats at the Berlin Congress completely failed, and Bismarck, who called himself an "honest marker", judged differently. The lands from the Danube to the Balkans were given to the principality of the vassal Turkey. Eastern Rumelia, centered in Philippopolis (now Plovdiv), became an autonomous region of the Ottoman Empire. And the lands from the Adriatic Sea to the Aegean were returned to Turkey.

The Principality of Bulgaria and the Autonomous Region of Eastern Rumelia

The Germans themselves still believe that Bismarck then did more for the Russians than all their own diplomats put together. This once again testifies to the business qualities of the traditionally idealized "friend of Pushkin" in our country - the head of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the last chancellor of the empire A.M. Gorchakov (whom V. Pikul in his novel called the "iron chancellor") and his subordinates ...

Bismarck and Gorchakov in the painting by Anton von Werner "Berlin Congress"

Alexander Battenberg, the nephew of the wife of the Russian emperor, became the prince of Bulgaria.

Anthony Piotrovsky. Portrait of Alexander I of Battenberg

In July 1885, the main city of Eastern Rumelia, Plovdiv, revolted, Alexander Battenberg was declared "the prince of both Bulgaria". Turkey at this time had no time for the Slavs - they suppressed the Greek uprising on the island of Cyprus, but the Austrians resented, provoking the war between Bulgaria and Serbia (in which Serbia was quickly defeated).

The Russian emperor Alexander III was also very dissatisfied with the "willfulness" of the Bulgarians, on whose order on August 9, 1886, the pro-Russian officers of the Sofia garrison and the Struma infantry regiment forced Battenberg to abdicate the throne.

Photo of a Russian officer who served in the army of the Bulgarian principality

Battenberg was immediately restored to princely dignity by other conspirators led by Stefan Stambolov, but on August 27 he renounced the throne, saying that his departure from Bulgaria would improve the country's relations with Russia. As you understand, this made the most unpleasant impression on the Bulgarians, and it all ended with the election in 1887 of an absolutely pro-German candidate - Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, who then ruled for 30 years, founding the fourth royal dynasty of Bulgaria. Stefan Stambolov, already mentioned by us, the former regent of Bulgaria and the prime minister of this country, who greatly contributed to the election of Ferdinand, dying in 1895 from a wound received from the Macedonian terrorists, said:

I have committed many sins before the Bulgarian people. He will forgive me everything except that I brought Ferdinand Coburg here.

Georgi Danchov-Zografina. Portrait of Stefan Stambolov

Ferdinand von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, photo taken shortly before his election as Prince of Bulgaria. Former chief lieutenant of the Hungarian cavalry, chief of the 26th Jaeger Battalion, 11th Hussars and 60th Heavy Artillery Regiment of the Austro-Hungarian Army, later received the rank of Marshal of the Turkish Army. He was recognized by Russia in 1896 - after he invited Nicholas II to become the godfather of his son Boris

The same godson of Nicholas II - the Bulgarian Tsar Boris III and Adolf Hitler: they are very similar, aren't they? A few days after this meeting, the Bulgarian will die of myocardial infarction

Alexander III was enraged, but he had to answer for everything, including his own stupidity. Unfortunately, it was not only the emperor who had to answer, but also Russia - so, the clumsy and stupid actions of Alexander III greatly contributed to the fact that Bulgaria then twice fought against our country on the side of Germany.

Bulgaria gained full independence only in 1908, when on September 22, in the Church of the Holy Forty Martyrs in Veliko Tarnovo, Ferdinand, taking advantage of the Bosnian crisis (Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina, paying the Turks compensation of 2,5 million pounds sterling), took the title king of the Bulgarians.

Wars of the independent Bulgarian kingdom

Then there was the victory of Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro and Greece in the I Balkan War.

First Balkan War on the map

As a result, the Bulgarians received from Turkey a significant part of Thrace with Edirne (Adrianople) and most of Macedonia with access to the Aegean Sea (but they wanted all of Macedonia and Constantinople).

Bulgarian soldiers, 1913, colorized photograph

Ottoman soldiers during the I and II Balkan wars

And the Young Turks came to power in the Ottoman Empire during this war. However, after a month and a half, the II Balkan War began (Bulgaria against Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, the Ottoman Empire and Romania), during which Bulgaria lost almost all of the newly acquired territories, as well as South Dobruja.

Second Balkan War on the map

Bulgaria still had access to the Aegean Sea - it would lose it after defeat in World War I.

Territorial losses of Bulgaria after World War I

Then the Russian and Bulgarian troops met on the Thessaloniki front. For some reason, the headquarters of the Supreme High Command decided that the Bulgarians would never shoot at the Russians, and therefore one brigade would be enough, to the side of which the Bulgarian soldiers and officers would go over together. It turned out that the Bulgarians were shooting at the Russians no less well than at the Serbs, Italians, French and British. There were military clashes with the Bulgarians on the Romanian front in 1916.

Attempts at revenge in World War II, as you know, Bulgaria did not lead to anything good. It is curious that Bulgaria then declared war only on Great Britain and the United States (December 13, 1941), and diplomatic relations were not even severed with the Soviet Union.

At the first stage of this war, Bulgaria captured part of the territory of Greece, Macedonia and Eastern Serbia, South Dobrudja annexed:

The territory of Bulgaria in 1941-1944

But these successes were replaced by failures. Realizing that the defeat of Germany and its allied countries was inevitable, on August 26, 1944, the Bulgarian government declared neutrality and demanded the withdrawal of German troops, which, however, after the surrender of Romania, were going to leave here anyway, so as not to be cut off from the Reich. However, the advancing Soviet troops had to leave for Yugoslavia, and therefore on September 5, the USSR declares war on Bulgaria. They failed to fight: on September 8, Bulgaria itself declared war on Germany, the Bulgarian troops did not resist the Red Army, on the night of September 8-9, during a bloodless coup, the communists came to power in the country. But the monarchy in Bulgaria was abolished only after a national referendum held in 1946.

Bulgaria after World War II

In 1945, over 2 million Muslims lived in Bulgaria. These were the Rumelian (Danube) Turks, the Pomaks (Islamized Slavs who spoke Bulgarian), the Gypsies who converted to Islam. The Turks, despite their common religion, never considered Pomaks and Muslim gypsies as their own and looked down on them. Nevertheless, the religiosity of the Pomaks was quite high and caused concern of the authorities. The Bulgarian authorities tried to change the names of the Pomaks back in 1962-1964. - this caused widespread resistance, and the campaign was actually curtailed. Even more worrisome for the Bulgarian authorities was the presence of a large Muslim Turkish diaspora, which was already beginning to prevail in some parts of the country. Remaining citizens of Bulgaria, they all the time looked towards Turkey, which they continued to consider the metropolis, and some - and the real homeland. Everything changed in 1974 when the situation in Cyprus escalated.

In the next article we will talk about the tragic confrontation between Greeks and Turks on the island of Cyprus in 1974, Operation Attila, conducted by the army of the Turkish Republic, about the “Cyprus Syndrome” by Todor Zhivkov and the leadership of socialist Bulgaria and the notorious “Renaissance Process” campaign in this country. ...

Comments

[Van 16]

A good continuation of a good cycle. Thanks!

[Korsar4]

Gypsies are still a definite problem in Bulgaria. And they have a lot of children.

Regarding the small number of meat dishes: I didn't get that impression. In my opinion, it depends on the wealth of the family.

However, it is necessary to go on a culinary tour of the Slavic countries to compare.

[Catfish]

Hello, Sergey!
"There, at the neighbor's, meat in cabbage soup, crunch in cartilage throughout the village,
And the daughter, the bride, all in pimples - is ripe, it means, "(c)

[Korsar4]

Good morning, Constantine!

“For the sake of cabbage soup, people marry,
They marry for meat "(Proverb).

[VLR]

It's about the number of recipes that use meat. In the Czech Republic, meat is eaten and meat products are seized. There are a lot of purely vegetable dishes in Bulgaria. And meat in the Ottoman period was considered festive.

[Korsar4]

“The Catholic wears a cross.
And he eats meat by fasting ”(c).

[Korsar4]

I won't really say about Czech cuisine, but if in Bulgaria stuffed peppers or gyuvechs, then for me it's more of a meat dish.

And peppers and tomatoes are still growing delicious. And it should not be otherwise at the Black Sea.

[Krasnodar]

Quote from Korsar4

I won't really say about Czech cuisine, but if in Bulgaria stuffed peppers or gyuvechs, then for me it's more of a meat dish.

And peppers and tomatoes are still growing delicious. And it should not be otherwise at the Black Sea.

Good morning!
Gyuvech is a vegetable dish, at least among Moldovan Bulgarians

[Korsar4]

Yes. Probably all the meat is presented to me.

Fern is eaten in the Far East.
And then they told me that the main thing is to add meat to it.

[Krasnodar]

Quote from Korsar4

Yes. Probably all the meat is presented to me.

Fern is eaten in the Far East.
And then they told me that the main thing is to add meat to it.

Not at all - it's delicious with an egg

[Vadim_888]

Forgot about cherries, figs, peaches, zucchini in general a weed, only cucumbers and cabbage are not very good, and grapes are beyond praise

[alekseykabanets]

Quote from Korsar4

And peppers and tomatoes are still growing delicious. And it should not be otherwise at the Black Sea.

What variety to plant, this will grow. The current varieties, such as Pink Paradise, are beautiful, mellow, but the taste sucks. Old varieties like "jubilee Tarasenko" or "bull's heart" are not so beautiful. not sticky, but very tasty. And the same with pepper. Unfortunately, you can't buy good vegetables today.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: aleksejkabanets

Old varieties like "jubilee Tarasenko" or "bull's heart" are not so beautiful. not sticky, but very tasty. And the same with pepper. Unfortunately, you can't buy good vegetables today.

Old varieties of cherries, peaches, apple trees, apricots have become unprofitable, they have stopped growing seedlings !!! .. Not to mention tomatoes and berries (strawberries, currants) Everything is only for sale, not for people. ... Lying, seemingly beautiful, but not always tasty.

[Normal ok]

Once I walked at a Bulgarian wedding, so I didn't feel the lack of meat dishes. Although there are really many vegetable dishes. I also visited Czechs (there are several Czech villages in the Nikolaev and Odessa regions). The conclusion is the same. I was struck (unpleasantly) by the abundance of spices.

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: VlR

It's about the number of recipes that use meat. In the Czech Republic, meat is eaten and meat products are seized. There are a lot of purely vegetable dishes in Bulgaria. And meat in the Ottoman period was considered festive.

I think Valery, a comparison of the total number of meat and vegetable recipes in Bulgarian cuisine will not answer the question.
Even today, in everyday life, hostesses cook on weekdays, which is simpler, and on a holiday, which is tastier.
In the past, taking into account subsistence farming, a Russian, Bulgarian or some other hostess cooked mainly from what was in the bins and in the glacier. Considering that we are all Orthodox and we took the fasting more than seriously, the main food was lean. However, given the latitude, the variety of vegetables and fruits in Bulgaria was more than in the middle zone of Russia. The meat diet was also influenced by the fact that preserving the meat of cattle, too, had to be confused. This is winter in the Urals with freezing temperatures 8 months a year. He just killed the bull in November and chew it until March. In the Black Sea region - exactly the opposite. The meat had to be smoked, salted, dried.
Well, somewhere like that.

[mihaylov]

Quote: Kote pane Kohanka

the main food was lean.

Good afternoon, I somehow came across pre-revolutionary (and official) statistics of meat consumption in peasant families: now I can't remember the exact figures, but by modern standards, meat consumption is close to zero: something like 4-5 kg ​​per year per person in an ordinary family and up to 16kg per year - in families considered prosperous. That is, in an ordinary family they ate meat 2-3 times a year (apparently for meat eaters), a well-to-do family could afford to consume meat 1-2 times a month. I can be wrong in numbers, but somehow so.
And I think the Bulgarian cuisine can be attributed to the classic Mediterranean cuisine, which actually:

there are a lot of vegetables, cheeses and dairy products, flour and cereals are used, wine is almost always served, but there are few meat dishes that were considered festive in this country and were not prepared every day.

[pytar]

Dear V. Ryzhkov, this article is interesting, but I would like to add some additions!
1.

Bulgaria: the first Balkan country conquered by the Ottomans

The reasons:
1.Geographically, Bulgaria is closer to the Bosphorus, from where the Turks entered the Balkans.
2. Strong feudal fragmentation - 2 kingdoms, a bunch of large and small feuds. possession.
3. Religious and ideological crisis - bogomilism greatly weakened society.
4. Plague - affected fewer Turks, meanwhile they did not have a city with a greater concentration of population.
5. Negative climatic changes. A 10-year drought has led to depopulation and desolation of Northern Bulgaria / Mizia /. For the first time in Bulgarian history, the mountain passes of the Old Mountain, the place where many invading armies perished, were not defended. There weren't enough soldiers, only fortresses were defended.
Moreover, by the time of the Ottoman conquest, the Bulgarian people were very numerous / approx. 2,2 million, more than the population of England then /. The Turks did not have a demographic predominance, but they were much better organized.

2.

About the origin of the Mogamedans in Bulgaria:

1.In the Ottoman Empire, there was a practice, after the expiration of the term of service of the Janissaries, they were given land to the region where they came from. The Ottoman authorities hoped that the janissaries would attract their former relatives, the Christians, to Islam. It is clear that when they settled down, they took as wives from the nearest ethnic communities, that is, from the Bulgarians.
2.Most Bulgarian "Turks"are the descendants of ethnic Bulgarians who converted to Islam and have forgotten their origins.

In a message from 1373, Pope Gregory XI writes to Archbishop Gransky:
The wicked infidels, called the Turks, these bitter enemies of the name of Christ and his indomitable persecutors ... conquered and brutally devastated vast territories of the Roman and Bulgarian kingdoms and the kingdom of Raska, as well as other countries of people professing the name of Christ, if schismatics ... Their inhabitants were either brutally destroyed, or taken into miserable slavery, or in some other way placed under the yoke of ill-fated slavery, and some of them, alas, denied the name of Christ.

Midhat Pasha - the governor of the Sultan in the Danube province and the grand vizier of the Ottoman Empire in his article "Turkey: past, present, future", published in the French journal "Scientific Review of France and Abroad" 1878, no. 49, p. 1152, writes:
There are over a million Muslims among Bulgarians. This does not include either the Tatars or the Circassians. These Muslims did not come from Asia to settle in Bulgaria, as is commonly thought. These are the descendants of those same Bulgarians who converted to Islam in the era of conquests and in subsequent years. They are children of one country, one race and one generation. And among them there is a part that does not speak any language other than Bulgarian.

The famous English journalist James Boucher, who has lived in Bulgaria for thirty-two years as a correspondent for the Times newspaper, met with a huge number of Bulgarian Muslims and visited the Rhodope and other areas of their residence, wrote the following in his article:
The Rhodope Pomaks, or rather the Bulgarians who forcibly converted to Islam in the era of conquests ... have a purer Bulgarian blood than the Bulgarians themselves.

3.

On the causes of the Balkan wars after 1878

A very good, oblique article is here:
https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2017/10/20/738689-bratushki-bratoubiitsami
I recommend for your reference! An impartial view of the situation!

For the sake of clarity, a map of the Bulgarian ethnic land.

It also marked the Bulgarian capitals, 13 centuries from the emergence of the Bulgarian state in the Balkans.

By the way, the territorial girth of the Bulgarian land was determined during plebiscide in the Ottoman Empire, 1870 carried out to Sultan Abdul Azis, during the registration of the Bulgarian Orthodox Exarchy. The corresponding farman of the Porta issued it in Turkish and Bulgarian.

On its basis, they defined the borders of Bulgaria under the Treaty of San Stefano!

4.

About Turkish atrocities in Bulgaria:

Entering the topic, blood freezes! The Turks committed monstrous, even by the standards of those times, crimes! Here the statistic is incomplete, it is in Bulgarian, but I think it will not be a problem for a Russian-speaking person to finish off the idea of ​​the scale of repressions committed by the Turks during their rule!
https://bulgarianhistory.eu/%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5-%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0-%D0%B8-%D0%B7%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4-%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%BB%D0%B3%D0%B0/

5.

Translation of one Bulgarian song from Macedonia, from that time:

It tells how the Turks came to Nikola "to ask" his sister to marry a local pasha!

/ Turks / Give Nikola,
beautiful Yana of Turkish faith?
/ Nikola / I give my head,
I don’t give in the Turkish faith!

They cut off both of his hands,
and again they ask and question:
/ Turks / Give Nikola,
beautiful Yana of Turkish faith?

/ Nikola / I give my head,
I don’t give in the Turkish faith!
They cut off both of his legs
and again they ask and question:

/ Turks / Give Nikola,
beautiful Yana of Turkish faith?
/ Nikola / I give my head,
I don’t give in the Turkish faith!

Pierced both his eyes
and asking no more
led the beautiful Yana,
on fast horses
down into the field, into a Tatar village.

Yana says goodbye to her brother:
- Get lost, my brother Nikola!
/ Nikola / Go with your health, dear Yana!
I have no legs to guide you
I have no arms to hug you
I have no eyes to see you.

[nedgen]

Hello dear Valery, a very well-written article and the first in which I met an indication that the turn of the Bulgarian elite towards the west began with the mistakes of Russian diplomacy and the emperor personally. I am writing only about the engraving of a Turkish soldier from 1878. This is not a Turkish soldier of the regular army but a bashibozuk, i.e. irregular Turkish militia. At that time, the Turkish army was armed with Henry-Martini cartridge rifles, and part of the cavalry even Henry-Winchester, and capsule muzzle-loading guns were only in service with the bashibozuk. If the regular Turkish army was armed as indicated in the engraving, then the Rusko-Turkish war would have ended in 1877. Moreover, the entire regular army was dressed in uniforms, not randomly. Even in the regular army, there were no longer scimitars in service with common soldiers (they had shticks). Probably the text under the engraving is a mistake of the artist (engraver). In my opinion, my compatriots fought against Russian soldiers to a large extent also because of Romania's blow in the back of the Bulgarian army in 1913 under pressure from Russia. Personally, Nicholas II promised to become the patron of the Romanian regiment that would be the first to cross the Bulgarian border. Yours faithfully

[VLR]

Nedgen, Glad you read the article, come to the next ones, especially about "The Renaissance Process" and "The Great Excursion".

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote: VlR

And meat in the Ottoman period was considered festive.

Kurban chorba of mutton giblets.

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote from Korsar4

Gypsies are still a definite problem in Bulgaria. And they have a lot of children.

It has always been that way. Baba Marutsa was a Wallachian gypsy; after serving with the Coburgs, she gave birth to a nosed boy, who was later called Bai Tosho.

[Korsar4]

Not the worst time with him in the history of Bulgaria.

[Lionnvrsk]

Quote from Korsar4

Not the worst time with him in the history of Bulgaria.

I'm sure of that too!

[kalibr]

Interesting, and most importantly, well-written material!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

I'll join Vyacheslav Olegovich!

[Catfish]

Good morning friends!
I don’t know, I got the impression that Valery was finishing his article by force. There is almost nothing about the first and second Balkan wars, only that they did happen. About the First and Second World War, a little more. To be honest, I was just disappointed because I was counting on more.
I was only glad that Gorchakov and Pikul were kicked on the case, but why

... the Germans still believe that Bismarck then did more for the Russians than all their own diplomats put together.

based on the text, I still do not understand.

[VLR]

The story about the Balkan Wars was not included in the plans initially, since this is the first part of the story about the situation and relationship between Muslims and Orthodox Slavs in Bulgaria. A detailed description of the Balkan Wars would be sidetracked, and required a separate article.
About Bismarck: in Germany, many believe that if it were not for him, Russia would have completely failed at the Berlin Congress - such was the level of competence of Gorchakov, who fell into senile marasmus, and the employees he recruited. That is, this is still a godly "honest broker" Bismarck reasoned it could be even worse.

[3x3zsave]

Considering the fact that RI banally "threw" Austria and, indirectly, Germany, Bismarck behaved in a very gentlemanly way.
Thank you, Valery!

[Aleksandr1971]

The article is frankly weak, because it does not disclose, or shows extremely superficially many aspects: the number of Bulgarians during the period of Ottoman rule; the economic and cultural level of the Bulgarians during this period; famous personalities and famous aristocratic Bulgarian families during the Ottoman period; the nature of the relationship between Bulgarians and the ruling Ottoman elite and the state apparatus; the relationship of Bulgarians with other peoples and other states during the Ottoman period and much more.
If you, as an author, declare that the above data cannot be found in publicly available sources, then why would you even undertake an article under such a topic?

[parusnik]

Yes, a lot of things have not been told and not only what you mentioned. But 500 years do not fit into the format of the article. A fairly clear and clear overview, encouraging the reader to independently study what is not said in the article.

[alatanas]

I wrote about the connection and the Serbo-Bulgarian war three years ago:
- https://topwar.ru/user/alatanas/
PS If you have time, read it. There are 3 articles.

[paul72]

Stambolov died of a wound from Macedonian terrorists.
So who are the Macedonians? Bulgarians, as they say in Bulgaria?
And this Serbo-Bulgarian swing because of Macedonia, just like Franco-German because of Alsace-Lorraine.
And about the crisis of Bulgarian-Russian relations under Alexander III, a lot has been written in the diaries of Lamzdorf, then an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ingushetia.

[pytar]

So who are the Macedonians? Bulgarians, as they say in Bulgaria?

"Macedonians", ethnic Bulgarians, living in the territory of the region of Macedonia. The Bulgarian ethnic land for almost 13 centuries covers the geographical areas - Mizia, Thrace and Macedonia, a territory with a predominantly Bulgarian population. The national idea of ​​the Bulgarians has always been the same - the unification of regions with the Bulgarian population into one state.

The words of the then head of VMRO / Internal Revolutionary Macedonian Organization / Todor Alexandrov:

If someone tells me that I am not Macedonian, I will cut off his tongue! And if someone says that I am not Bulgarian, I will cut off his head! / Bulgarian = Macedonian /
Stambolov was killed by local revolutionaries from VMRO because they considered him a traitor in the business of uniting two parts of the Bulgarian land.

[paul72]

From time to time I confuse Stambolov and Stamboliysky. Despite the fact that both headed the government and both were killed

[pytar]

From time to time I confuse Stambolov and Stamboliysky. Despite the fact that both headed the government and both were killed

Both were killed / directly, forged / VMRO, for the same reasons - a deviation from the national ideal - the Unification of the Fatherland!

[pereselenec]

Quote: paul72

So who are the Macedonians?

Makedinia for Bulgaria is almost an analogue of Ukraine for Russia, if it makes more sense

[paul72]

Quite right, although the smiley at the end is not clear.
The analogy is all the more true because now the Macedonians are assiduously insisting that they are not Bulgarians.
Moreover, they claim that the true Slavs are just the Macedonians, and not the Bulgarians-Turks.
Just like with the ancient Russian-Ukrainians and the descendants of the Finno-Ugric peoples

[pytar]

Makedinia for Bulgaria is almost an analogue of Ukraine for Russia, if it makes more sense

More than Ukraine for Russia! I am a "Macedonian" myself. A third of Bulgarians now living in the Rep. Bulgaria has a "Macedonian" origin. I have relatives in Bitola, my grandfather moved to Free Bulgaria at the beginning of the previous century. So our grandfathers are Bulgarian, but my cousins ​​are there, he thinks that he is a "Macedonian" who has nothing to do with the Bulgarians! He is supposedly a direct descendant of Aleksadr the Great, the most ancient, he smells of mothballs! When I ask him "but how so, because our great-grandfather was a Bulgarian", brother falls into cognitive dissonance, and then responds "yes, he did not know that he was Macedonian"! The inhabitants of Macedonia were "enlightened", during their half-century stay in Titus Yugoslavia, this is a unique "nation" whose creation / writing, language, history / based on decrees, decrees, from 1946-47. Half a century of brainwashing and isolation from Mother Bulgaria, and now we have the ancient Macedonians nearby! One to one, like the ancient ukrah! Amazing things happen all the time! The archives also contain the documents of the grandfathers of today's Macedonists, and there they are all awfully Bulgarians! Curioz a week ago - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic. North. Macedonia, Yary Macedonist, walks around Europe and scolds "what bad Bulgarians, do not recognize the identity, language, antiquity of the Macedonians, ah, ah ..."! So from bulg. the state archives showed a statement to her mother from 1943. There it is written in black on white: "My husband and I are hereditary Bulgarians from an old, well-known Bulgarian family! My husband is a champion for the freedom of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, killed by the Serbs this way and that ...! I ask you to receive a pension, on this basis!" And she was given a pension!

For more understanding, I will give a link to the articles of one Greek, very accurate!
https://mikle1.livejournal.com/11637605.html
"Indigenous" is the privatization of history "at the place of residence"!
The reaction of Greece and Bulgaria to the phenomenon of “Macedonian identity of the former Bulgarians” is interesting. Greece completely refused to recognize the name of Macedonia for this state, that is, from our Greek point of view, the notorious "right of a nation to self-determination" does not mean the right to steal someone else's history, and we achieved our goal ....

[paul72]

So now the Montenegrins as a separate nation are "molded".
Maybe we'll live to see the "Bavarians", "Prussians" and "Saxons" who are never Germans

[pytar]

So now the Montenegrins as a separate nation are "molded".

Montenegrins / Serbs living in the mountains /, although they had their own separate statehood since the 14th century / Zeta /, and the current Macedonians, became so only 70 years ago. With a change of passports, damn it !!! Yesterday there was a Bulgarian, and in the morning "Macedonian"! Tin !!!

Maybe we'll live to see the "Bavarians", "Prussians" and "Saxons" who are never Germans

It is unlikely that these are smarter, they have gathered, glued together not so that they will become fragmented!

[paul72]

I confess, I would like to live to see the Bavarians, Prussians and Saxons with Holsteins.
And Montenegrins, yes, almost the only ones retained independence from the Ottomans

[pytar]

I confess, I would like to live to see the Bavarians, Prussians and Saxons with Holstein

Pavel, for the difference from you, I wish no harm to any other people! I wish that everything was fine for everyone, and for us and in Russia it would be even better!

[VLR]

Pytar, Thanks for your comments, I hope to "see you" in the following articles, especially about the "Renaissance Process" and "The Great Tour", I hope you will be lenient

[Elturisto]

This is nonsense. Montenegrins are racially separate from the Serbs. Montenegrins belong to the so-called Dinaric racial type and differ in some features, for example, relatively high growth. This type is widespread in the west of the Balkans-Croatia, Serbia, Albania, Greece. In Montenegro this type prevails.

[Kwas]

Quote: pytar

"Indigenous" is the privatization of history "at the place of residence"

What a wonderful phrase !!!

[raki-uzo]

Thank you!
Very interesting!
It seems to me here not the Ottomans but the Greeks.

[Krasnodar]

The three on the right are exactly the Greeks

[3x3zsave]

Hi Albert!
About the extreme right - it is clear, but the rest by what criteria have you identified?

[Krasnodar]

Good morning Anton!
By the smell of Ouzo)).
On the crosses - pay attention

[3x3zsave]

Bravo!
I didn't notice Apparently, Kolya, along with Shpakovsky, praised my observation

[Undecim]

1913 year. First Balkan War. Cere city, today Greece. In the photo - Greek militias.
The signature below confirms this.

[3x3zsave]

Hmm ... "Cant", however ...

[3x3zsave]

And the crosses are valid! Well, such, "purely for the boy's concepts"

[Krasnodar]

I saw such an American pediatric surgeon - a Greek with a huge cross, one of the few world specialists in small intestine transplantation at the beginning of the 90s. I have never seen such a cross among brigade boys from the former USSR in the XNUMXs. Greek surpassed everyone))

[3x3zsave]

Apparently, the Greeks have their own path. In the Orthodox tradition, laymen wear a cross under their underwear. Only clergy can wear it over clothing.

[Krasnodar]

Since Orthodoxy came to Russia from the Greeks, that there is an Orthodox tradition can be argued

[3x3zsave]

Do you seriously consider the Greeks identical to the Byzantines ???

[Krasnodar]

By faith? Certainly! I can, of course, ask my wife the difference in the tradition of the Pontic (these are closest to Byzantium) and Elin, but, in my opinion, they are identical

[3x3zsave]

And I thought, according to epicureanism

[Krasnodar]

What is it? After WWI, the majority ended up in the Georgian province and southern Russia. Although, if by epicureanism you mean to slaughter a ram and drink a lot of chacha, then probably yes But it's far from Byzantium

[Elturisto]

From the Byzantines :) Most of the emperors of the 8-11th centuries are Armenians ...

[VLR]

The photo was signed exactly as "Ottoman soldiers", but, of course, I cannot say with complete certainty. Is it that - the Bosnians who made up the auxiliary troops? Could there be Christians among them?

[Krasnodar]

The one on the far right in clothing is a Greek.

[raki-uzo]

It turns out:

The photo has survived because there is a brave Macedonian warrior Dimitrios A. Vozikis.

http://yaunatakabara.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-post_22.html#more

Then I used Google to read an interesting story about him.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Sava%C5%9Flar%C4%B1%27nda_Yunanistan

And here, in the Turkish language, information is how the Greeks and Bulgarians briefly entered a war against each other. Maybe during this war, the Turks supported the Greeks and in this photo we will see them together.

“Although negotiations began in London in December 1912, the Balkan War continued until May 30 [May 17, 1913], when the London Treaty was finally signed. Neither side liked the treaty, and the most important moment was the partition of Macedonia. claims Serbia and Greece entered into an alliance, and on the evening of June 29 [EU June 16] 1913, Bulgarian troops launched a surprise attack on their former allies. The attacks of the Bulgarians were quickly stopped and repulsed. Especially for Greece, the battles of the Second Balkan War were very costly as the Greek army advanced towards Bulgaria. After Romania and the Ottoman Empire entered the war, the Bulgarian side declared a ceasefire on July 30. The war led to the signing of the Treaty of Bucharest on August 10, 1913, by which Greece conquered Macedonia, Epirus (excluding Northern Epirus) and Crete. "

[VLR]

Thanks for your comments. Hope to "see" you in the next article - about Cyprus, "Bloody Christmas" and "Operation Attila".

[parusnik]

Of course, 500 years of Bulgaria's existence as part of the Ottoman Empire in such an article cannot fail to cover everything else. And there were many interesting things. Thank you for the article.

[Marine engineer]

"Alexander III was furious, but you have to answer for everything, including your own stupidity ..."

I could never understand why the Republic of Ingushetia refused to support the Bulgarians in their desire to create Bulgaria "from the Danube to the Aegean Sea."
The benefits for Russia were obvious even for the "visually impaired" politician. It’s not even the stupidity of Alexander lll, but the stupidity and pettiness that he unfortunately inherited.

[VLR]

It is believed that Alexander himself wanted to seize Constantinople, but from the Turks. And if Bulgarian brothers take it, it will be somehow inconvenient to take it away from them. In general, it turned out that he himself did not take, and did not give to others.

[3x3zsave]

It is believed that Alexander himself wanted to seize Constantinople
The Russian army could do this without really straining.

[Catfish]

Couldn't, Anton, we practically did not have a fleet, but the British did, and in such a situation, to fight the straits only from the land side is nonsense. There has already been a precedent.

[3x3zsave]

The fact of the matter is that I could! If Petersburg hadn't been oozing about "precedent", hadn't revel in petty vindictiveness, hadn't thrown allies, albeit temporary ...

[Catfish]

Buddy, "eat" ... it already smacks of an alternative.

[3x3zsave]

I have never denied my sympathy for high-quality AI (not to be confused with folk history)

[Kronos]

The West would not give and take a little must be kept, and this was certainly impossible.

[3x3zsave]

1. Which West?
2. Why is it impossible?

[Kronos]

France and England as it was in the Crimean War for example + Germany was also in this zainteresovana.Po not the same reason for which left the country of the Entente from Istanbul after his okkupatsii.A these unhealthy imperialist desire to itself it is necessary to press.

[3x3zsave]

Germany at that time was interested in creating a military-political bloc to counterbalance the Anglo-French tandem. France sat in a deep dupa after the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war. AVI and Germany were allies until December 1877. Which West?
And leave valuable advice to yourself, due to the fact that you do not know anything about me.

[Marine engineer]

“..Wanted to seize Constantinople myself, but from the Turks. ... "

And those who "think" in this way do not say when, with what forces, with what allies or without them, he was going to do it, how he was going to consolidate the victory diplomatically, so that the Berlin embarrassment would not result again.

[VLR]

This, of course, was not about immediate capture. It was about perspective. The only intelligible goal of Russia in World War I can be recognized as the desire to get Constantinople and the straits. But, if you look objectively, even in case of victory, their acquisition was doubtful: the "allies" at the next congress would have found a reason to refuse.

[Catfish]

the acquisition was doubtful: the "allies" at the next congress would have found a reason to refuse.

And what could they do, "where is the river, and where is the estate?" After all, they could not break through the Bosphorus and take Constantinople, and there is nothing to say about Gallipoli. The chances were there, especially after the com. Fleet became Admiral Kolchak. No matter how the diplomats decide, it would be very difficult to dislodge our army from there, and most likely simply impossible.
Well, the alternatives have flooded ...

[vladcub]

I agree Kolchak had the opportunity, but so far discipline remained. As soon as the whistle began with the democratic elections of commanders and the discipline of kerdyk. DISCIPLINE & ELECTIONS - ROASTED SNOW

[Catfish]

"Fried Snow" is great! And so, there and at that time, practically, only one "splinter" was - "Goeben".

[vladcub]

Theoretically, yes: the Black Sea squadron could: “Goeben” be controlled. Now I don't remember, it seems that at the Black Sea Fleet at that time there was an analogue of Goeben in terms of power: "Catherine the Second", and if you add ships of an older structure, they dug them out under warranty.
But there is a but: how many officers in Sevastopol were thrown overboard, and the remaining officers will be enough to replace the retired specialists? German intelligence worked subtly, that it was worth including a man in the team, and he would start a super-revolutionary rally before the battle and ...

[Catfish]

Slava, "Ekaterina" is a battleship, and "Goeben" is a battle cruiser, these are ships of different classes. And if from our "oldies" "Goeben" ran and snapped, then from the "Empress" he simply skidded at full speed.

[Kwas]

It must be said that the superiority of the "Ekaterina" was only in armament 12 * 12 'versus 10 * 11', in terms of armor they were practically equal, so that the "Goeben", pressed into a corner, could snap very coolly. But he was one, and "Ekaterin" - two, plus it seems 6 battleships, two of which are the newest.

[Senior seaman]

the superiority of "Ekaterina" was only in armament 12 * 12 'versus 10 * 11',

Salvo "Goeben" 8x300 = 2400 in a limited sector of 3000 kg.
Volley "Catherine" 12x470 = 5640 kg.
No chance.

[Kronos]

Kalchak did not have such forces, and the entire might of the British Empire was not enough.

[vladcub]

In fact, the Black Sea Fleet purely theoretically, in May 1917 it could roll out the Turks without the British fleet

[Kronos]

In May 1917, very few people wanted to fight.

[Marine engineer]

"It was about perspective."

The Russian-Turkish War of 1878 showed that only seriously ill people can rely on European countries as reliable allies of Russia in the Balkans.
The Russian army stood at the walls of Constantinople in 1829, and could have entered it without looking back at the opinions of European states. Europe learned a lesson from its mistake and no longer allowed the Republic of Ingushetia to take such liberties.
If there are no and will not be allies among the Europeans, then they must be created independently. But from whom? In the last quarter of the 19th century, Bulgaria, from the Danube to the Aegean Sea, is the most suitable candidate for allies in the future struggle for the straits, and who knows, maybe, in the destruction of the Turkish Empire. But this is if the Russian Emperor (or whoever decided for him there) really thought about the future.
But RI pushed Bulgaria away from itself.
Therefore, I suppose Alexander lll had no "prospects".

[3x3zsave]

what forces,
A seventy thousandth corps in three days' journey from Istanbul - a weighty enough argument?

[Marine engineer]

No, not enough.

[3x3zsave]

Put forward counterarguments?

[Marine engineer]

Kronos has told you everything above.

[3x3zsave]

What "Kronos" stated, that is, "we, white and fluffy, were once again kicked by the Masters of the West," in certain circles, is considered "Samsonism."
Sorry, I counted on a serious dialogue

[Kronos]

You are mistaken, I am a communist and I didn’t write about any masters of the West. I didn’t write about white and fluffy either.

[3x3zsave]

The West would not give and take a little must be kept, and this was certainly impossible.
This.

[Kronos]

This is not a word about the masters of the West. The western countries have been written, which I have explained.

[3x3zsave]

And I explained that at the time of the start of this war, Russia did not have a single geopolitical enemy except Britain.

[Marine engineer]

Sorry if disappointing.
I am not familiar with Samsonism, but I am familiar with historical facts. And they are as follows, Russia defeated Turkey but could not take advantage of the victory as it wanted (planned). She was told to rewrite the terms of the victory agreement and she rewrote them. It turned out that the time of Dibicha- Just standing at the walls of Constantinople and dictating their will as half a century ago is no longer possible, the "masters of the West" do not allow, and not a seventy thousandth or one hundred thousandth corps three steps from Constantinople is not an argument for them, since they know what Russia of the 1879 model has neither allies nor money (economically weak) to compete with them on the battlefield.
It was possible to “turn the chessboard” to rely on Bulgaria, helping (without hindering) it to unite, provide economic and diplomatic support and create such an ally in the Balkans with whom one could “do business”, but the Tsar-father and then Russian diplomacy took a different path. The result is known.

[3x3zsave]

Oh, this is more interesting!
We are talking about different things.
In 1879, I agree, there were no allies, no money, no troops on the approaches to the Bosphorus. And at the end of 1877 - everything was! (About money, not sure)

[Marine engineer]

As far as I understand, there will be no objections to the fact that RI, under the dictation of the "masters of the West," rewrote the terms of the San Stefano Treaty and resigned itself to diplomatic defeat?

[3x3zsave]

Undoubtedly!

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

Quote: Marine Engineer

I could never understand why the Republic of Ingushetia refused to support the Bulgarians in their desire to create Bulgaria "from the Danube to the Aegean Sea."

In my spare time I read Conversations with Stalin by Milovan Dzhilius.
He cites as an example his discussion in 1944 with Dmitriev (the party leader of the Bulgarians) under Stalin. Stalin categorically stated that the Macedonians would be better off in a multinational Yugoslavia than in a mono-national Bulgaria. In 1946, the question of creating a joint state with Bulgaria and Albania on the basis of the Yugoslav Federation was considered. The Yugoslavs were ready to annex Albania, but were wary of unification with Bulgaria. The Bulgarians agreed to everything. But disagreements began with Stalin and Tito and the project died.

[Marine engineer]

It's a different time. At the end of the 19th century, Russia simply needed not to prevent Bulgaria from uniting.

[nedgen]

Sorry Vladislav, but Milovan Dzhilius, to put it mildly, does not deserve trust. In 1944, there was no trace of Macedonians as well as the official Macedonian language. Unless, of course, we do not count as such the citizens of the region called Macedonia on the territory of which at that time lived, Bulgarians, Serbs, Greeks and Albanians imported by the Italians. The idea of ​​creating the Macedonian nation belongs precisely to the Serbs, and they achieved this in very cruel ways after 1945, as well as the creation of the Macedonian language at the university in Skopia (though it had NOTHING in common with the language of the ancient Macedonians.) And the name of the Bulgarian leader of the BKP is not Dmitriev, and DIMITROV. By the way, however, the Bulgarian communists also recorded the Bulgarians living in the so-called Macedonians. Pirin Macedonia. There, everyone was registered as Macedonians. and these are facts of Bulgarian history. And the idea of ​​the Macedonian nation, just like the Ukrainian one, came from outside. The idea of ​​the Ukrainian nation was born in Polish heads and was implemented by the Austro-Hungarian intelligence. The idea of ​​a Macedonian nation was created by the Serbs and they also carried it out. The idea of ​​a Macedonian nation was born in the late 19th and early 20th century.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Marine Engineer

I never could understand why RI refused to support the Bulgarians in their desire to create Bulgaria "from the Danube to the Aegean Sea"

And Austria-Hungary and Germany looked at it calmly and did not rock the boat?
In short, the government of the Peacekeeper was seriously afraid that because of this a big war could start, for which Russia was not just not ready, but disastrously! All available resources were spent during the Russian-Turkish.

[Marine engineer]

In 1885, the Bulgarian principality merged with eastern Rumelia. The Germans "looked and did not rock the boat." Our king was in hysterics. The Bulgarians drew conclusions.

[Senior seaman]

It was not so simple there. The Germans, or rather the Austrians, did "rock the boat". By the hands of the Serbian Obrenovici. And if Russia intervened, it would be a wonderful excuse for other players. But Alexander, although he had withdrawn himself, at the same time very transparently hinted that he would not tolerate the interference of others. So no one rock the boat. Again, approving the unification of Bulgaria led by a pro-German prince, and a pro-Russian one for Berlin and Vienna are slightly different things. And Battenberg was that "rich vector".

You see, what is the matter, I am a sinful deed, I do not like the Peacemaker myself. However, I cannot help but admit that he had reasons to do just that and not otherwise. You and I know how the matter ended, but Alexander could not know this. But he knew the state of the army and finances of Russia much better than you and me.

[Marine engineer]

About the Serbian "swoop" and who was behind it, and about the fact that the Bulgarians coped with it on their own too.
There is not a word in my comments about the RI's armed intervention on the side of Bulgaria.
The peacekeeper simply had to "keep silent" - it would not have cost the finances and the army of the empire; instead, actions were taken that did not meet Russia's long-term interests.

[Olgovich]

One can get an idea of ​​the position of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire by getting acquainted with the dishes of the national cuisine of this country and comparing it, for example, with the Czech one.

I know Bulgarian cuisine, it does not give any idea of ​​the "plight of the Bulgarians" in the Ottoman Empire: Ordinary southern cuisine.

However, Russian diplomats at the Berlin Congress completely failed,

What nonsense: it is enough to compare what was in the Balkans BEFORE RTV 1878 (full power of the Ports in the Balkans) with what became AFTER RTV: and this is the independence of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, the increment of their territories, in fact, the independence of Bulgaria, became Russian Kars, Batumi, Ardahan. Yes, this is a deviation from the Treaty of Stefan, but this is the MAXIMUM of what was possible, given that Russia achieved this in Berlin alone against England, France, Austria, Italy, Germany, Turkey combined. Russia could not fight against ALL of Europe

Battenberg was immediately restored to princely dignity by other conspirators led by Stefan Stambolov, but on August 27 he renounced the throne, stating that his departure from Bulgaria would improve the country's relations with Russia. As you understand, this made the most unpleasant impression on the Bulgarians, and it all ended with the election of an absolutely pro-German candidate as a new prince in 1887

pro-german Prince Battenberg was elected Bulgarians, not Russia. What to be offended at?
They installed the next king from the Germans.

Alexander III was enraged, but he had to answer for everything, including his own stupidity.

It's stupidity to talk about the stupidity of the Emperor - he did everything that was possible in that international situation: to start a PMA already in 1887 in the Balkans, alone against all would be the height of the stupidity so desired by some.
,

the clumsy and stupid actions of Alexander III greatly contributed to the fact that Bulgaria then twice fought against our country on the side of Germany

The only possible actions of Alexander in that situation contributed to Non-unleashing World War back in the 19th century and provided the WORLD of Russia, giving time for its development and strengthening.

Bulgaria's participation in wars is her choice and nobody else's. Russia, on the other hand, gave her the opportunity to live and exist in general in this world.

What is great is that all hundreds of monuments to Russian and Soviet soldiers who fell in Bulgaria are perfectly preserved and well-groomed.

The only exception is the abandoned and wooded Russian military cemetery on the slope of Shipka near the Shipka Monastery, where Russian soldiers were buried from 1922 to 1940, incl. and veterans of RTV. Unfortunately, no measures are taken to clean it and take care of it.

[3x3zsave]

alone against everyone
Andrew!
Who is "all" against? The Russian army practically won this war, Russian diplomacy ineptly leaked this victory.

[Olgovich]

Who is "all" against? The Russian army practically won this war, Russian diplomacy ineptly leaked this victory

.
Against those ALL to whom this is, of course. victory (only over the Turks, by the way), turned out to be like a thorn in the eye.

This is, first of all, England, immediately, even before Berlin... which concluded in 1978 secret anti-Russian agreements with Turkey and Avengria and which brought the squadron into the Sea of ​​Marmara, Aengria itself, Germany, which actually supported the demands of England and Austria, Turkey.

The situation would have been different if it had not been for the mistake of Russia, which previously actually supported Germany in its war with France in the early 1870s: as a result, a German monster arose. accordingly, Avengria was strengthened, a natural counterbalance to them and a potential ally France - reduced to the level of a third-rate country.

However, according to the general Dmitry Alekseevich Milyutin, one of the authors of the San Stefano Russian-Turkish Treaty about Berlin, the victory was still achieved:

“If we achieve at least what is now already decided by the Congress, then in this case a huge step will be taken in the historical course of the Eastern question. The result will be tremendous, and Russia will be proud of the successes achieved»

With which I agree.
A victory, of course. remained: this is the independence of Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, the increment of their territories, the de facto independence of Bulgaria, became Russian Kars, Batumi, Ardahan.

[3x3zsave]

The victory of RI was unprofitable only for England, until the Germans received a resounding unjustified slap in the face from Gorchakov's department.

[Olgovich]

Quote: 3x3zsave

RI's victory was unprofitable only for England

Well, of course, Avengria gnashed its teeth in C with the Stefan agreement, with which it initially did not agree, absolutely did not recognize him and sought Berlin.

Germany simply defended purely OWN interests, and they were opposed by a strong Russia in the Balkans, but Austria corresponded to them.

[3x3zsave]

Germany just defended purely ITS interests
Naturally! And above all, they were contradicted by the desire of Austria to lead in the German-speaking part of Europe, in which Bismarck saw only Germany as the hegemon. Hence his desire to direct the efforts of the AVI to the Balkans, expressed in the pre-war agreements between Germany, Austria and Russia. On which RI shamelessly gave a damn, promulgating an ultimatum to the Turks in December 1877. Thus, the catch phrase of Alexander lll about the allies is just an acknowledgment of the mediocrity of the country's foreign policy.

[Olgovich]

Quote: 3x3zsave

And above all they contradicted Austria's desire to lead in the German-speaking part of Europe, in which Bismarck saw only Germany

yes no, the leadership was already (albeit not so long ago) established complete rout AVengria by Prussia in 1866

Austria weakened and fell under the influence of Prussia, which both pushed it in the Balkans and patronized it at the same time.

Therefore, Russia of Prussia in the Balkans was not needed.

Quote: 3x3zsave

Hence his desire to direct the efforts of the AVI to the Balkans, expressed in the pre-war agreements between Germany, Austria and Russia

Let me remind you that it was Bismarck on the eve of RTV that incited Russian government to start a war against Turkey.

And according to the Budapesh Agreement of 1877, AVengria could occupy Bosnia. Which is exactly what happened.

Quote: 3x3zsave

Thus, the catch phrase of Alexander lll about the allies is just a recognition of the mediocrity of domestic foreign policy.

No, this is just an axiom based on hard facts.

[astra wild2]

Colleague Ol'govich, who "concluded in 1978", and you are not accidentally mistaken with the figure. Perhaps it was 1878?

[Olgovich]

Quote: Astra wild2

Colleague Ol'govich, who "concluded in 1978", and you are not accidentally mistaken with the figure. Perhaps it was 1878?

guilty, of course, 1878

[Catfish]

You’re going to be here, having half of the British fleet in the Dardanelles.
Hello Anton!

[3x3zsave]

Hello Uncle Kostya! The Russian army approached a distance of 70 km to Istanbul at the beginning of December, Hornby's squadron to the Dardanelles at the end of January.

[Catfish]

The squadron would all be equal, so what then? Moreover, having the Turks at hand, always ready for any massacre.

[3x3zsave]

"The Russians in 1877 are not at all the same as the Russians in 1854" (C) The same Hornby

[Catfish]

The Russians are not the same, and the Russian fleet is also not the same, or rather - it simply does not exist (in the Black Sea).

[3x3zsave]

Under the terms of the ultimatum put forward by RI to the Turks, the entire Turkish fleet and coastal batteries were transferred to Russia. In the case of the capture of Istanbul, the approaches to the Bosphorus could be mined. And the logistics of supplying the army by sea improved significantly.

[Catfish]

"By 1877, Turkey had a fairly significant navy. On the Black and Marmara Seas there was an armored squadron of 8 armored battery frigates of I and II ranks, armed with 8-15 guns, mostly 7-9 dm. Caliber (only Mesudie had 12 caliber guns 10 dm); 7 corvettes and monitors battery grade III, 4-5 guns armed basically also caliber 7-9 dm stroke rate for most ships squadron reached 11 units or even was somewhat higher in most vessels armor was thick. in 6 dm. Basically all these vessels were purchased by Turkey in England and France.
In addition to the armored squadron, Turkey had 18 unarmored warships on the Black Sea with a speed of up to 9 knots and a number of auxiliary military vessels. "(C)

Looks like solid, especially in comparison with our kind of fleet of that time. But in comparison with the British fleet, these are all "cat's tears", and it is not known in what condition the Turks would have handed these ships over to Russia, and even handed them over at all, and not sent to the bottom somewhere in the Sea of ​​Marmara. But even in the best version - where to get trained teams for these ships, and the state of steam engines, and ammunition ... It is unlikely that such a "trophy" would be of use.

[3x3zsave]

Yes, figs would be with him, with this fleet!
The British themselves were afraid.
"We will not have allies on land, except perhaps the irregular Turkish troops ..." Again Hornby

[Catfish]

... we will have no allies on land,

Great Britain has always had only one ally - the Royal Navy. And there were "interests", and not to give Russia a free exit through the Bosphorus, at that time it was out of interests - interest. There was no longer any interest in the First World War and therefore no one objected to Russia taking Constantinople.

[3x3zsave]

You know, but I sincerely do not understand this age-old Russian lust for the Straits, both northern and southern

[Catfish]

Remember the scandal with the passage of our first aircraft carrier "Kiev" through the Bosphorus. And why do you think it was designated in the design documentation as "Aircraft Carrier"? Because through the straits, according to the agreement, the aircraft carriers did not move, neither there nor back. Well, with a creak, but they let us through, and if Constantinople were ours, the question did not arise, and this treaty would not be needed.
And besides that ... again St. Sophia.

[3x3zsave]

And besides that ... again St. Sophia.
Yeah, as well as Vera, Nadia and Lyuba.
OK. Possessing the Straits, Russia has the ability to freely find itself locked in a neighboring puddle, somewhat larger in size. Kattegat and Skaggerak are the same story.

[Catfish]

Well, Vera is present on our website.
As for the "neighboring puddles", so (almost) all built in Nicolae carriers calmly crossed the puddle and moored at the place of registration, who on TOFe who in the Northern Fleet, for which they, in fact, intended.
PS It turned out funny - Masha came up, looked at my writings, and said: "Even I remember about the scandal with" Kiev ", everyone heard it."

[3x3zsave]

Mary, hello!
That's right, but in the event of a confrontation, figs they would come out of Mediterranean.

[Catfish]

That's right, they would have drowned like kittens, so the ships were immediately dispersed across the "main" fleets.
Thank you from Masha and hello too!

[3x3zsave]

Do you remember this anecdote?
"SF - modern fleet
TF is also a fleet
BF - former fleet
Black Sea Fleet - chi fleet, chi flotilla "

[Catfish]

Aha - "Chi navy, Chi ni navy"
When will we wash the new shoulder straps?

[3x3zsave]

new shoulder straps
In general, I do not care! They are earned by buffoonery, not knowledge. And in general, this is your common merit (list everyone?), And by no means mine.

[Catfish]

... this is your shared merit

So I say, when will you put down?

[3x3zsave]

No problem! Write the address, I will send it by Russian Post, you will receive it in six months ...
If they do not break (drink) ...

[Catfish]

I don’t trust the Post of Russia and old galoshes, there was a precedent, so only in person.

[3x3zsave]

Alas, not in this epidemiological situation ... Understand correctly, I'm not worried about myself.

[Catfish]

Do not worry, I have already pledged you to Nikolai, he will stand up for everyone alone!
And if anything, all sorts of situations are not a hindrance to us, we ourselves will jump, with all Caudle! And then - just hold on!

[3x3zsave]

Pffff ... The prototype of "Captain Mikhailov", the only person besides his brother who knows everything about me!
Meanwhile, the "Volyn" shown in the figure is unlikely to travel from Ryazan to St. Petersburg with six passengers.

[Catfish]

It depends on who is driving, paid attention to the headset? Let's break through!

[3x3zsave]

Ага.
"The" gaytsy "stop the" constipation ", ask everyone to get out of the car. They get out. One, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth ... violation of the operation of the vehicle .... ". The first seven, turning to the emerging eighth:" So, Serega, you were not with us! "He, with an insult in his voice:" Bastards! And who played the button accordion for you all the way?!?!?! "

[Catfish]

Yeah, but if you consider that every second person has a submachine gun in their hands, and the hell knows what else is in the car, then the question arises, what the hell to the traffic cops in general such adventures.

[3x3zsave]

You can fantasize as much as you like, but it's not gay people who are engaged in such characters.

[Catfish]

Naturally, they are not, only the grew up (sorry) guard have PTR.
Okay, I'm talking about something else, "I can't leave without saying goodbye."
A monument to border guards has just been unveiled in the town of Novozybkov, Bryansk Region.
No comment.

[3x3zsave]

Mdaaa ... "In this sculptural composition, the author managed to convey the role of boots in the fate of an ordinary border guard"

[Catfish]

And the dog, the dog! Kill the bastard for this! It was made of reinforced concrete for 2,5 million tugriks, and in fact they paid ... with about h and.

[3x3zsave]

And the dog, the dog! Kill a reptile for this
Do not pump! I, as a dog lover, tend to view this as a sculpture of a copy of a dog's mummy.
By the way, it would be nice to remember in what century the border passed along Novozybkov ...

[Korsar4]

It feels like a dog in a mask. The surrounding reality influences.

[Phil77]

Hi Konstantin! And how ridiculous the guys look with shoulder straps, and ..... masks!

[Catfish]

Guys, okay, but a slender borderline with an incomprehensible animal is simply beyond any understanding.

[Kronos]

This is the dream of a handful of Russian bourgeoisie has always been, not Russians.

[3x3zsave]

Can you name these bourgeois by surname?

[Kronos]

And the nobility, starting with Potemkin and Catherine 2. By capturing the straits, it was possible to raise profits on trade even more, exporting grain from disadvantaged peasants.

[Phil77]

Quote: Kronos

Potemkin

And what did Potemkin not please you? The man is smart, and he * built * himself. And he did a lot to our state, no?

[Kronos]

I do not blame him, it was about the fact that these were the dreams of the top leaders were political.

[Kwas]

First of all, strategically, after the capture of the Bosporus, it is no longer possible to strengthen the Black Sea ports and the coast - it is already internal. So even Stalin wanted it.

[Sergey Oreshin]

Actually, as often happened: the Russian soldier fought heroically, but they failed to consolidate the victory politically and diplomatically, as a result Bulgaria found itself in the Soviet sphere of influence only in 1944, and in the First World War it fought against us

[Vadim_888]

A good article, but it immediately raises the question of its release right now, after the defeat of Armenia - is Sultan Erdogan going to start defending the interests of the Pomaks in Bulgaria?

[VLR]

The next article will tell you how the Turks defended Muslims in Cyprus - which frightened the Bulgarians very much

[Trilobite Master]

Honestly, the further the cycle goes, the more frustration it brings. The author can do 100% better. Everything is very fluent, and too superficial, in my opinion. I noticed this effect in many authors - the beginning of the work is carried out with interest, enthusiasm, but in the process the topic gets bored and towards the end the author is already trying to complete it as quickly as possible, dramatically accelerating the story and reducing the requirements for the work itself. If I'm right, Valery, then don't torture yourself. End or pause the cycle and move on to a new topic that will be both more interesting and fresh for you, from which you will enjoy working. It will always be possible to return to the Turks, they will not go anywhere.
Although, perhaps, I am wrong, and the change in the style of presentation and the pace of the narrative by the author with his tiredness of the topic are not connected and are part of the author's intention to develop the drama of the narrative. In this case, I can only say one thing: I personally like the style of the author with whom he began this cycle (remember Tamerlane with Bayazid and Kosovo Pole). Even Samsonov can present information in this way - the neighboring branch will not let you lie, although I have not read it, I do not know what and how it is written there.
I understand, Valery, that slowly but surely, with every comment, I am becoming more and more in your eyes an enemy and a fierce ill-wisher, but I can’t help myself.

Plato is my friend but the truth is dearer.

[Olgovich]

Quote: Trilobite Master

Everything is very fluent, and too superficial

And, I dare to add, too biased: of course, everyone has the right to their own judgments, but the expression of evaluations:

"Gorchakov, who fell into senile marasmus", "Alexander III was furious for his own stupidity", etc.

seems clearly redundant.

Moreover, the articles I greet the author and read with pleasure.
.
I think the author's excellent articles are, for example, a series about mercenaries, French Algeria, "Blackfeet", pirates

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: Olgovich

overly biased

I am already beginning to get used to this quality of the author. Almost all of Valery's materials can be called biased to one degree or another. Valery initially does not set himself the goal of conducting an objective research, it took me a long time to understand this. His vision of history always contains a note of protest against established concepts, which is not bad in itself, but almost always suffers from selectivity and bias to the detriment of objective truth. Along with the water, the author threw out so many children that it would be enough for a good kindergarten.
By the way, absolutely the same phenomenon, even, probably, in a more pronounced version, I observe with interest, reading your comments. You, like Valery, formed your own opinion on many issues of history and you only notice that this opinion supports and confirms, completely ignoring what is not included in your concept of the vision of history. It may seem funny, but, as for me, you and the author of the article have a lot in common, but the funny thing is that you criticize him for the same thing that you demonstrate in the most graphic way in almost every comment. It comes to the point that in order to say what he thinks on a particular issue, Olgovich often does not even need to read the comments - your position on most issues is so predictable and obvious.

Quote: Olgovich

I think the author's excellent articles are, for example, a series about mercenaries, French Algeria, "Blackfeet", pirates

Exclusively because the author's position on these issues coincided with yours.
Personally, out of what you have listed, I only liked the cycle about pirates - in it the author did not make any global reevaluation of historical concepts, did not try to introduce an "alternative" view of the "traditional" history. But personally, I liked the author's cycles about the Hussites, about Tamerlane, a little less about the Mongols ... Yes, a lot of things, you can't remember everything, something more, something less ... But I absolutely did not like Algeria and the mercenaries. , the latter I even gave up reading in the middle of the cycle.

[Catfish]

Misha, hello!
And what the "mercenaries" did not like, in my opinion it was quite interesting. I would like to know in more detail the reasons why you did not find these articles.

[Trilobite Master]

Greetings, Uncle Kostya.
Most of all, I, probably, in the cycle about mercenaries, was not satisfied with the author's attitude to this profession and the glorification of people involved in it. And this attitude - almost enthusiastic, but, in any case, full of deep reverence and respect was so obvious and so clearly demonstrated that it became simply unpleasant for me. And I'm not here for a war with myself, that's for sure, so I quit the cycle and do not regret it. For me, the mercenaries, excuse me, are the same (the text is inadmissible for publication), only they make people feel good, and the mercenaries hurt, and often to death, I see no other difference.

[Phil77]

Quote: Trilobite Master

For me, the mercenaries, excuse me, are the same (the text is inadmissible for publication), only they make people feel good, and the mercenaries hurt, and often to death, I see no other difference.

Good morning dear Mikhail!
You are right, in all your comments, you are right. Mercenaries, from the word-to hire. Goods, no more. But still there is a certain romanticism, eh? How ... and in the actions of pirates?

[Trilobite Master]

Greetings, Sergey.
Pirates are common criminals. Knowing something about the criminal environment, I can say that there is no more romance than a worm of intellect. But they have one difference from the mercenaries - free will, the absence of obligations to anyone. Makhnovshchina.
Mercenaries are something else. If in the Middle Ages they were hired for war, now there is an army for war. But the army is like a representative of the state, and everything that it does is done on behalf of the state. Therefore, for especially "delicate" missions on genocide, mass and targeted killings, political provocations, ensuring illegal transactions (drugs, slave trade), protecting illegal objects, etc. there are mercenaries. They will not be called for a good deed, a noble deed. They will do a noble deed with the help of their own army, so that they can be proud and distribute medals later. The lot of mercenaries is dirt, blood and crime.
It is unpleasant for me when they heroize what is, in fact, a crime. These serials about Lyonka Panteleev, Sonya the Golden Hand, in which they are presented as romantic heroes, and the author's articles about mercenaries, in the form in which they were published, are, by and large, the same thing.
Therefore, I then decided not to spoil the mood of myself or others and stopped reading this cycle.

[Kwas]

I support relations with mercenaries. And for the same reason I read only one article from this series.

[astra wild2]

Olgovich, with you the table is partly :: Valery was somewhat biased towards Gorchakov. And a real historian should not be so shy. Now it is easy for us to criticize Gorchakov, but what if he himself were in Gorchakov's place, in the then situation?

[astra wild2]

Colleagues, believe me, I wrote: "I agree", but I studied some nonsense.

[Phil77]

Quote: Astra wild2

I agree, "but studied some kind of nonsense.

* Everything will pass, this will also pass. *
Vera, and I like to read your comments ... they have energy!

[Senior seaman]

Let's just say that Alexander Mikhailovich was 1879 years old in 81. Age in those days is more than respectable. He was good in the 50s and 60s, but in the 1870s ...

[vladcub]

Valery, FULL SHIKARDOS.
Illustrations on the case and the text, but I want to slightly object to you: "for the sake of justice", as our Astra puts it, "under the terms of the San Stefano peace treaty" Do you remember the conditions under which the San Stefano treaty was concluded? The Turks were torn: "like a hot water bottle", Skobelev was already "looking into the sultan's harem" when the Turks were sure that they were already full Trinde, and now the Russians are offering negotiations. Naturally, the Turks were glad to dance the Kamarinskaya. Right?
In what conditions does the "Berlin Congress" take place? Austria-Hungary actually threatens with war, England concludes an agreement with Turkey, Russia has no allies. Logistics was problematic, try to bring ammunition and reinforcements to Bulgaria by horse-drawn transport. Until the ammunition is delivered, the army will remain: "horns and legs"

[Catfish]

Glory, hello! That's right - logistics and the British fleet in the Dardanelles, there is no time for fat.

[3x3zsave]

Guys, you are confusing the order of events, cause and effect!

[Catfish]

Russia's lack of a fleet in the Black Sea, this is the reason, the consequence of which was the impossibility of holding Constantinople, if it happened to be captured by the army.

[vladcub]

Kostya, greetings. I agree with you, but Valery wants it to be that way.

[Phil77]

Quote: vladcub

to make it so

Perhaps Vlad, perhaps, and perhaps what the clever head realized then.
"Another headache? Not enough Caucasus?"
Well, and didn’t turn up too much?

[Phil77]

Damn it! But why, instead of dealing with the real problems of our own people, our rulers, then and now, and pulls to arrange a sweet life on the territory * somewhere *!?!
Is everything all right in Russia?

[astra wild2]

Valery, thank you very much, thank you very much for not forgetting us
I have said more than once that I will make comments from the point of view of logic.
I warned you.
"Bulgaria then fought twice against our country" then you write further: "diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union were not even broken off." Don't you think this is not logical?

[VLR]

She did not fight, but was not an ally of the USSR, but of Nazi Germany, providing bases, supplying food and fodder. She fought with Tito's allied Yugoslavs. In general, everything is complicated: it seems that, formally, Bulgarian soldiers did not shoot at the Russians, but they helped the Germans to shoot.

[astra wild2]

"the same godson of Nikolay2-Boris3". Valery, I saw on the website that the Bulgarian king had serial number 2.
I read there that he was sent. He did not want to send an army to the Soviet Union, and Hitler did not forgive this.
Perhaps it was worth mentioning this version?
P
S
It would be interesting to know the "Bulgarian view" of Valery's work

[Kostadinov]

Quote: Astra wild2

"the same godson of Nikolay2-Boris3". Valery, I saw on the website that the Bulgarian king had serial number 2.
I read there that he was sent. He did not want to send an army to the Soviet Union, and Hitler did not forgive this.
Perhaps it was worth mentioning this version?

1. This Boris has ordinal number 3 since they beat Boris 1 and 2 in the Middle Ages.
2. He did not have any opportunity to send Bulgarian soldiers to the Eastern Front, since a significant part of the Bulgarian army was located not only on the territory of Macedonia and Thrace, but also on the territory of Serbia and waged there (as well as on the Bulgarian territory) a real war with the Parisians. But more importantly, the rest of the Bulgarian army was on the Turkish border and "kept" Turkey out of the war. This was due to the strategy of using the Bulgarian army agreed with Hitler. In addition, the Bulgarian army defended part of the coast in Thrace from a possible allied landing. There was no disagreement between Hitler and Boris. Boris beat the most faithful ally and personal friend of Hitler - only he was invited as a personal friend of the Fuhrer to the Olympics in Berlin, and in August 43 he went to Berlin on his own initiative and saw a plan for Italy's transition to the allies (his wife, the daughter of the Italian king, who overthrew and arrested Mussolini). The allies (Anglo-Americans) and the Italian king did not forgive this, and the sister of his wife and the daughter of the Italian king Mafalda were probably involved in the death of Boris. In any case, Hitler was very sorry for the death of Boris and he had no reason or desire to kill him.

[VLR]

Glad that you have read this article, come to the next ones, ahead of Cyprus - "Bloody Christmas" and "Operation Attila", and then - Bulgaria again: Cyprus Syndrome, "Renaissance Process", "Big Excursion"

[astra wild2]

Quote: Phil77

Quote: Astra wild2

I agree, "but studied some kind of nonsense.

* Everything will pass, this will also pass. *
Vera, and I like to read your comments ... they have energy!

Р
Glad you like it

[Phil77]

Quote: Astra wild2

Glad you like it

Do not flatter yourself, beautiful stranger!
I am critical. And As you yourself have designated me - * ulcer *. But it normal.

[evgen1221]

Not a historian, but it seems to me that the penetration of the Ottomans into Europe is also connected with the economy, more precisely, with taxation and more civilized and understandable orders of the Ottomans in comparison with the quirks of (civilized) European feudal lords. Moreover, we are talking about a period when the Janissaries did not turn into a burden to society corrupted by privileges. Which again speaks about the quality of training and keeping the elites in check in the country.

[Gennady Fomkin]

All "Bulgarians" ended in the 14th century.

[Gennady Fomkin]

The reason for the war was, as they say in textbooks, "the rise of national consciousness in the Balkans." Moreover, the exquisite cruelty of the Turks with which they suppressed the uprisings of the South Slavs.

The Russian tsar decided to help the fraternal Orthodox rebels. And he helped, having abundantly watered the future independent Bulgarian land with Russian blood. There were as many as 155 thousand killed, wounded and died from diseases of Russian soldiers in that war - 10 times more than the Bulgarians, for whom the Russians fought.

[Senior seaman]

Quote: Gennady Fomkin

The Russian tsar decided to help the fraternal Orthodox rebels.

The Russian tsar was against this war and until recently tried to resolve the issue by diplomatic measures. He had a lot of other things to do. But the society in every possible way pushed him to this war and in the end achieved its goal. And Alexander had to curtail the reforms and plunge into a war for which Russia was traditionally not ready. Then the same "society" accused the tsar of stopping reforms.

Quote: Gennady Fomkin

10 times more than the Bulgarians, for whom the Russians fought.

What are you happy about?

[Gennady Fomkin]

Here is a rough chronology of events
Sultan Orhan (1324 - 1359) became the ruler of the entire northwestern part of Anatolia: from the Aegean Sea and the Dardanelles to the Black Sea and the Bosphorus. He managed to gain a foothold in continental Europe. In 1352, the Turks crossed the Dardanelles and took the fortress of Cimpe, and in 1354 they captured the entire Gallipoli Peninsula. In 1359, the Ottomans made an unsuccessful attempt to storm Constantinople.
In 1359, the son of Orhan, Murad I (1359-1389), came to power in the Ottoman state, who, having strengthened his rule in Asia Minor, began to conquer Europe.
In 1362 the Turks defeated the Byzantines on the approaches to Andrianople and captured the city. Murad I moved the capital of the newly formed Ottoman state to Andrianople in 1365, renaming it Edirne.
In 1362, the wealthy Bulgarian city of Plovdiv (Philippopolis) was ruled by the Turks, and two years later the Bulgarian Tsar Shishman was forced to recognize himself as a tributary of the Sultan and give his sister to his harem. After these victories, a stream of Turkic settlers rushed from Asia to Europe. Byzantium turned into a city-state cut off from the outside world without any dependent territories, moreover, having lost its previous sources of income and food. In 1373, the Byzantine emperor John V recognized himself as a vassal of Murad I. The emperor was forced to sign a humiliating treaty with the Turks, according to which he refused to compensate for the losses suffered in Thrace, and to help the Serbs and Bulgarians resist the Ottoman conquest, he was also obliged to provide the Ottomans support in the fight against their rivals in Asia Minor.
Continuing their expansion in the Balkans, the Turks attacked Serbia in 1382 and took the Tsatelica fortress, and in 1385 they conquered the Bulgarian city of Serdika (Sofia).

[Gennady Fomkin]

In 1389, the Turkish army under the command of Murad I and his son Bayazid defeated a coalition of Serbian and Bosnian rulers in the Battle of Kosovo. Before the battle on the Kosovo field, Murad I was mortally wounded by a Serbian prince and soon died, power in the Ottoman state passed to his son Bayazid I (1389-1402). After the victory over the Serb army, many Serbian military leaders were killed in the Kosovo field in front of the dying Murad I.
In 1393 the Ottomans captured Macedonia, then the Bulgarian capital Tarnovo. In 1395, Bulgaria was completely conquered by the Ottomans and became part of the Ottoman state. Bulgaria became a transit interest for the Ottomans. Next in line was Constantinople, the citadel of the Byzantine Empire. That's the whole story, how Bulgaria fell under the Turkish - Ottoman yoke. True, the Bulgarians gave their pro-Turkish "monarch" Shishman to Bayazid, who slaughtered him like a ram, surrender, betray became a "habit"

[Gennady Fomkin]

See this "boot" in Arabic script? Second half of the 14th century. Soon, almost all of Europe will be under this boot. This is the autograph of a person who can easily be called a barbarian, vandal, monster, but it is unlikely to be called a rogue or an illiterate nomad. Regrettable as it is to the peoples enslaved by this conqueror, Orhan is considered the second of the three founders of the Ottoman Empire, under him a small Turkic tribe finally turned into a strong state with a modern army.

[Gennady Fomkin]

Quote: Senior Sailor

Quote: Gennady Fomkin

The Russian tsar decided to help the fraternal Orthodox rebels.

The Russian tsar was against this war and until recently tried to resolve the issue by diplomatic measures. He had a lot of other things to do. But the society in every possible way pushed him to this war and in the end achieved its goal. And Alexander had to curtail the reforms and plunge into a war for which Russia was traditionally not ready. Then the same "society" accused the tsar of stopping reforms.

Quote: Gennady Fomkin

10 times more than the Bulgarians, for whom the Russians fought.

What are you happy about?

Are you glad that the Russian men were killed for these too? And they would not go to Edren Feni Tsigan.

[Shegor vechem]

WELL AND BREEDYATIN ...
After these quotes, everything else can be ignored.

At first, the tolerant Ottomans, after a series of defeats and setbacks, began to encourage the population of these Sanjaks to convert to Islam.

Among the Orthodox Bulgarians, Islamization did not have much success, but the Bogomils adopted Islam en masse.

The Bulgarian nobility, regardless of confessional affiliation, and the inhabitants of the cities (the townspeople were mainly Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Albanians) spoke Turkish. The Bulgarian language, which was considered the language of the mob and common people, could be heard only in the villages.

One can get an idea of ​​the position of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire by getting acquainted with the dishes of the national cuisine of this country and comparing it, for example, with the Czech one. In Bulgarian recipes, there are a lot of vegetables, cheeses and dairy products, flour and cereals are used, wine is almost always served, but there are few meat dishes that were considered festive in this country and were not prepared every day.

[Shegor vechem]

Quote: Shegor Vechem

WELL AND BREEDYATIN ...
After these quotes, everything else can be ignored.

At first, the tolerant Ottomans, after a series of defeats and setbacks, began to encourage the population of these Sanjaks to convert to Islam.

Among the Orthodox Bulgarians, Islamization did not have much success, but the Bogomils adopted Islam en masse.

The Bulgarian nobility, regardless of confessional affiliation, and the inhabitants of the cities (the townspeople were mainly Greeks, Armenians, Jews and Albanians) spoke Turkish. The Bulgarian language, which was considered the language of the mob and common people, could be heard only in the villages.

One can get an idea of ​​the position of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire by getting acquainted with the dishes of the national cuisine of this country and comparing it, for example, with the Czech one. In Bulgarian recipes, there are a lot of vegetables, cheeses and dairy products, flour and cereals are used, wine is almost always served, but there are few meat dishes that were considered festive in this country and were not prepared every day.

[Kostadinov]

Quote: Gennady Fomkin

In 1393 the Ottomans captured Macedonia, then the Bulgarian capital Tarnovo. In 1395, Bulgaria was completely conquered by the Ottomans and became part of the Ottoman state. Bulgaria became a transit interest for the Ottomans. Next in line was Constantinople, the citadel of the Byzantine Empire. That's the whole story, how Bulgaria fell under the Turkish - Ottoman yoke. True, the Bulgarians gave their pro-Turkish "monarch" Shishman to Bayazid, who slaughtered him like a ram, surrender, betray became a "habit"

At that time, at least 3 feudal states were beating on the territory of Bulgaria. Even before the battle on the Kosovo field, they had already beaten the Basalis to the Ottoman sultans. In 1393, the capital of Tirnovo fell, in which the king was not beaten. Ivan Shishman died in 1395, but why and how is unknown. His elder Sin Aleksadar converted to Islam and ruled Izmir in Anatolia under the name Iskender.
Shishman's brother, Ivan Sratsimir ruled Vidin. In 1365 Vidin was taken by the Hungarian king and he began to convert the Orthodox to Catholicism. Then, with the help of the Turks, Sratsimir was restored to Vidin and of course he beat the vassal of the Sultan. The latest information is that until 1422 Vidin was ruled by the Sin Sratsimir Constantine.

[alatanas]

however, there were also quite a few Pomaks - Turkish Slavs who professed Islam, but spoke Bulgarian (while they did not use the Cyrillic alphabet, but the Latin alphabet)

Wrong fact.
The same is about the Gagauz people. They are not Turks.
Tshrol is a linguistic, not a nationality.
PS Yakuts have nothing in common with Turks.